Report continued from volume A.
1550
INTERIM SUPPLY
Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 7:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing July 1, 1993, and ending October 31, 1993, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I am indeed introducing today the motion of interim supply. As members will know, spending authority, other than for payments authorized by a specific statute, is granted by the Legislature to the government by the process known as supply, as governed by the House standing orders and parliamentary tradition. Prior to the passing of the Supply Act, government spending proceeds under a motion of interim supply. When the Legislature is not in session, a special warrant specifying a dollar limit for spending for each ministry is issued by the Lieutenant Governor.
Government spending is currently authorized by a special warrant which is estimated to provide sufficient funds to June 30. To ensure that spending authority continues after June 30, a motion of interim supply needs to be approved by this Legislature. Without a motion, delays in payments will start July 2, affecting suppliers of goods and services, utility companies, contractors for tree-planting, doctors, private medical laboratories, transfer payment agencies and payments to municipalities.
I look forward to hearing the contribution from members on all sides to this debate. It's an important debate. I would like to apologize in advance to the members because I must make an appearance before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs this afternoon, but I'll stay as long as I can here and I look forward to the debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments on the minister's presentation? If not, is there any further debate?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak for up to 90 minutes, in this particular case, on interim supply. Supply motions are always interesting in that they allow a very wide debate, one which can take into account all matters which come under the spending of the government of the province of Ontario, and I'm going to ensure that this is rather wide-ranging in terms of the speech that I'll be delivering this afternoon.
I want to indicate first of all that I certainly won't be offended by the Treasurer leaving during this. I recognize that ministers have other responsibilities than sitting in the House, and I appreciate the fact that the minister will be here as long as he possibly can and that he has to appear before a committee. I know that he will want to read the entire Hansard of this and that, once it is produced in terms of Instant Hansard, he'll be taking it back to Chelmsford and back to the city of Sudbury and Warden and all those places nearby where he'll be sure to read each and every one of the remarks.
I want initially, because we had the opportunity the other day to pay tribute to a couple of people, to take advantage of this opportunity to do so again.
The passing of Smirle Forsyth, who was a table officer and a person I had a chance to work with for a long time, was indeed sad for all members of the House, those who worked directly with him over the years. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, Mr Philip, and I sat on the justice committee, and Mr Forsyth had to provide an awful lot of interesting information to us on what opposition members could do and what government members could do in regard to the investigation that took place at that time. It was under a minority government, and a rather exciting time at that time. So I certainly pass along once again, as other members have, my condolences to the family, and certainly we will all miss Smirle.
The second, and I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of our party on this occasion, was in paying tribute to the late Bud Germa, again an MPP from the Sudbury area who worked very hard on behalf of his constituents at the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level and was certainly a fighter for many of those causes. We think of those people when they do pass on and their names come before the Legislature. There are some fond memories there.
I want to talk about a variety of subjects this afternoon under interim supply and indicate that it's most unfortunate that we find ourselves in the circumstances we do in Ontario today of having a huge debt, an unprecedented deficit and debt accumulating. It's certainly understandable that the government would now want to address this and would have to address it in a pretty substantial way to be effective. I well recall the days of the Davis administration when I was in opposition and there were deficits run then. In fact, Ontario has had only one surplus since 1971 that I can recall, and that was the surplus in the 1989-90 fiscal year. It was a very modest surplus, but for the first time in certainly the recent history of the province of Ontario, the debt was actually paid down.
It was anticipated as well that that circumstance would continue. In 1990-91 it was predicted on the recommendation and information provided by the treasury ministry people that we could anticipate another surplus on that occasion. We found, of course, as the recession set in and came very quickly, as revenues dropped drastically in the second half of the year and as unpredictable expenditures rose rather substantially, that in fact there would be a deficit. No one knew the exact amount but it was anticipated that it would be $300 million or $400 million once the year was on.
Sometimes we in opposition are critical of the Treasurer and others when they make predictions that don't come true. To be fair to everybody who has held that position of Treasurer, it is often a difficult prediction to make because one can't always anticipate what the revenues are going to be or indeed what the unexpected expenditures are going to be. We hope that people are within the ballpark, but it's often difficult to be precise. In fact, in many years when the Liberal Party was in power and the provincial economy was extremely vibrant and prosperous we would from time to time receive good news that even more revenue than had been anticipated would be coming from the federal government because times were good and also the provincial revenues.
Such is not the case now. Very often the revenues are more modest than the government would have hoped for. If you looked right across the country in the fall of 1990, you would see that every government in Canada changed its predictions. We had everybody from British Columbia to Newfoundland and the provinces in between, including the federal government which had anticipated much greater revenue and had anticipated that the expenditures, the ones that you don't expect, would not be rising in any significant way. In fact, every province encountered the problem with the recession and every province and the federal government revised its predictions, just as the present Treasurer had to at the latter part of the year after the previous Treasurer, Mr Nixon, had the information from the treasury officials that we could anticipate a surplus. Mr Laughren, as Treasurer, found, as everybody did across the country at that time, as the recession set in that it wasn't going to be the case.
Many people advocated -- and the government took the chance to do something different -- that that was the time to trim the expenditures, to delay the programs, perhaps to cancel some programs and perhaps to move more slowly on some projects. The government chose on that occasion, and it was a gamble but I'm sure -- I don't know, I can't speak for the government today -- that upon reflection they might have done things differently. But it was a gamble on the part of the government to try to stimulate the economy and to try to stop the recession from setting in as deeply as it might have. Those are chances that people have to take. We in opposition have the opportunity to view now what has happened and to offer constructive and sometimes not-so-constructive criticism. But it was a gamble the government took contrary to what some people had suggested. We now face a different circumstance. Every province has, with British Columbia being a little bit different, but most provinces have had to change the way that they have operated their business in the last couple of years. This government is no different.
I want to talk about the consequences of this in two ways. What I find disturbing and disappointing, and dismaying to a certain extent, is watching how in difficult economic times some people turn on other people, often the people who are vulnerable. People who are reliant, for instance, upon public assistance are the victims of some unfair attacks by those who, while they have had a decline in their incomes or have had some economic difficulties, are not facing the same consequences as some people at the bottom rung of the ladder.
1600
We have seen some examples of people who wish to point fingers at the most vulnerable, in many cases, and say that those people shouldn't be receiving money in these difficult economic times. It doesn't happen so much in good economic times because everything's booming, people are making big profits, and although people are paying taxes, especially a lot of income tax, nevertheless they seem to be existing quite well.
I think we as political representatives have a responsibility, yes, to look at each expenditure carefully, to make any changes in social programs that are going to be beneficial but still provide the basics for people, but not go overboard in aiming our financial guns and our critical guns at those who are the most vulnerable in our society. It's a cheap political trick to do it, but it works, I must say. In the short term, it can garner some significant support.
The same can be said of restraint. I don't think there's anybody in this House, as I said yesterday, who doesn't support restraint. I simply like people out there to know what it means when governments are embarking upon programs of austerity and restraint.
The Treasurer has indicated this himself on a number of occasions, that it's not without pain. When people are demanding that taxes be either cut or at least not raised significantly, or when people are demanding that the expenditures of the government be reduced rather substantially, there are consequences: people who have a 16-year-old who wants to get a licence, who may want to get a job in the summer, and the person who used to conduct the test has retired. As the leader of the third party has suggested, there should be total attrition and a total freeze on any new jobs in the civil service. What happens on that occasion is that person isn't replaced, and now you wait till the middle of August to have your test.
That's why I think governments have to have some flexibility. I don't think saying simply that there should be a freeze across the board on civil service staffing levels is the answer. I think the government has to have the flexibility to look at where those cuts are going to be. They may choose certain areas that are less likely to cause problems for the general public than other areas -- I hope, of course, that is what the government is doing -- but to simply suggest that you can freeze all of these positions and not have consequences for people, I think, is unrealistic.
If we went ministry by ministry, program by program, project by project, we would find that when the government constrains its expenditures, that means there's less money that's going to be in circulation; that means the opportunity for governments to stimulate the economy is reduced. The hope is, of course, that the private sector will pick up the slack, that people will have more money in their own hands to spend as consumers and that the economy will bounce back as a result.
One of the other consequences I want to talk about is the area of the environment, having had some responsibility in years gone by for the environment. One of my sources of discouragement today is the fact that the environment is not high on the list of everybody's initiatives. I think it's understandable but lamentable.
If we look at the amount of coverage, for instance, in the popular news media of environmental issues, we find that has diminished considerably over the past few years, because the concentration is on straight economic problems. As a result, I have often talked in this House of the CBC, which was always a leader in terms of dealing with social issues and issues of interest to a rather significant portion of the population.
I was discussing one of my programs with a member of the government side who mentioned that he had listened to Radio Noon on many occasions. Even though he's in government now and, I guess, can take some satisfaction in the fact that there's not as much criticism, he was saying he missed the fact, as I do, that Radio Noon is not a hard-hitting program any more. They're now interested in how you grow flowers, which is nice, or how you fix your appliances or things of that nature. I rather fancied the program when it was hard-hitting. Even though I was the victim, many times, of the interviewers, I still found that it helped, in general, the cause of the environment.
Look at the number of areas where the government can be moving and is not, largely because of the economy and because there's not media interest in the environment. I look at such things as the clean air program, which was announced in 1990. It was hoped that it would progressively be put into effect. It's not something you can do overnight, it's not an easy program to implement, but we have seen virtually no movement on the clean air program at all, none that I'm aware of.
The government faces two situations: first, a private sector which is not interested in spending money or being dislocated, and second, even a public sector which doesn't want to move too quickly. The hospitals of this province, which have to deal with biomedical waste and have incinerators still have incinerators going in this province, not all of them as clean in terms of their burning process and the emissions they produce as might be possible.
But there is no CBC program, there's no interview, there's no television show with the camera on the incinerator and the questions of people, because they're down interviewing people where a job has been lost, where plants have closed and things of that nature. That environmental problem will continue.
The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, or what we refer to as the water pollution control --
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the government should keep a quorum in here to listen to this important debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the table, is there a quorum?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.
Mr Bradley: In continuing my remarks --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, I would ask you to refrain from interjecting.
Mr Bradley: As I continue, I've heard something in the chamber that reminds me of something else. I find it ironic to the greatest extent that a New Democrat would ever be bragging about the compliment from Hal Jackman as an individual, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, because in years gone by before he had the esteemed office of Lieutenant Governor, we well recall that his allegiance was to the political party to the right of everybody else. I find that suitably amusing and I hope all New Democrats take note of where they're getting compliments from these days.
On the issue of the environment, I could go into various issues that I think are important and should be dealt with, but again it's the financial restraint. The Minister of Environment and Energy today deals with fewer staff. I can recall that when I was minister, everybody wanted more staff, everybody wanted more equipment, everybody wanted more resources for the Ministry of the Environment.
Economics has dictated that the government must downsize and those who are recommending that downsizing, for instance, in the field of the environment, must know that there are consequences of that. There are fewer inspectors who are going to be available, fewer scientists who are going to be available, fewer employees all round and fewer resources available to deal with environmental issues. Just because the heat is off those issues today doesn't mean that they still aren't important, that those problems still aren't significant for our province, but I'm afraid that, at least in the interim, we're not going to see the kind of attention that should be devoted to those.
I may come back to the environment a little later on in my remarks, but something else I want to talk about in my address today deals with the general discussions over the social contract, one of the other consequences. When I started my remarks today, I mentioned that sometimes when we're in difficult economic times, they become mean times, lean and mean times. Everybody realizes there are going to be lean times, but they become mean times.
1610
One of the things I am concerned about is the obvious glee with which many people are attacking people in the public sector, public servants who have endeavoured to deliver services to people in this province over the years. I hear the government gets a lot of these recommendations. In fact, some of the cheering that comes for the government policy now must make some of the members of the government blush a bit. I'm sure they don't relish those compliments. They must cringe a bit when some of the people who are complimenting the government are people who have in the past been critical of everything the NDP has stood for.
What I see out there is quite a division that's developing. We've even had circumstances where, within the trade union movement, which has prided itself over the years on being united in its common cause, in certain instances, there have been some people in the trade union movement who have not particularly been as sympathetic as they might be to the plight of those in public sector unions, in many cases because they've had to go through difficult times themselves. When you see that, you know it's very significant, when you even see some divisions there.
There are a lot of people now who are taking time out to take a shot at teachers, at hospital workers, at Hydro workers and people who are employed in the various civil services around the province, and are taking some glee in what's happening. I'm sure that the Treasurer, the Chair of Management Board and others in the government aren't rubbing their hands with glee at what they are doing and what they believe they have to do. I think it's important that we not simply all pounce on the public service, popular as that is politically. I think if people were to do polls, and the government certainly does, my guess would be that there would be some considerable support for attacking the public service as being a privileged class.
While we all recognize the need for efficiency, the need for improvement, the need for productivity, the need for the delivery of service, the need for value for dollar, I think all of us should be cautious not to join in the unfair attacks on many public servants who have delivered services to the public over the years. That's always disconcerting when we're in difficult times as this.
Again, I know there are consequences. I want to talk about colleges and universities. It seems to me there's about $250 million, if I can calculate correctly, which is going to be removed from the base of the universities in this province. I've discussed this with some people in the universities who've tried to deliver good service, who are trying to provide an excellent education for students who will be going out into an ever-increasingly competitive world.
If my calculation is correct, over the next three years, the government is going to require that the university sector eliminate from its base budget about $250 million or a quarter of a billion dollars. That won't happen without some consequences for those universities, and I think we should be prepared, when the criticisms come in, for those kinds of criticisms, with that amount of money being taken out of the university sector.
I want to indicate as well some areas I'm quite interested in. I read with relish the columns by Tom Walkom in the Toronto Star, because Thomas Walkom is one of the people who I always thought was certainly left-wing, who has never disguised his left-wing tendencies. He must have been overjoyed in 1990 when finally we had elected in Ontario a socialist, or as they would like to call themselves, social democratic, I think is the term they use --
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Social New Democrats.
Mr Bradley: Social New Democrats, the member for Chatham-Kent suggests.
His latest column -- Tom Walkom has written many columns -- says, "New NDP Breaks With Working Class." That's got to be mighty difficult, because that is essentially the sector that the NDP has been associated with. They haven't always been successful in garnering all the support from that sector, but certainly they have had significant support from the leadership, including many who sit in this House today, including my friend the member for Chatham-Kent.
Mr Hope: I still have my union card.
Mr Bradley: He still has his union card despite how he voted on the social contract legislation. I'm sure the men and women in his area will understand well where his real sympathies are as an individual.
So it is difficult being in government and having to vote for some of the bills that the government brings forward, but I think some people understand that. Others, according to Tom Walkom, will not forget, and certainly Sid Ryan said that he would not forgive and forget, and that's rather interesting in itself.
I look at that circumstance. I feel sorry for so many of those people who are in that situation. I don't think there's any easy solution; I don't want to pretend that there is. But I can, I think, count on the fact that in subsequent election campaigns it'll be pretty hard to attack from the left, because the party has moved considerably to the right on the other side.
I certainly recommend to all government members the columns written by Mr Walkom, which from time to time are critical of the opposition parties but certainly have been attacking the governing party from the left, which is rather unusual in this Legislature. There are many people who will lament the fact that there isn't really a left-wing party remaining in the province of Ontario, unless it's one that is well to the left, the New Democratic Party, and it doesn't seem to have considerable popular support.
I've found a book here by Professor John Saywell. It is Just Call Me Mitch: The Life of Mitchell F. Hepburn, and now when I look across the floor at my good friend the member for York South, the Premier of the province of Ontario, I begin to see, as I read the book, some parallels between my friend Bob Rae and Mitch Hepburn, who had his clashes with unions in the province, as well. I had a slip of the tongue the other day and referred to the Premier as Mitch Rae instead of Bob Rae. I certainly apologize to the Premier for that, but it just came to mind, as I was reading this book, that there are many parallels today, and I know that New Democrats who attacked Mitch Hepburn in years gone by will certainly be forgetting to attack him in the future.
I read some interesting columns, as well, and I have tried to share those with members of the House because not everybody gets a chance to read all of these columns and some letters to the editor. Michael Girdlestone wrote a letter to the Brantford Expositor, and he must be a good friend of Mr Ward, the member for Brantford. I'm going to read the letter, for what it's worth. I just think members should be aware of what was said by Michael Girdlestone.
He says: "For as long as I can remember, I have supported the New Democratic Party. I have voted for it and promoted its policies. However, after hearing about Bob Rae's social contract, I have decided to terminate my support for the NDP.
"I feel, as many other Ontarians do, that" -- and I'm quoting him, remember -- "that Rae has lied to us and has failed to keep even one of his campaign promises. To put it bluntly, Rae is a charlatan. Rae is acting more like a Tory than a New Democrat. I do not feel that Rae, with his Conservative, pro-corporate mentality, can even relate to the working man or woman. He is not supportive of the working class. This is shown by his attack upon the middle and lower-income classes in the form of higher sales taxes, cutbacks in proactive programs and lack of attempts to tax the corporations and upper class.
"Rae promised to tax corporations. He lied. Rae promised to improve our education system. He lied. Rae promised to support proactive social programs. He lied. Rae promised to maintain and improve our health care service. He lied. Rae promised to build the Ministry of Government Services' new computer centre in Brantford. He lied.
"Contrary to what many politicians think, voters will no longer support those who trample on their trust. Bob Rae and the NDP are living on borrowed time, for the landslide that put them into power will remove them from power with swift, blinding velocity.
"I will not support the NDP provincially in the future. Hopefully, all my fellow citizens will do the same." Then he finishes a line by saying: "Rae lied. He lied, he lied." Michael Girdlestone.
Now, I wouldn't go that far. I think Mr Girdlestone has taken a very critical approach to this government, and I wouldn't want to go that far because I like to be fair-minded. I recognize that economic circumstances changed, but I well recall, as some members who have not sat in this assembly before will recall, that the leader of the official opposition --
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The member endeavours to intervene. I simply say, and he will not recall this and I will, that the Premier, when he was in opposition, called the then Premier of the province a liar. We don't use that terminology in the House. You see, this is the kind of dialogue you get into. You say on one hand it's all right for Bob Rae to say it, but it's not all right for somebody to say it to Bob Rae.
You have to apply the same standards to everybody and that's where you New Democrats -- you're so convinced of your case, you're so closed-minded --
The Deputy Speaker: Address the Chair, please.
Mr Bradley: -- in that regard that you can't see it. I had an argument one day with one of your members who is in the cabinet at the present time and I got into that argument before about lying and who accuses who of lying and it's not allowed in this House. We've never permitted it and I think it's wise in the rules not to allow it because it garners disrespect for people. But what I am saying to people is, you have to apply those principles to everybody, and if it is wrong for somebody to accuse Premier Peterson of lying it is equally wrong for somebody to accuse Premier Rae of lying, because we assume that both gentlemen, being honourable members of this House, are not people who are going to be lying.
I wanted to share with members of the House the viewpoint of a person who is a committed New Democrat and demonstrate how difficult it is in these times to be able to fulfil all those promises. People will now say: "There's virtually nobody left. We've had the Conservative Party, we've had the Liberal Party, we've had the New Democrats, and of all of them, we thought the New Democrats would be different and, in fact, they have not been." It even disillusions me on some days of the week.
But that's what you face when you're in government. It's not easy to be in government. That's the kind of criticism you face on one side and I'm sure on the other side from people in chambers of commerce and -- what is the coalition that's down the way of Chatham and London? The Taxpayers Coalition Ontario and there's the other one that Mr Brown is in charge of. There's another one down there that speaks on matters of this kind -- the National Citizens' Coalition Inc speaks on matters of this kind. So the government is attacked from both sides and it makes it difficult to govern.
I want to deal with some other issues. Some of them will be rather localized and some of my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula will be delighted that I raise them because I know they're concerned about them and have made representations directly to ministers. I look at the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre which is very much in need of government funding. They are very concerned that the services they deliver to vulnerable children, children with great difficulties, aren't as good as they might be, as extensive and comprehensive as they might be because of what they would say is inadequate funding.
I certainly say, within the allocation that has been provided to the Minister of Health -- I'm not saying "more"; I'm saying within that allocation -- I guess I am, as the other members from the Niagara Peninsula are, making a bid that, out of those dollars, we allocate to our part of the province and to that facility sufficient funds for them to carry out their responsibilities in an appropriate way.
I also know that all of us have had a chance to deal with the children's aid societies or, as we call it, family and children's services. Under the social contract, they face some consequences but also, over and above that, their workers are working in facilities which are extremely difficult.
I certainly hope the government would look at the representations the government has had made to it on the needs for family and children's services in the Niagara region.
The regional municipality of Niagara is talking about cutting back some services in the field of senior citizens and perhaps some of the health services that it carries out. Again, I think Brian Merrett, who is the chair, has indicated in a headline I saw the other day that there would be no new taxes that would be applied by the region.
My colleague -- and that reminds me of a situation -- the member for Mississauga North, I believe, was addressing this issue today. He talked about the fact that when a municipality cuts money from its budget where the province is paying 25% and the municipality is paying 75%, that program is cut off and the savings are much greater for the province than they are for the local municipality. No doubt they'll be making their representations to the appropriate ministers within the government in that regard.
"Teacher's College Graduates Face Bleak Job Prospects This Fall" is another article that appeared from Michael Adler in the St Catharines Standard. Indeed, those who have been able to get into teacher's college, because many of them have been forced to go south of the border in order to become educated as future teachers, have found that it's difficult to find jobs when they have come out into the workplace, into the job market. Again, part of that is because the various boards of education are being forced to cut back considerably and therefore are unable to hire new people, and many of the people who might retire are so uncertain about the provisions of the social contract that many of those people are holding on to their jobs rather than moving on, and in any event, we would say that it's unlikely that they would be replaced.
Another situation I wanted to deal with, as I come back to environment -- I'm just reminded of the environment -- I can recall during the last election campaign and even before that, the old issue of pop bottles and whether you're going to have soft drinks in pop bottles or cans. No matter how, as a minister or as a ministry or as a government, you tried to explain the fact that the recycling program was significantly dependent upon let's say the aluminum cans particularly and some of the metal cans to drive it, and some of the funding provided by the soft drink industry, there were still many, many people who believed that everything should be refillable or there should be deposits.
One vociferous critic in this regard, and I thought justifiably so as an opposition critic, was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who had the chance herself to be Minister of the Environment. Now she has been succeeded by Mr Wildman, the member for Algoma. But I notice that when it started to fall a little below 30%, there was considerable angst. In fact, Radio Noon and Metro Morning were having a competition with As It Happens and CBC Four to Six to see who could deal more with the issue of the ratio of non-refillables and refillables.
Lo and behold, my information is that the last ratio shows that now only 7% of the soft drinks are in fact served in refillables. I have not heard a hue and cry. I am waiting for Christopher Thomas to do a show on it on CBC. I'm waiting for Matt Maychak and Metro Morning to phone and ask about this and say, "Isn't it awful?"
I recall one individual, one woman in St Catharines, who phoned my constituency office to indicate she was not going to vote Liberal this election because the ratio of pop bottles which are refillable and the cans had fallen slightly below 30%. If she's watching this program this afternoon, I hope she will note that it's down to 7% and that the problem has not been solved.
Not only has it not been solved, may I indicate, but in addition to this, no charges have been laid, mysteriously, against those who are in violation of those laws. The Minister of Environment and others are supposed to allow for a completely independent --
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): How many charges were laid when you were minister?
Mr Bradley: I'm glad you asked that question. The Minister of Municipal Affairs asks how many charges were laid while I was minister. I can tell you, many, many charges were laid on that particular issue and were successfully prosecuted here in Ontario.
Hon Mr Philip: How many?
Mr Bradley: No, a lot of charges were very successfully prosecuted in that period of time. I ask them only to look at the records and they'll find that's the case.
Hon Mr Philip: Name one. Give us a case.
Mr Bradley: I ask him to go and look in the records. It's right there in the records. You will find that since 1991, no charges have been laid against soft drink companies who are in violation of the law. So one of two things has happened: Either somebody has made a deal and everybody has agreed that there shouldn't be charges and there's some kind of something they get back for that -- I'm not saying that's illegal or anything; I'm saying that's one thing that could happen -- or second, somebody is blocking the charges.
1630
That would be of great consequence, because the investigation and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is supposed to be totally independent of the minister or anybody else in the ministry. That's why, when I was the minister, I established the investigation and enforcement branch. That's why I made it distinctly separate from all other branches of the government, so it could be totally independent and what you would find is that the minister would be knowledgeable of any charges laid only when a press release was issued. The press release would be issued to the public and to the minister at the same time the charges had been laid.
Here we have a situation where the ratio has gone down to 7% and since 1991 no charges have been laid. When that question was asked in the House, the minister did not have a good answer; the minister had no answer for that.
Am I being overly critical in this regard? No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that that was an example of an issue which was an extremely important issue at one time, and is no longer.
The Deputy Speaker: Point of order, the member for Simcoe West.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Speaker, I think the member for St Catharines is making a number of important remarks, and it would be helpful if we had a quorum in this House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum, please?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I want to continue. I see the member for Sarnia here, and he's a very good-humoured individual who likes to listen to and engage in debates in this House. I want to say to him that I well recall the days when if there was a thimbleful of anything spilled into the St Clair River, that also was good for at least six interviews on the CBC, as they would rush their cameras down and we would see the consequences of it.
Unfortunately, we continue to see many spills into the St Clair River. There was a promise made by a minister -- and this, I knew, would bring my good friend the member for Chatham-Kent into the House -- there was a promise made by the government that there would be a pipeline built and that the government was going to spend the full amount of money.
Now, I know that it is difficult sometimes. Governments make the promises, and sometimes economic reality makes it difficult to deliver. Everybody who fought down in that area for the environment said that the government should be contributing a significant amount of money for a pipeline which would bring water from up in the northern portions down to Wallaceburg so they would not have to draw their water from the St Clair River.
There was a promise made. The former Minister of the Environment, now the Minister of Health, made a promise that there would be a pipeline built, and there were announcements and a big fanfare. I remember one writer from the Globe and Mail followed Bob Rae across the province, and there were three different inaccurate stories on that day, but one of the things that was reported was, on that particular issue, there had already been some consideration work done on it, but the government decided it would pay the full cost of that particular pipeline.
Well, I thought the pipeline might be built by now, but it's not built. There's still some time. I know my good friend the member for Chatham-Kent will be working very hard to see that it's built --
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): We gave 100% funding.
Mr Bradley: And with 100% of the funding, we still don't see it built. I wonder how this can happen.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Point of order here.
Mr Bradley: I don't think this is going to be a point of order.
Mr Huget: Mr Speaker, the member for St Catharines knows full well that we've kept our promises and the municipalities backed out of theirs.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Thank you. I would remind the members not to interject.
Mr Bradley: I have the member for Etobicoke West here to perhaps assist me, but if the provincial government was spending 100% on the pipeline, why would the pipeline not be built? Why would we want to blame municipal mayors when the provincial government was already going to pay 100%?
Hon Ruth Grier: Because there's capital and there's operating.
Mr Bradley: Oh, so they're not paying 100%. All right. That's fine. I just wanted to get that clear. It wasn't 100%.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's right, because the operating costs are really the big costs. They're long-term costs.
Mr Bradley: All right. I've had it clarified by the member for Etobicoke West. He's been extremely helpful in bringing this to our attention, because one always has to look at that.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are questions and comments that you can use at the end. I will not accept interjections.
Mr Bradley: I want to now talk about the conservation authorities and the difficulties they're facing. I have found that even people who are not rabid environmentalists, who aren't ardent environmentalists, care about conservation and conservation authorities. People who normally may not support some of the activities of individual environmental groups still want to see saved those lands which will be of benefit to future generations and the children and adults of today.
We find the conservation authorities making representations to all three parties and saying, "With the new provisions in this budget brought in by the NDP government, the last provincial budget, we're going to have a situation where we're going to have to sell off environmentally sensitive lands."
I'm sure that when the government was coming up with ways to bleed more money out of the taxpayers, it didn't consider these consequences. I would be one who would applaud -- I'm sure my colleagues in the Conservative Party would applaud as well -- if the government would say: "Look, we were wrong, we didn't understand the consequences of this tax and now we're prepared to withdraw this provision which removes a tax exemption and a method of operating for conservation authorities which wasn't costly to them. We think we've been wrong." If the government said, "We're withdrawing it," I think it would get a hearty round of applause from all members of the House and certainly would, at the same time, be saving that important land.
Conservation authorities have some good ideas on how to save money. If the government wants to save money, I think the government would be wise to listen to those who sat on conservation authorities so that can happen.
I want to go back to the Niagara Peninsula again and say that I had met with the local firemen from the St Catharines fire department, representatives of the union, who had expressed some considerable concern about how their pension funds might be used. They were happy with the way it had been invested in the past. They were concerned that the control of those investments would fall out of their hands.
As a result, I've sent letters to the appropriate minister and I have also presented petitions in this House. I hope the government will allay those fears that they are going to raid the pension funds of the province and use those moneys for purposes that the members may not be in favour of and perhaps place them in jeopardy. I know the government will want to allay those concerns, and that's why I raise this issue in the House today.
I also want to talk about something that is near and dear to those of us who reside in the Niagara Peninsula, and that is the ward and the facilities available for kidney patients at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. All of us who are the local members had a chance to tour, along with some of the patients and the very dedicated staff, those facilities at Hotel Dieu. We all fought for an appropriate allocation so that the deplorable conditions which existed in that particular unit could be improved considerably, and an appropriate announcement was made. The member for St Catharines-Brock and I, and I think the member for Lincoln, the member for Niagara Falls, were present as the government finally provided those funds to allow that program to proceed.
1640
Now, what we're always concerned about is the length of time it takes from approval to the completion of those projects. All of us in the Niagara Peninsula will be happy when we can go to cut the ribbon when it's finally completed and those services are there for kidney patients, since we've all had a chance to communicate directly with them.
The other hospital, St Catharines General Hospital, has an important program under way for renovations. The emergency ward has to be appropriately expanded and improved and updated and long-term care facilities changed around. So that's significant. We will be watching with care to see that that promise is fulfilled.
I had a call from a woman the other day at my constituency office who has expressed several times to my constituency office a concern about the lack of long-term care. She wanted the integrated homemaker program brought to the Niagara Peninsula. She has also contacted, no doubt, the member for St Catharines-Brock and would like to see services provided so that she can carry on her employment and still look after her husband, who has suffered from illness.
I know that those of us who represent the Niagara Peninsula once again will be making representations on behalf of this individual and on behalf of all individuals who need this particular service. So I say today to the minister, who is watching this on a monitor in his office, that this is very important to our part of the province.
I want to talk a bit about the issue of crime and security. I am concerned that people are becoming increasingly fearful, and with some justification, about even moving around in their own communities. Even last night, I was coming home from a graduation -- and I want to congratulate the students at Scottlea elementary school. I had the opportunity to make a presentation of what was called the James J. Bradley Citizenship Award to a youngster, to Jennifer Wells. Jennifer Wells is a very deserving student. I happened to make it home last night after making a 90-minute speech in the House, then coming back late last night to be back in the House, as witnessed by other members here. But I want to congratulate that student. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to make that presentation.
Something interesting happened on the way home. I decided I would walk home from the school, and as I crossed the street -- I moved rather rapidly so I wouldn't be hit by a car -- I was walking behind a car with a woman alone in the car. In years gone by, probably nothing would be thought of that. The person, seeing out of the side of her eye a person coming across the street, even dressed up in a suit and not looking particularly threatening -- I could hear the door locking quickly.
That's unfortunate, and I must say that I've approved of some of the initiatives the government has taken to provide services, particularly for vulnerable women who have been the victims very often of violence. But I thought that particular incident more than anything demonstrated the fear that some people have today of strangers, people who they don't particularly know or aren't aware of, coming nearby.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is an interesting story and I think we should have a quorum to hear it.
The Deputy Speaker: Table, is there a quorum?
Acting Table Clerk (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.
Mr Bradley: Speaking of the issue of crime and security, everyone in this House would be aware that those of us who represent St Catharines and district have had a pall over the city for some time because of some unfortunate murders that have taken place.
The name Kristen French is a name which is known now not only to people in our community, but to people across Ontario and Canada and even into the United States as an innocent, nice young girl who was coming home from Holy Cross secondary school near Easter time last year, walking through her own neighbourhood, through a church parking lot, in the middle of an afternoon. If one could say, "Where would a person be safe?" those are three circumstances that might meet the criteria of being safe. This person was kidnapped and ultimately murdered, and all of St Catharines has been saddened by this. I won't get into the details of the case because the case is before the courts. It wouldn't be appropriate.
Leslie Mahaffy is another individual, a young person whose body was found in Lake Gibson at the edge of the city of St Catharines, and again we have been very concerned about this. There have been other people who have been victims of crime, people I have known personally, who have been kidnapped and assaulted and near death. It seems to me that we have to, as a society, address this problem, the problem of violence and the problem of crime.
There are two ways of addressing it, two ways of looking at it. One is to look at the root causes, and that's important, to endeavour as a society to remove those root causes. But those who are the victims of crime cannot wait for us to remove all of those causes to have crime disappear.
Therefore, it requires an appropriate allocation of resources to our police forces and alterations to some of our laws to ensure that those who would perpetrate crimes upon innocent victims in our province, in our country, are appropriately dealt with and that there's a preventive measure which will reduce the risk considerably. We can never entirely remove that risk, but it's important to reduce it.
I'm sure that if you said to the people of St Catharines, "Would you be supportive of those changes in laws, of the increased allocation of resources for those purposes and of the removal of the root causes of crime?" you would certainly find almost unanimous support among people in our part of the province, and I hope that the levels of government that are responsible will do so.
Considerable mention has been made of the Young Offenders Act. Those who drew up the Young Offenders Act were not trying to throw the doors open to crime, were not trying to protect, as some might say, young criminals. They were attempting to address a difficult problem. But I think in addressing it, they have brought about circumstances that have virtually decreased any fear that certain young people have of authority and of law and of respect for society. As a result, many of the crimes that are committed today are committed by those young people who know the system far better than others and who exploit that system. That's most unfortunate, particularly when one considers that many of the victims of those crimes by those young people are in fact other young people.
I don't think our society can tolerate violence. I don't think our society can tolerate the kind of hooliganism that we've seen on so many occasions. Sometimes it's a so-called celebration of a sporting event, where one team wins and the people from that team have fans, so-called, who are supposed to go out on a rampage that night. That is not acceptable. Clearly, the good sports fans are not those who are doing so; it is those who take advantage of it.
Society has to come down hard on those people to set an appropriate example and to make sure that all segments of society are protected. The same can be said, in my own personal view, of those who use social causes and then go on rampages because of social causes.
I believe in the right of assembly. I believe in the right of protesting in front of this building, in front of other locations, in the streets. I am a strong supporter of that. That's what our democratic government is all about. But when people use social ills as an excuse to hurt others or to wantonly damage property or to riot, I don't think we should condone that particular activity, but rather should encourage people to go through the channels that are open in a democratic system to seek redress. When there are apologists for those people who would break the laws in that connection, I think it does not help those circumstances.
1650
There have been many people provoked over the years on picket lines in the province of Ontario and in other jurisdictions, people who have withdrawn their services in a legal strike, which they have constitutionally and legally the right to do, and have had other people who have attempted to take away their jobs. Now, from the outside that perhaps is not viewed with the same degree of venom, if I may say that, as it is from inside, if it's your job that's being taken away. It's always easy when you're watching television or reading a news story to condemn those who want to protect their rights as individual workers and not have others take away their jobs.
When those people have shown so much restraint under great provocation over the years, it seems to me that others who have social ills or other ills that they wish to redress can show the same degree of restraint that many have had to over the years when provoked rather considerably, either by those who were trying to break a strike openly or by those who are crossing picket lines. We're not talking about a wildcat. We're not talking about an illegal strike. We're talking about legitimate strikes in this province. So governments must provide that kind of protection for our society.
I happen to know the French family. I think many people do in St Catharines, as a result particularly of this case. They have gone through an awful lot. Not to their liking, they've reached a celebrity status. That's not a status they want; that's a status that is forced upon them by the news media, which is naturally interested in these stories. I certainly feel for them when they are confronted with the constant questions which are directed to them over the years, and it's now into the second year.
I hope that we as a government and the federal government as a government will address those problems of crime and security, because everybody wants to feel secure in their own community. Sometimes we in this House become a bit detached from that. You have to sit down and talk to people, and now I think all of us as politicians recognize that more and more as we're walking down the street, people are stopping us to give us their viewpoint on issues.
As I mentioned, last night, leaving this particular event that I was at, I had another person who stopped me along the street and for about 10 minutes indicated to me what her views were on a number of issues. I think that's important that we know what the local people are thinking and that we try to address the issues they are particularly interested in in a meaningful way.
Because it's so important to those of us in the peninsula and to our entire province, I want to address the problems confronted by the automotive industry in Ontario, because Ontario is essentially the automotive industry in Canada. Yes, there are some other plants in other provinces, but certainly not to the extent of those that are in Ontario.
It is my view that governments of any political stripe and of any level of government must recognize the importance of the automotive industry, both in terms of assembly and the automotive parts industry, to our province. If you look at the multiplier effect of the jobs and the operations in the automotive industry, you recognize that it is extremely meaningful to our economy. The steel industry supplies the auto industry, and the plastics industry, the cloth industry, the rubber industry. There are so many various plants that supply our automotive industry, and automotive sales are very important to keep that industry booming.
I have recommended in this House on a number of occasions, a recommendation rejected by the Treasurer because he believes there is a need for funding for revenues, that we remove the special tax which has been placed on automobiles in this province, which I've referred to as a tax on auto workers. The reason is that I think it has a dampening effect on the purchases that can be made in Ontario.
I have indicated on many occasions that I believe two problems would be assisted by this. One is the environmental problem. By getting people to purchase their new vehicles, we have people who then are stimulating the economy. That's the economic one, where you are stimulating the economy by making those purchases.
The second is the elimination of pollution, or the environmental aspect. If people went out and everybody in Ontario today were able to replace his or her old clunker with a brand-new vehicle, two things would happen: First of all, the fuel economy would be for the most part better in those new vehicles, so therefore that helps the environment; second, the pollution control equipment in those new vehicles is superior pollution control equipment. I hope that the Treasurer, and I know I have support among some members of the government caucus, would withdraw that particular tax which I think could stimulate the automotive industry and help us environmentally.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to the rules, doesn't there have to be a member from each caucus in the House? I notice there are no Conservatives in the House today.
The Deputy Speaker: No. There needs to be a quorum, but everything is in order.
Mr Bradley: I'll get on to another tax now that I think could be helpful to everybody. I think if the provincial Treasurer, now known as the provincial Minister of Finance, were to, for a period of time, withdraw the sales tax as well as the special tax on automobiles -- he calls it the gas guzzler tax -- if he were to remove the sales tax as well for a period of six months, nine months or a year, he would see that people would make some purchases of vehicles, particularly newer vehicles, and that would be helpful to the economy.
So two things could be done for the automotive industry: One is removing the so-called gas guzzler tax, and the second would be removing the sales tax, one of them permanently, the other for a period of time. I recognize that the government needs its revenue and it can't remove it for ever, but I think it would be very helpful, because anybody who has purchased a vehicle lately -- and some people out of necessity have been compelled to do so -- would find that the tax, the GST and the provincial sales tax and the special tax on vehicles and so on, the costs associated are extremely significant. I hope that members of the governing caucus will be prepared to support that.
I was going to call for a quorum, but I don't think I will. I think I'll just have a drink of water.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Thanks to the clean water agency.
Mr Bradley: Well, there's an issue. I'm glad that issue was raised. I heard somebody mention the clean water agency. Members of the government can be very helpful in suggesting matters we could talk about.
There are three agencies being set up by the government. The purpose of all of them is to get this off the books and put them on separate agencies. That way the Premier can come back and say, "Well, isn't this great, we've reduced the deficit." W.A.C. Bennett in British Columbia, the father of Bill Bennett but Premier a long time ago, used to use that very trick. His nickname was Wacky Bennett and he was a social creditor, right-wing politician. He would take the debts from the provincial government and assign them to these crown agencies and then say, "We don't have any debt in the province of British Columbia." I look at this circumstance and say we're seeing the same thing happening in Ontario. We see three agencies set up and we see tolls being placed on the highway.
One of the selling points in terms of transportation, in terms of tourism in this province has been that we could say to our American friends and those from other provinces that if you come to Ontario, you're not going to be confronted with the cost of those annoying tolls which are placed on roadways in other countries and perhaps in other provinces. But our government has broken new ground, at least new ground in the 1990s, and has announced that it's going to have toll roads in this province as yet another tax.
1700
I know that the people who were looking forward to funding for public transportation are disappointed that, as a result of the recent announcements, the GO Transit is diminishing its service. A lot of people use GO Transit. It avoided the need to bring vehicles into Metropolitan Toronto on a daily basis, and that need is going to be increased now that those services have been cut back.
I want to talk about something else -- this bill may come before the House; I hope it never appears before the House -- and that is a cash cow that this government is embarking upon, very attractive but a major problem. I wish I had an article from the Toronto Star that was in the weekend Toronto Star, I think last weekend, by the writer in the field of automobiles, because it dealt with the new cameras that you're going to give to the police to take photographs of drivers in this province. This is something that I consider to be totally a cash cow.
More and more, because of the need for revenue in this province, we're seeing police forces and quasi-police forces using ways to raise money rather than concentrating their full efforts in areas I believe would be more productive in terms of fighting real problems. For instance, I notice in Metropolitan Toronto, right here in the city of Toronto, one used to, in certain areas, be able to park overnight where there were meters.
There were no signs that say you can't do it, but you could park overnight. It wasn't hurting anybody, it wasn't a loading zone, they weren't removing snow. But all of a sudden they're now enforcing some obscure provincial law that I would say most of these people don't even know about, and that law is that apparently you cannot park for longer than three hours in one spot.
Now, there are some people who have parked in the same spot for eight years and have gone down to a side street where there's no signage and have parked a vehicle there, and if at 8:01 in the morning the vulture is there -- I'm sorry, the person who signs the tickets is there to sign a ticket, one accepts that. That is the way it is.
But apparently now they have decided that they are going to give $20 tickets to people who happen to park overnight. This is, in my view, something they shouldn't be doing. They should be spending their time fighting crime instead of raising money or towing vehicles away. You watch the vultures pull up with their tow trucks, one person putting the ticket on, who should be fighting crime in Toronto not putting tickets on cars. Then you see the tow truck going away -- and if that isn't a vulture business what is -- the tow truck towing it to some yard, and it costs well over $100 to get it back, I am told.
I think their time could be spent more productively. This is my fear what's going to happen with police: They're going to sit there with the cameras on the highway, and when you're doing 65 miles an hour on a 60-mile-an-hour road or 100 and whatever that equals on a 100-kilometre-an-hour highway and you're keeping up with the traffic, they're going to sit there and take pictures and give out fines.
The people they should be chasing, in my view, are the characters who are weaving in and out of lanes, driving dangerously and in conditions of bad climate driving very poorly or the left-lane bandits, who are sitting there going less than the speed limit in the left lane and annoying everybody behind them, or on two-lane highways, those who are leading the grand parade. If you don't think there are parades allowed on provincial highways, just go out on some of the two-lane highways and watch the 96-car parade. What is happening is the person at the beginning of the parade is forcing people to pass constantly and we have the head-on collisions.
I think all you're going to do when you let the police set up those cameras is make them collectors of money, when they should be spending their time (a) fighting crime and (b) getting the drivers who really cause problems on our highways. I hope that the government will reconsider that. I know it sounds good because they will always say, "Speed kills." There are a lot of other things that kill on the highway and are much more dangerous.
If you're nailing drivers who are not appropriately behind the wheel, who are driving dangerously, in many ways I understand that, but I just hope this government will not embark upon a cash cow, giving the police the opportunity to sit there and collect money instead of fighting crime and nailing those drivers who are genuinely causing a problem.
I suspect that the attraction is too good, that it's a cash cow and that some day we may see this happen. But I don't think you're going to improve the driving habits in Ontario by doing that. There are many other ways of doing that, but I'm just reminded that was one of the great initiatives that this government was thinking of and one that I hope the government House leader in his wisdom will persuade the minister to drop from consideration.
I want to look at the future and the future prosperity of Ontario. I want to be one who says that I am optimistic that some day Ontario will be in better shape than it is today. I heard the Premier chastising the leader of the third party the other day, telling him he's running down Ontario all the time, and that's an old tactic. I watched Bill Davis do that, and probably David Peterson might have done that when the opposition asked questions, tell you to be positive about things.
Well, the role of the opposition people is to call the government to account, and sometimes it sounds like criticism which is directed at Ontario. It's directed at particular governments and particular government policies, legislation and regulations, and I think that should be separate.
But I want to say that in the future, as we pull out of this recession, as I hope we will and as I believe we must some day, I hope that we're positioning ourselves so that we can get the investment that's going somewhere.
My gosh, there's a lot more competition for that investment than there used to be. When Canada came out of the Second World War, we were very favoured. We weren't hit by the bombs during the Second World War. Many countries were devastated, and as we came out of the Second World War, we had a great advantage. We had a good industry. Our people had died and fought in that war, but in terms of material damage, we had not suffered that in Canada. So we didn't have much competition around the world. Today we face considerable competition, and that means that we have to be able to attract the kind of business interests and investment that are going to produce jobs in our part of the province.
I'm not one, and there are many who fit in this category today, who is prepared to abandon traditional industries. I understand that you have to look to the future. People will say you've got to have knowledgebased industries and you've got to look at perhaps jobs that won't be as high-paying but they're in the service field. Yes, I hope there are jobs there. I hope we're in the new fields that are going to be good for us in the future. But I hope we don't abandon some of the old industries.
As I look around this House, I see members who represent areas that have some of those older industries, traditional industries: the government House leader, the member for Hamilton West. Both represent Hamilton, and they have the steel industry. There are other industries there as well, but the steel industry has been exceedingly important. Now, I hear people say out there, the gurus of the future, that somehow we should abandon, you know, say this is not an industry of the future; we should be looking at something else and not be propping up these industries or trying to defend these industries. I am diametrically opposed to that kind of thinking.
I understand those industries are changing. I've been through the Hilton works in Hamilton and I've been through Nanticoke. They're different plants, and I am quite amazed by, and to a certain extent alarmed by, the automation I see. When I went through the Hilton plant there were far more people working on the floor. I went through the Nanticoke plant and there seemed to be about five people working in a glassed-in area and pushing buttons and machines were doing everything down below, with perhaps the odd employee down there looking at something, and that's automation.
That's a point that has to be made over and over again, that these changes that people advocate, an automated industry means fewer jobs. They may be high-paying jobs, but they're far fewer jobs. The other example I saw was at Clarabelle in Sudbury when I went through the Inco process. I used to live in Sudbury at one time, and there were a lot of people; when I lived there, there were about 21,000 people employed by Inco and Falconbridge put together, but even Inco had a very large workforce. When I lived there, Mine, Mill was the union that represented them; subsequently, it was the Steelworkers.
1710
I went through a plant at Clarabelle and I thought the plant was closed. I said, "Are you closed down for the summer or for a month this summer?" They said, "No, this plant is operating." There were no employees in it. We went up to the control centre, which is glassed in and has all these dials that I certainly wouldn't understand, with all these gauges and so on, and there were a few people up there operating the entire plant. I was quite surprised when I saw this happening.
Those of you who have worked in industry, who have represented workers in industry, must have faced great difficulty when trying to deal with this, trying to even talk to your own employees about how this may be inevitable but it's going to mean far fewer jobs.
I went through the Ford glass plant in Niagara Falls, which by the way is closing, unfortunately. I remember there was a robot in there and the robot was caged in. I went through with a representative of the union at the time and a representative of the company --
Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in this House.
The Speaker: Will the table officer count.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member may continue with his remarks.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that opportunity.
I was talking about the robot being caged in at the Niagara Falls plant, and I asked the individuals who were conducting the tour why this was. It was something new, and very hard for those who are employed to accept that kind of automation that might remove some of those jobs. Eventually that caging would've been removed, but that's the kind of difficulty that one encounters.
I want to deal as well with another issue that I think is important. I don't generally like dealing with federal issues in the provincial House, but in the peninsula and other places we face the consequences of the free trade agreement with the United States, signed by Prime Minister Mulroney and I think President Reagan at that time, or President Bush rather at that time -- it may have been Reagan.
Mr Stockwell: Reagan.
Mr Bradley: It was Reagan. It's that long ago. The member for Etobicoke West is right -- and then the NAFTA agreement, the North American free trade agreement.
I happen to think that neither of those agreements contained the kind of safeguards that will be necessary to protect our workers from unfair competition and that there are consequences. Certainly, the recession has resulted in a lot of job losses, but at the same time, the recession, compared with more competitive trade circumstances, has had an adverse effect on our economy.
Premier Peterson, when he was Premier, suggested that the free trade agreement without those safeguards would in fact result in the deindustrialization of Ontario, or had that potential, and Premier Peterson indicated his opposition to that particular agreement. All of us have recognized the need to trade with the United States and other countries in the world, but if we're going to sign agreements, they have to be the kind of agreements that are going to allow for fairness in trade and not simply allow the United States Congress and other agencies of the American government to continue to dictate the provisions of trade agreements.
There is in my area considerable concern about the agreement that would now include Mexico, because Mexico, it is generally anticipated, does not have the same kind of labour laws, environmental laws and other laws that tend to be an additional cost in the United States and Canada. While I notice that one of the automotive companies is about to make an announcement of a move of some jobs from Mexico to the United States, I suspect the reason for that might well be, although I cannot substantiate this, to assist in persuading Congress and the administration to accept the North American free trade agreement.
If you're signing agreements, you have to have the ability to have sanctions, to have an impartial arbiter. I'm going to get some help from the member for Chatham-Kent who agrees with me on this issue. You have to be able to have that kind of assistance. We didn't have any kind of adjustment available to us, which was necessary.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent indicates that there's a very good photograph here. Lara, who is our page from St Catharines, and I are in this particular photograph that he holds up for the television camera now. I want to congratulate all of the pages who have served in this session because they do such a good job in such a friendly fashion and they don't even get very much money paid for that, although I must warn them that they're fortunate they are escaping the social contract provisions.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): They don't make $30,000.
Mr Bradley: They're under $30,000, the member for St Catharines-Brock appropriately points out to me.
We're talking about trade agreements, to go back to those. We have to have the necessary protection. A good example of a good trade agreement was in fact the free trade pact in automobiles, the auto pact, signed by Prime Minister Pearson and President Johnson in 1965. Subsequently, the advantages of that disappeared under the recent administration in Ottawa.
That was something that benefited both Canada and the United States. We didn't always like the way it went sometimes, but we thought there was fairness with it. There were good jobs created in Canada, good jobs created in the United States and everybody benefited.
As a result of the free trade agreement and now as a result of NAFTA, we're seeing many of those provisions eroded and our workers are much more vulnerable today than they might have been immediately after the signing of that pact.
I think during the federal election campaign, which will be coming up -- that's why I'm not going to deal extensively with it here -- there will be many issues to be dealt with.
Hon Mrs Grier: Will you be running?
Mr Bradley: I will not be running. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore asks will I be running. It is my intention to run in the next provincial election, in the provincial constituency of St Catharines, and not to run for mayor, as I heard I was running, or to run for the federal House, as I heard I was running. I've enjoyed the opportunity to serve the people so much for the past 16 years in this Legislature that I intend to continue on if the people of St Catharines see fit to re-elect me.
Another matter I wanted to deal with before time ran out was the way in which dissident members have been dealt with in the government caucus, because sometimes I worry about them. I worry about them very much, because some of them are close by.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent notes there's a tinge of grey coming in as a result.
My good friend Ron Hansen, the member for Lincoln, I recall being very concerned about the tobacco tax. He stood in the Legislature, an independent-minded individual, fighting for his constituents and other farming people, and voted against that tax.
I thought, "Well, the whip and others will explain to him this is rather serious," because you're supposed to vote with the government on these matters. Instead, he was bounced as the Chairman of the finance and economic affairs committee, bounced right out of the job. He lost whatever they get paid, $10,000 extra or something, whatever the Chairman got, and lost the job as a result.
I got up and raised the issue with the Premier, because I wanted to help out my friend and colleague from Lincoln. I raised the issue with the Premier and he denied having anything to do with it. Everybody who sits in this House today knows that the Premier has everything to do with everything and if he doesn't he's very angry.
Now, who else did I see was in trouble on the other side?
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Not me.
1720
Mr Bradley: Not the member for Durham East because he serves his government well. He's uncritical, he's enthusiastic and he bows to a photograph of the Premier every day, I think, as he goes by. Is that not correct? I think that's what he does.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: I won't get into what ceremony he performs on behalf of the Premier, but he is very loyal to the Premier.
But the member for Welland-Thorold, a person who from time to time expresses a dissident point of view, I saw when the NDP caucus was at -- you wouldn't be there, Mr Speaker, because you're neutral. But when they gathered together at the palatial surroundings in Niagara-on-the-Lake, there were two members with their lunches in brown bags. The member for Chatham-Kent leaves as I mention this. These two members felt that somehow it was inappropriate for New Democrats to be talking about restraint in the palatial surroundings of Niagara-on-the-Lake and be eating whatever it was, caviar or -- was it not?
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The member for St Catharines-Brock tells me it wasn't caviar. Tuna-fish sandwiches? Okay, it was tuna-fish sandwiches. Anyway, I saw the member on television. I know he has an aversion to television cameras, but the cameras came right over and took photographs of the two members eating out of the brown bags. I was worried because I remembered when the NDP would have gathered at Port Elgin -- a good place, the CAW centre at Port Elgin. I thought they would be there, helping the brothers and sisters by booking it.
Interjection: Too expensive.
Mr Bradley: Somebody said it was too expensive. I know one thing: It would be unionized and, second, a very nice place to go and, third, the Canadian Auto Workers, who have suffered some losses in terms of the amount of money they get in dues because of layoffs and so on, would have appreciated it. I wouldn't have been critical because I would have known it was a competitive price and it was unionized and everything would have been fine. Mr Kormos and the member for Wentworth East would not have to take their lunch to either one of those.
I remember the member -- he was the Chair and, I was told, a good Chair of the standing committee on resources development -- Mr Kormos. Opposition people said he was fairminded and others even on the government side must have believed that. All of a sudden, the government House leader gets up and he reads the list of committee chairs and Peter Kormos is not on that. Well, you can imagine the people of Welland-Thorold thinking that their member again was going to be penalized $10,000 or something like that by the Premier, was going to lose his prestigious position, and I was quite concerned at that.
I even heard at the provincial council last weekend that there were people who tried to speak about certain issues, who were cut off and they're now writing letters. I guess there wasn't enough time, probably not enough time. They're now writing letters to the Premier about this and providing some copies to other people.
I'm wondering, for instance, whether Malcolm Buchanan had the opportunity to express his views as extensively as he could have, because Malcolm has been a long-time supporter of the New Democratic Party. He and I have engaged in a dialogue over the years about the New Democratic Party and what it stands for, and I expected Malcolm would be up speaking and everyone would be listening very carefully and you'd give him the opportunity to speak. If I recall hearing this correctly, Malcolm was not allowed to speak.
Interjection: He wasn't a delegate.
Mr Bradley: He wasn't a delegate, somebody said, but I can recall in the past that when he was speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, when he was helping Bob Rae to be elected in the provincial by-election in York South, nobody stopped him from speaking on that occasion. If Malcolm is watching, I'll tell him that I'm here to fight for Malcolm and his opportunity to speak before the provincial council of the NDP, and all those other people who, because of time, no doubt, didn't have the chance to have their issues addressed.
I want to wish Mel Swart a happy birthday because Mel Swart is one of my favourite New Democrats, and a CCFer before that. He's celebrating his birthday this week. I won't say how many years, but he's over 70 years old; I can tell you that. Mel has been the epitome of what a CCFer, a New Democrat, should be and I'm sure that all of us in this House wish Mel Swart a happy birthday today.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St Catharines for his contribution to this debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr Hope: I enjoy the member for St Catharines' comments at times. I noticed his production of talking about the pipeline. I must correct the record most appropriately. As he indicated, yes, it was the Liberals who committed only 75% of the funding, I think it was, one-time, which only cost about $20 million. It escalated its price, and then when we finally got into government, we committed to try to get the citizens of that community of Wallaceburg and North Kent clean water.
It's unfortunate that circumstances prevailed in those affected communities, but the communities were the one community had rejected the idea, and now this government pursues making sure that the citizens of Dresden and that community effectively receive clean drinking water, as the member quite well knows about the effects of nitrates that lie in that water system. We will be trying to clean that up.
It was interesting to listen to his comments about the attack on the auto workers coming from the auto worker section of the CAW. He forgot to bring about one that was very detrimental, the rubber worker tax, the tire tax that we all hated to pay. I notice he was very quiet about forgetting that one. But I remember the dramatic impact it had on all the rubber workers in the Kitchener area. No wonder we had to close one of the plants down. Maybe now that we've got rid of the tire tax, it'll put one of those tire plants back. I think it's important, not only for those workers, but also for the industry itself.
But on the free trade issue I must say that, yes, he does project it appropriately, but I'm just curious how Jean Chrétien's going to renegotiate something he doesn't have, and I wonder what your position is. Are you saying: "Kill the bill. Get rid of free trade"? Are you saying, also like your Liberal leader, to renegotiate something that you have no powers to renegotiate? I would just like some clarification from the member opposite, who I know is always clear.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to commend the member for St Catharines for his eloquent remarks. I think he does a good job of representing his riding and I hope he runs again. I don't think anyone can beat him in the riding of St Catharines. He's kind of got a monopoly there and the good people of St Catharines choose to send him back time and time again to this Legislature.
He talked about taxes in his remarks, though, and I was having a bit of a chuckle back here, because when the Liberals talk about taxes -- they're now trying to catch the public imagination to pretend that they somehow didn't overtax us when they were in office and that they somehow weren't the cause of the New Democrats' problems now that they're in office, with respect to the debt and deficit -- I do find that a little amusing and I even note that the member for St Catharines was having a difficult time keeping a straight face during parts of that.
I, however, was surprised that the member for St Catharines didn't mention one of the latest schemes offered by the Ontario government, and that is that the Ontario taxpayers will be paying out $30,000 so that 20 Canadian auto workers can spend a week at a retreat discussing humour. I hope that comes up a couple of times this evening, because I would really be very curious as to what the explanation is, in terms of having an agency of the government spend $30,000 of taxpayers' money so that 20 people -- that's $1,500 apiece in terms of government grant -- can go and discuss humour for a week on a retreat. I think that's a misuse of the taxpayers' dollars, something that, when the NDP was in opposition, it certainly wouldn't have allowed to happen. They'd have been hanging from the chandeliers in opposition to such a waste of taxpayers' money.
Once again, I commend the member for St Catharines and hope that we'll have many more opportunities to hear him speak eloquently in this House.
1730
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to thank the member for St Catharines for some very interesting views on a whole lot of different things, always, of course, from the point of view of Niagara.
One of the things he didn't mention that I thought he might -- I know it could be very near and dear to his heart -- is the issue of the cost of waste disposal in the Niagara area. The cost of diversion and cost of recycling is very high. You must also realize that with 12 different municipalities all involved in this, we have at the moment many studies going on, a club approach in various parts of the peninsula. We have public advisory committees that are now doing lots of things. We have many lawyers and consultants who are being paid by the taxpayers down there. I think the people of the region also are saying, "Please do not be spending our taxpayers' money on lawyers and consultants."
I think the member will also know that in the past, maybe 20 years ago, when regional governments were set up, nearly every region in Ontario except the Niagara region had the responsibility for waste management at the regional level. So I wanted to ask the member, does he think that in the region of Niagara, the responsibility should be at the regional level, and would this save us money?
Mr Turnbull: I was very interested in the line of reasoning that my colleague the member for St Catharines brought forward about the government cutting back the property tax grants to conservation authorities, and the total ignoring by the government of the proposal by those authorities to save very significant amounts of money, several millions of dollars which would go towards paying the taxes if the government were to allow them to. But the government has seemed to decide that it knows better, and all it's doing is pulling the tax grants from those authorities, which are protecting our wetlands and very environmentally sensitive areas of the province.
It's rather a surprise to think that this government, which in opposition was always portraying itself as the people who would protect the environment -- I guess in the words of that famous politician Robert K. Rae QC, "That was then and this is now." This is now, when the government absolutely ignores the plight of the conservation authorities, which I may say were set up by the Conservative government to protect those sensitive environmental areas of the province, and those areas which people from the towns could visit and appreciate. There are floodplains and there are very essential reasons for maintaining those wetlands and those floodplains, but what is the government doing? They're turning their back on it. Potentially, those lands are gong to be lost because they'll have to be sold off to pay the taxes.
The Speaker: The member for St Catharines has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Bradley: There were so many remarks that I won't have the opportunity to respond in the kind of detail that I would like to each one, but I would like to mention first of all the pipeline that was going to be constructed in the area of the far west of the province of Ontario. A commitment certainly was made by the previous government -- the commitment was made also by this government -- to pay 100% of the cost.
I would think that if the danger to the water supply is as it was described by members of the New Democratic Party in opposition, certainly the government would be proceeding with that construction project regardless of other protests. But apparently, now that we have an NDP government, it appears that the water is suddenly clean, so perhaps there's not a problem there any more.
I want to thank the member for Simcoe West for reminding members of the House of the need to watch all expenditures very carefully, and to ensure that government is operating appropriately. He has a recollection of taxes from the previous government. I have been here for 16 years and I have a recollection of taxes from the Conservative government, including a proposed 37% increase by W. Darcy McKeough in the OHIP rates back when we used to have OHIP premiums, and a number of other taxes. So my memory does go back some many years.
To the member for Niagara Falls, I don't think we should ever assume that giving something to the senior level of government automatically makes it cheaper. I think the local municipalities have to resolve this. The club approach is a good one, in my view. If all the municipalities decide in Niagara that they want the region to take over the control of waste management, that might well be fine, but I warn you that it isn't necessarily the cheapest.
I want to note that the Premier has now entered the House. Having watched my debate, watched my speech in his office for the last hour and a half, he has felt that he should come in to respond and I appreciate his presence in the House.
The Speaker: Is there further debate? I recognize the honourable member for Etobicoke West.
Applause.
Mr Stockwell: Thanks. Thanks.
Interjection: That was for being recognized.
Mr Stockwell: Okay, here you go. Thanks for coming.
I hate to disappoint the member for St Catharines, but the Premier heard that I was speaking next and that's why he came into the House, although he did watch your hour-and-a-half speech, I'm sure, as I did, and found it most interesting. Really, let's be frank, that probably kept Ontario on the edge of its seat, that respite there. I think he was both poignant on a lot of the debate and certainly articulate in expressing the views that concern his constituents in St Catharines, and I only hope that I can be equally as poignant representing the views of the people of the city of Etobicoke, or Etobicoke West specifically.
I'd like to start out discussing during interim supply, as a money bill, the issues that affect constituents today, and money's a big issue. This bill requires expenditures in the billions of dollars. In a lot of respects, the billions of dollars that we talk about today really lose their emphasis on the average taxpayer. When they fill out their taxes, they're probably talking of some thousands of dollars they're sending in to be spent by federal and provincial levels of government, so when we get to a debate where we're going to approve spending billions of dollars, it's really hard for people to fathom exactly how much $1 billion is.
I remember once on Metropolitan Toronto council one of the members from North York, Mr Robert Yuill, at one time brought in cut-out money representing, I think it was, $1 million and he stacked it on his desk. It was really quite astounding to see what $1 million looked like. When you talk about interim supply and seeing that we're spending billions of dollars, you wonder if you broke it out into $2 bills and spread it across the floor, it would go from one end to the next. When seeing the actual amount of money that one spends in this place, it really is somewhat astounding that we stand in our places in this place and debate expenditures in the billions and billions of dollars.
The Treasurer stood in his place and said, "This will allow us to pay our bills and pay our staff," and so on and so forth.
It still is of concern to me that governments, all governments -- and I leave none out, all governments -- have gotten to the point where spending money has lost any relationship to the amount that's being spent. In fact, during the budget items themselves, line items, they practically round off to the nearest $100 million. It's rather astounding in my mind that when you do line item budgets in this place, you can round off to the nearest $100 million. It would seem to me that when you round off to the nearest $100 million, you've to some degree lost the emphasis for the amount of money that you're spending on behalf of the taxpayers.
Although it's difficult to express verbally, and it might be easier to express visually, we're talking about a significant amount of money that we're spending on behalf of the taxpayers in the province of Ontario.
Why do I start with that? Well, I start with that because I think the vast majority of constituents in this province, and probably in this country, are very cynical about governments and politicians today. I talk about the cynicism out there in the constituencies I visit, because they don't believe that what governments say and do in opposition or on the campaign trail is quite exactly what they do once they've come to government.
1740
I will say this: Yesterday was a rather raucous debate and discussion in this place because the government itself moved two closure motions. Now, closure is a very interesting topic because what closure is really saying is that the opposition parties, the minorities, although they have people to speak on behalf of constituents, no longer have a right to speak in this place on an issue of the day that their constituents feel is very important. They don't because the government, to give them their favour, has decided that there's been enough debate on an issue or the points of debate are in fact repetitive or the opposition parties are just wasting legislative time. It's no doubt that that does happen. There's no doubt that happens, not just in this Parliament, not just in this sitting but in previous sittings before we were here and before any of the members sat in this place.
But it's very important for us to go back into Hansard and review what government members of the day said about closure when they were on this side of the House, because one's view of closure and time allocation appears to change dramatically depending on which side of the House you sit on.
I do have some Hansards here for the Premier, Robert K. Rae QC, from Mr Farnan --
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): List all the degrees.
Mr Stockwell: I don't have time. I would list all the degrees, but I only have an hour and a half. Mr Farnan, who's now the junior minister of one of the junior ministries; Mr Charlton, who happens to be the House leader and the very member who moved these closure motions -- maybe not moved them, but in fact started the process to have other members move them.
Mr Charlton had some very interesting comments on closure when he sat on this side of the House, and I think it's really important not just for these members to know what they said when they were on this side of the House but for the Speaker himself to know, because the closure motions this government opposed in opposition appear to be very similar in circumstance to the closure motions they initiated themselves yesterday. I will say they did so in I believe a rather smug fashion, almost a majority smile creeping across their faces. That was only my personal view.
Mr Charlton had some interesting quotes that I would like read into the record in my time. Mr Farnan, again, was not just a one-time member who just haphazardly one day stood up at a debate on closure; he obviously gave this careful consideration, because he rose on a number of occasions to chastise the government of the day and the fact that it was moving closure on very important issues.
There was Mr Howard Hampton. Mr Howard Hampton in opposition had some very real problems with closure motions and the fact that they were usurping the democratic process and the democratic rights of those individuals duly elected as stewards of the taxpayers to represent their viewpoints on the important issues of the day.
Finally, probably I will save the best Hansard till last because the best seems to be Mr Cooke, who's the Minister of Education and Training now and had some very interesting points of view on closure and very interesting points of view on governments that said one thing when they were running for an election and did exactly the opposite once they were elected.
I know I bring this up on a number of occasions, but it's something -- and I know I only have a couple of minutes till the vote -- that sticks in the craw, I think, of this caucus, specifically me and probably the Liberals: the fact that during the last campaign in 1990, this government was led by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rae, and the campaign was kicked off with an attack by the then opposition leader on Premier Peterson, and he called him a liar five times. Five times in the press gallery downstairs he called him a liar for insurance --
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Forget the past; you're living in the past. Live in the future.
Mr Stockwell: If the Premier would like it, I have a copy of that interview and I'll be happy to send it to him. But you did, Mr Premier, and you called him a liar on many issues that he felt Mr Peterson changed his mind on from when he was elected before the election in 1987 till 1990. That was the tenor of that election, and why it was set was because Mr Rae was making it very clear about Mr Peterson, that he said one thing when he was being elected and you did exactly the opposite when you got elected.
The member from Ottawa shakes her head. During this five-minute break when we have a vote, I'll go down and get that transcript and I'll read it into the record for the member from Ottawa, because that has set off, I think, a set of circumstances that will never change when elections come in the province any more. It's legitimized a type of election process that was the domain of the Americans, in my opinion, because they allow this kind of negative advertising to take place.
I bring this up because I bring up the cynicism that's out there from the public about politicians who say one thing and do another when elected. I think the Premier of the day during that election captured the hearts of the electorate because he spoke directly to that issue, the issue that politicians don't do what they say do once they're elected. He would say, "Let me be very clear and let me be very direct."
The cynicism has grown immeasurably in the last three years and I fear for the kinds of elections we will see in this province, because I don't think you'll ever see the Liberals run a campaign like they did last time. I'm not certain you'll see the Conservatives run the kind of campaign they ran last time. You set the tenor last campaign about flicking the channel converter and having distorted stories put on the news that things that didn't happen were in fact taking place. That's where the cynicism came from.
The Speaker: By order of the House, we have at 5:45 a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 5. Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1746 to 1751.
MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE
Deferred vote on government notice of motion number 5:
That, notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(i), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, June 28, 1993.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one by one.
Ayes
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Eves, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;
Mackenzie, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Stockwell, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one by one.
Nays
Sterling.
The Speaker: The ayes being 83 and the nays 1, I declare the motion carried.
INTERIM SUPPLY
Continuing consideration of government notice of motion number 7.
The Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.
Mr Stockwell: Is there not going to be a recount on that?
So, Mr Speaker, we have closure, and I would like to start off by reading from January 30, 1989, by Robert K. Rae QC, who voted opposed to the closure bill on Sunday shopping. He had some very interesting points when he was Leader of the Opposition that have changed dramatically, I can see, from when he changed sides of the House.
He said, "Mr Speaker, I want to speak very briefly in this debate." He seems to start all his speeches out like that, but they never seem to be brief.
"I have already indicated to you that I think this imposition of the guillotine is unjustified. It is unworthy of the democratic process that we would come to this in terms of the government using its majority to simply force through legislation without any significant change and without listening to the vast numbers of people who are strongly opposed to it.
"I also want to signal to you, sir, that we have fought this battle now for many, many months, indeed many years" -- this is Robert K. Rae QC --
Mr Bradley: I'll be back.
Mr Stockwell: -- speaking about closure and Sunday shopping, and my friend from St Catharines is going to do, I'm sure, very important constituency work and he will be back to listen.
Mr Rae went on to say: " and it has become perfectly clear to us that the government is bound and determined to have its way. To put it bluntly, we can add that we know the government, if this is what it is determined to do, can in fact force the House to vote and can, according to you and your ruling, sir, close off debate."
This is from the Premier of the province, whose government last night tried to move two closure motions within a mere couple of hours of each other.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): In the middle of the night.
Mr Stockwell: In the middle of the night. So that's closure and I think closure is an important issue, because what that talks about is cutting off the democratic rights of the people of the province of Ontario because there are some 60-odd members now, including the dissidents, representing millions of Ontarians who will not get an opportunity to speak on crucial issues like pay equity.
Mr Rae went on to say -- and I'm putting this on the record because the cynicism out there in the private sector and the public sector, in the taxpaying public, has now reached epic proportions and it has reached these epic proportions because they fundamentally do not trust politicians. They do not trust politicians because they don't tell the truth generally, Mr Speaker, and this probably is another example where truth wasn't close by.
Mr Robert K. Rae QC went on to say:
"They have had opportunities many times along the way to change their minds, to change the bill, to change the law, so that people would have more protection on Sunday than they have now. At each and every opportunity when they were presented with a chance to do something to change the legislation and to change the law, they decided not to do that."
This is kind of a double-edged sword for the Premier because he's not only talking about closure and his opposition to closure fundamentally, as a democratically elected servant of the public, but he's also talking about Sunday shopping. So here's a man whose courage of convictions runs so deep that he stands in this great place and he asks the government to reconsider its closure motion on Sunday shopping, yet as the leader of the government, he's in fact instituted broad, wide-ranging Sunday shopping and in one sitting last night moved closure twice.
Is it really any wonder why there's cynicism in the public today when a member on one side of the House can speak so eloquently about this issue, and on the other side of the House, absolutely forget everything he ever said about it?
1800
He goes on: "In closing, I want to say that in your ruling, sir, I think you have established a very dangerous precedent." I think that's what we were trying to say to the Speaker last night, because we felt that when they moved closure on the extension of the sitting hours, when he moved closure after merely two rounds of debate, some few hours of debate, there was a very important precedent being set. That precedent is that, accordingly, two rounds of debate can now move closure by the government, thereby shutting this House down and usurping any opportunity the opposition, the minority I might add, has to debate important issues of the day.
The Speaker: I don't mean to interrupt the member's speech, especially when he's in full flight. He will not lose any of his time.
My good colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville who normally occupies the chair at this time, on the final sitting day for the pages, established a practice a couple of years ago, at 6 o'clock, because now the pages do leave, of recognizing the pages, saying goodbye to them and wishing them well for the summer. Perhaps they'll come back and visit us on occasion.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We want another song.
The Speaker: I don't think they've got another song, but thank you very much.
I appreciate the indulgence of the member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: I was really hoping that you would stand and yell, "Point of order," so I could ignore you, but since that wasn't the case -- just a little bit of light-hearted humour there, Mr Speaker. Just a very bit, I might add.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Did you get a grant to write that?
Mr Stockwell: It's funny you should say that. The member suggested did I get a grant to write that. I have notes here that I'm going to go to later on and in my notes is the CAW joke school. I would only ask that if you find this the least bit humorous, it's going to be a bit of a lighter bit, because I'm going to have some very intense stuff here, I think. But I think we could cool things out a little later on with the CAW joke school that's taking place probably as we speak.
I hear that when all the members got there, the standard line was, "Boy, I just flew into town and my arms are tired." That's the CAW joke school. They started their speeches out with, "Good evening, ladies and germs." Those union guys are funny people. They're a riot. There are no doubt, I'm sure, whoopee cushions and hand buzzers all over the place at that joke school. So I'm going to entertain that debate later on.
I'm not certain I can stop right now. I think to myself there would be a government grant of some $30,000 given to union members to go to the CAW joke school. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
Mr Hope: -- creative writing in the workplace for a lot of people who hadn't received an education.
The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent will have an opportunity perhaps later on.
Mr Hope: You've got a warped sense of humour.
The Speaker: Would the member for Chatham-Kent relax.
Mr Stockwell: It appears the member for Chatham-Kent is a little perplexed about the CAW joke school, to tell politically correct jokes.
Mr Hope: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The CAW was one of the first ones to move on basic educational skills training, and it's unfortunate the member is making gruesome jokes about individuals who have --
The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent does not have a point of order, but the remarks he makes may be ones that he'd like to enter into the record when he's recognized to participate in this debate. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.
Mr Stockwell: Apparently, the joke school touches a nerve, so maybe I can move to the song club that the unions started with government money, where they would write moving tributes to the union movement. They would put this pen to paper by, I'm sure, a cheap piano and start singing these songs in glorious -- Sid Ryan, in fact, and the union people, I heard them. They're very good singers.
Mr Mahoney: I used to sing all the time.
Mr Stockwell: Clearly, $30,000 to get a choir going and another $30,000 to teach them how to tell politically correct jokes, it seems to me if this member wants to defend it --
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: I haven't even got to the meat of the discussion. I merely started about the CAW joke school and it's just turned these people into savages about not letting me finish my --
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: Now here they are again.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I must tell the House that after 18 years of service to Bendix, when my sister was thrown out of a job, she went to such a school and they taught her how to cope with the emotional stress of not being able to provide for her family. For the member for Etobicoke West to make light of it and to somehow demean those people is profoundly offensive to me and to the people who were knocked out of jobs, and I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to remind him of that.
The Speaker: There is not anything out of order, but I understand the member's concern and I recognize the member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: If we were talking about a program that was teaching people how to reapply for jobs, of course no one would make those comments, but that is not what we're talking about. Let's be very clear. What we're talking about is a school run by the unions to teach people how to tell politically correct jokes. That was reported in the media. That's the comments that were reported on. I can understand the angst if we're talking about teaching people how to reapply for jobs and so on and so forth, but that isn't it, and luckily enough, I have the press reports here:
"An Ontario government agency is forking out $30,000 so 20 Canadian Auto Workers members can spend a week at a retreat discussing humour.
"The money will pay two humorists to prepare and present workshops on labour humour, and will help pay the travel expenses of CAW members who attend the August conference."
So let's get it straight here.
"The Ontario Arts Council made the grant under its artists in the workplace program. The jury that selected the proposal found it 'particularly appealing,' said the council's Naomi Lightbourn. 'The jury thought it was very refreshing. It's very positive.'
"The course, to be offered at the CAW's Family Education Centre in Port Elgin, will be 75% funded by the council. The CAW will pick up the rest of the tab, including travel costs for participants from outside Ontario."
So there's travel costs for participants outside of Ontario at the joke festival for the CAW.
"It's the first time the artists in the workplace program has funded a humour project....
"Bob Beneteau, the CAW member in Windsor who came up with the idea, said the workshop won't be a waste of money. 'Most of the things we have to deal with every day don't really lend themselves to stepping back and having a laugh.'
"He hopes participants will go back to their workplace or into schools and use their skills to make presentations.
"'A lot of good can come from it,' Mr Beneteau said. 'There's lots of working-class culture out there that no one's presenting.'
"The money goes to the humorists involved" -- get this -- "in this case Toronto-based Sheila Gostick and Mike Constable."
We're talking about money going to two comedians to teach CAW members how to tell politically correct jokes. So I don't want to hear the member for Middlesex any more.
Now I move --
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: Look, Mr Speaker, I can understand why they find it somewhat offensive, because that's embarrassing. That is somewhat embarrassing, to think during the social contract and a 5% rollback in wages, service cuts across this province, people aren't sure whether they're going to keep their jobs, layoffs predicted, you are giving 30,000 bucks to teach people how to tell jokes. That's unbelievable, and they can chant and demand all they want. That's the press release. That's the report. Read it. It's simple. It was in the Hamilton Spectator, June 23, 1993.
Mr Hope: They've done the programs.
Mr Stockwell: Apparently the member, Mr Hope, has passed the program or has done the program, and it's clear it doesn't work, so maybe we should rethink it on that approach.
Mr Mahoney: Chris, he's an instructor.
1810
Mr Stockwell: The member from Mississauga suggests he's an instructor.
I don't want to leave the public out there with the impression that what the member for Middlesex said has anything to do with this $30,000. This has nothing to do with the $30,000.
Mr Hope: Yes, it does. That's how closed your mind is.
Mr Stockwell: The $30,000, I will repeat --
Mr Hope: I thought they only put mothballs in closets.
Mr Stockwell: Well, now look. There you go. This is a good program. Mr Hope's working hard. He thought they only put mothballs in closets. Now, that's a $10,000 joke, in my opinion. If he's got a couple more, we might get to $30,000. Keep thinking, Randy. Holy smokes. The money's going to go to the humorists involved.
Why are they so touchy? I know why they're touchy.
Mr Hope: Because it deals with adult education. If it were a joke, I could deal with a joke.
Mr Stockwell: Here's Mr Hope again, jawing on about adult education. This is what the member won't get through his head. The money goes --
Mr Hope: Taking cheap shots at people who need help is a different story.
The Speaker: Order, member for Chatham-Kent.
Mr Stockwell: There it is. The money goes to the humorists involved, in this case: Toronto-based Sheila Gostick and Mike Constable." The money goes to two comedians to teach the CAW members how to tell jokes. I myself think this is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. Clearly, Randy Hope doesn't, so there's a disagreement.
Mr Mahoney: Should have used the money to send them to Gananoque.
Mr Stockwell: They didn't want to go to Gananoque. They didn't want to go there, probably because they didn't think it was funny.
Mr Rae went on in the closure motion that this government tried, as I said, twice last night. I guess I should go right to Mr Charlton's speeches next on closure since he's here. He would probably remember those, and they were fine addresses, I must say. They were very eloquent, those statements that you made.
"In closing, I want to say that in your ruling, sir, I think you have established a very dangerous precedent," and I spoke about that. "I think it is a terrible precedent to say that the majority can in effect, without so much as a by-your-leave, amend the standing orders and simply force through legislation as it wishes....I think it is lamentable that we did not convince you that minorities need more protection in this House, and that is particularly true when they have a government the size of this one."
I think that's what we were saying yesterday. It's very unnerving to know that minorities such as us don't have the kind of protection in this House that this government enjoyed when it was in opposition. "I think we are now living with rules and with precedents in this House which will not stand democracy well at the end of the day." This is Mr Rae: "It would be far better to have real consensus among all the parties as to how the business of the House should be ordered and some greater willingness on the part of the government to at least listen to those of us who are in opposition, to what it is we are trying to do." I think those are very good words that should be used to protect minorities in this House --
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Too bad you don't have any original lines.
Mr Stockwell: I didn't go to the joke schools, so I can't get my own original lines, but I may enrol just to see how it goes.
So those were Mr Rae's comments. I'll go to Mr Charlton's next, because he was a really interesting guy when it came to opposition and closure motions. You'd hardly think it was the same guy who sits over there at the left hand of the Premier and who made this speech in this House in opposition. So I will go directly to his since he's here. They always start out their speeches with --
Mr Tilson: "I want to be brief."
Mr Stockwell: Well, not so much -- anger and frustration, he started his with. He had both anger and frustration. That was welling up inside him clearly, because, "I rise to speak on this government notice of motion with some anger and some frustration in my system -- my political system I suppose it has become." I'm not sure what he meant there, but let's move on. "We have heard a number of my colleagues, specifically the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D.S. Cooke) and the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) last week, and some other members who have participated in this debate, read into the record a number of quotes from Hansard, many of them from the government House leader, some from the present Treasurer and some from the Premier himself during debates in 1982 and 1983 on the question of time allocation."
So you would note that the now House leader was standing on this side of the House on January 30, 1989, reading into the record some positions taken by previous governments on time allocation and how they, on this side of the House, were opposed to time allocation. So it seems really ironic that here we are today debating this motion, and I myself may stand and read into the record some of the comments made by then Mr Charlton, the now House leader, about his opposition to time allocation.
He says, "I find myself getting angry when I hear the government House leader saying that they have to move time allocation so we can get on with other important business."
Lo and behold, he was getting angry when the House leader for the Liberals was saying, "We have to move time allocation so we can get on with other important business." That's exactly the comments that were coming from this side of the House yesterday, and I find it rather shocking and appalling, rather than frustrating and angering, that you, sir, could do exactly what you were trampling against some four years ago.
"He is trying to sell a crock to the people of Ontario. It is the government party, the majority party in this House, which orders the business of this House, not the opposition parties." That was Mr Charlton. Mr Charlton yesterday didn't seem to say these words. He used completely different words.
I think there should be a quorum to hear Mr Charlton's words, because there probably was when he originally said them.
The Speaker: Would the clerk at the table please count to determine if there's a quorum present.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member may resume his remarks.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Charlton went on -- oh, and the member from -- from where? I just want to get that straight because she had a very emotional moment there a minute ago.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Middlesex.
Mr Stockwell: Middlesex -- just came back and I just wanted to read her the press release --
Mr Phillips: London central, I think it is.
Mr Stockwell: Yes. Because it was rather emotional. I just want to be sure that she understands the joke school wasn't in fact what she thought it was.
Mr Mahoney: She's leaving now; you're driving her out.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, gosh. Well, she might be back in the next 60 minutes, and I'll keep that right there because I'd hate to think that she made that great speech and it was wasted; so I could just fill her in on what the joke school's all about.
So we move on to Mr Charlton. And the member for Scarborough Centre is back, good. I'm glad to see you're here.
Mr Charlton goes on to say -- he gets himself angry; the crock of the government that orders the business -- "The government party orders the business in this House, and the government of this province is at liberty to deal with any business it so wishes." You know, that's interesting. They should have done that yesterday. "The government party in this House is not obliged to bring forward the two pieces of legislation which it knows the opposition is going to oppose in every way that it can until the other business it wishes to deal with has been completed. So let us not hear" any more of this from the government.
He says, "In this circumstance in 1989, having run through most of 1988 we have a situation where we have a piece of legislation which the vast majority of the public in Ontario opposes." Now, he's talking about Sunday shopping. So here's another conundrum. Here's this member opposite and he's a double-edged sword too. It's really ironic, don't you think, Mr Speaker? It's really ironic that here the House leader on this side of the House in a double-edged sword is opposing closure and opposing the introduction of Sunday shopping, and lo and behold, here he sits as House leader and he supports Sunday shopping and tries to move closure in the same sitting. You'd think it was almost hypocritical. Some would say that, I'm sure. I'm not being one of those, but some would say that that's rather a hypocritical thing to do.
He's talking about accountability and the legislation being imposed on municipalities. "We have a government that is supposed to be electorally accountable ignoring those whom it is supposed to be responsible to, and we have an opposition doing its best to bring some accountability to bear."
1820
There it is. This is all laid out. It's just awful. You think about it. It's awful that somebody can stand on this side of the House and make these kinds of grandiose statements, and get to the other side of the House and do exactly what they opposed with such anger and frustration. You've got to think that this would drive somebody out of the House if someone were reading Hansard into the record about them, and you know, it just did.
"I say to my friend that the local councils have no confidence in the government." He's saying the local councils have no confidence in the then previous administration. "They have told the government point-blank, clearly, that we do not want this legislation. The government is forcing it down their throats, treating them like babies and spoon-feeding them."
My goodness, what do you think of Bill 48, Mr Charlton? If you think the municipalities didn't like Sunday shopping and it was spoon-feeding, what are you doing with them on Bill 48? Geez, they don't like that bill any better than they did this.
He goes on and he says the word "joke," but it's not about anything humorous here. "Bill 114, which is also covered by this time allocation motion, is a joke. I have heard a number of members comment on this bill this afternoon. I am going to take a slightly different tack."
He thinks it's a joke to have time allocation. I ask the members opposite, how come none of you think that time allocation is a joke? Because your cabinet, en masse almost from previous Houses, thought it was a terrible thing to do, and they did it on stuff that had been debated for hours upon hours, second, third reading, a year, two years of debate and then they opposed time allocation. You know, it's unbelievable how different things have become.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: It was then. The whip, Fred Wilson, a member from down east, up east, says that was then and this is now, and that's really wearing out. I talked to some constituents out there and they hear you say, "That was then and this is now," but they're cynical now. They're real cynical. They think that you might have just said these things to get elected. I'm not so sure they're all wrong.
"Time allocation motions, which amount in the words of the government House leader to closure, are motions" -- now here he says -- "that should never be brought without very serious reserve on the part of the government that brings them. I am going to have to suggest that not only has this government not seriously considered the ramifications of using time allocation in a trivial situation like this one to force through bad legislation, legislation which ultimately is going to come back to haunt it, but that it certainly has not considered it as carefully as I give credit to its predecessor doing in 1982 and 1983."
He's saying this is bad legislation. We're moving closure and it's Sunday shopping. Now gosh, you people adopted Sunday shopping. You embraced it with a new vigour that's not been seen in this province, not just local option; it's just wide-open Sunday. I can't get over this. These words come back to haunt you, and I think it's important that we do a little haunting today.
And Mr Conway's defence that it was unproductive "to rethrash the straw" and the legislative days have stretched out and so on and of course, you didn't buy that.
Mr Robert K. Rae QC is clearly on the record and the House leader, Mr Charlton, is clearly on the record -- and as I said about Mr Charlton, you were on the record. It was a double-edged sword: Sunday shopping and closure. And lo and behold, I just said, here you sit on that side of the House and you voted in favour of Sunday shopping and you tried to move closure twice last night. Pretty hard to believe how times have changed.
Your policies and principles and positions have changed so dramatically that you could stand here in this House and do things that you detested -- no, he didn't just detest; caused him anger and frustration. He has certainly mellowed, this man; he must have mellowed because he wasn't the least bit angry or frustrated last night.
Mr Mahoney: Some $30,000 a year does that to you.
Mr Stockwell: The member from Mississauga points out that $31,000 a year and a car does that to you. I don't like to think those things, but I think there are people who are thinking those things, and you'd better be very careful.
I have a lot of respect for Mr Farnan. I was glad to see him reappointed -- he's not in cabinet, but I was glad to see him reappointed -- to the junior minister of Education. He's still a step away from the cabinet table, but in no time I think he'll be back in the cabinet. I have a lot of respect for Mr Farnan.
Mr Mahoney: Did they educate him at joke school?
Mr Stockwell: No, he didn't go to joke school, I don't think. I'm still looking for the member for Middlesex. She hasn't come back. I'll just keep this joke school thing handy so I can straighten her out. I'd hate to think that rant was wasted, but apparently it was.
Mr Farnan, who was a very interesting guy when it came to opposition, was a really eloquent guy who spoke and walked with the people. He walked with the people on closure and on Sunday shopping and, lo and behold, again, here he's on the record, "The moment of truth has arrived," he started his speech. He was more of a statesman. You can see that he started out with a real point.
He wasn't frustrated or angry, he cut to the chase: "The moment of truth has arrived. The Liberal government's lack of accessibility will clearly demonstrate that what we have now is an arrogant and insensitive government, out of touch with the people of Ontario."
Now, he got that exercised about one closure motion on Sunday shopping. I'd hate to think if he were in opposition now. He got that upset over one closure motion on Sunday shopping. Now we know he's changed his vote; they moved closure twice yesterday. And that got him this upset. It's astounding. If he were on this side of the House, he would have exploded.
"Before examining the events that have surrounded the Sunday work legislation over the last several months, I invite the viewing audience" -- he's speaking to the cameras -- "I invite the people of Ontario and indeed I invite my honourable colleagues to cast their minds back to those lazy, hazy days of the summer of 1987. I would like to recall the image of open, accessible government that was presented to the people of Ontario."
You could almost just put in "those lazy, hazy days of 1990," when open and accessible and full of integrity and so on was presented to the people of the province of Ontario, when you people were opposed to closure and Sunday shopping and you were in favour of government-run auto insurance and you wouldn't have reopened a collective agreement if they tried to cut your toes off.
I'll go on: "The people of Ontario will recall the member for London Centre" -- he's speaking about the Premier, Mr Peterson -- "mingling with the crowds, sleeves rolled up, tie undone, reaching out across the barriers, touching hands and listening." He's a good speaker, this guy.
"It was very much a Hollywood package, a package of an open, accessible candidate for Premier of the province presenting what he promised, an open and accessible government. Indeed, during his very first days there was a wonderful, symbolic gesture in which the Premier opened the doors of the Premier's office to allow the media to come in, to allow the public to come. Again, it was to project to the people of Ontario that indeed we were heralding the new era of open and accessible government."
You'd think that was the same thing that happened in 1990. This is Mr Farnan on this side of the House, not the junior minister today, the one who was opposed to closure and Sunday shopping. What else did he have to say? His is riddled with interesting quotes.
"The reality of the matter, my friends, is that there was no new era." He said, "The people of Ontario were deceived; they were taken in. First, they were taken in by a temporary openness forced on the government during minority government, an openness the New Democrats insisted upon. Second, they were taken in by the false sense of hope for greater openness, a major Liberal campaign theme given to the voters in September 1987. It is a theme that we can look back on now in the light of events that have surrounded the issue of Sunday work and say the people of Ontario were taken in."
I say that if Mr Peterson took them in, then in 1990, Mr Rae took them in the exact same way.
"As a new member," he goes on, "I was somewhat surprised. I thought there was some correlation between what a political party said when it was seeking election and what it would do after an election."
Can you imagine somebody of the NDP saying that in opposition? Can you believe it, after the flip-flops that have taken place on that side of the House, that they would have the audacity to criticize anyone for changing their minds after an election, and it was on closure and Sunday shopping? You know, this is just a frank, open damnation of this government, its 1990 campaign, everything they stood for in the three years since they've been elected. It's just a damnation.
Mr Farnan could just as easily, probably better, stand in this House today on this side of the House and make this speech about you and your record for the past three years.
He says, "It's a few short months and this government has forgotten where it stood on a lot of issues, Mr Speaker." He said that they "flip-flopped on the issue of open Sunday shopping, presenting a position that it did not have during the election."
It's unbelievable. Hansard's a great thing, isn't it? It's just riddled with these kinds of crazy quirks of how these people were in opposition, and the holier than thou, sanctimonious positions they took, and in government how you've just completely sold out. Closure's important. Do you know why closure's important? That's why it's dominating my talk today. Closure just cuts off any hope for real opposition.
1830
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): No, it cuts down on the rhetoric.
Mr Stockwell: It closes off on any hope -- and the member from --
Mr Abel: Wentworth North.
Mr Stockwell: Abel, Mr Abel, I don't know his riding, he says it cuts down on the rhetoric, but that isn't what his leader was saying on this side of the House. That's not what he said about closure on Sunday shopping. You see, he was a different person on this side of the House, it seems to me, because Sunday shopping was something he valued and he didn't consider his opposition to Sunday shopping rhetoric, as I didn't consider it rhetoric. I think a lot of people out there didn't consider it rhetoric, but when you go to that side of the House and move closure on this side and vote in favour of Sunday shopping and you don't put in government-run auto insurance and take the flip-flops that you've done, don't give me this rhetoric debate.
Mr Abel: It's a matter of perception.
Mr Stockwell: It's a matter of perception. I'm not certain -- the member, Mr Abel, says it's a matter of perception.
Mr Abel: Wentworth North.
Mr Stockwell: Wentworth North. I don't understand his matter of perception on Sunday shopping, I honestly don't. I classify that as an utter sellout, a complete flip-flop. That's what it appears to me. Those people who supported you on Sunday shopping think the same way. They think it's a sellout. Your position was etched in stone and then it changed dramatically. So don't tell me about rhetoric. It was clearly rhetoric to get yourself elected and that's the worst kind of rhetoric.
"It was bad enough that this legislation represented a broken promise." This is Mr Farnan again. "We all recall the Premier during the course of the election stating very clearly: 'We favour the recommendations of the select committee. We are in favour of a common pause day.' Yet remarkably he leads a government that is going to undermine a common pause day in Ontario and had to be forced to take the legislation out to the people of Ontario. That is a remarkable transformation. As a new member, I had to sit here and wonder: Why did the Premier do this? Why did the Premier change his mind on this? Where did the ideas come from?"
That's an NDP member talking in opposition, the junior minister talking in opposition. I spread this out across the floor because the list is endless, absolutely endless, on the position this government took on closure, on Sunday shopping, on all these issues, and the disgraceful way they've abandoned these policies in government.
It's not surprising the people aren't listening to you any more. It's not surprising you get 8% of the vote in Don Mills and St George-St David. It's not surprising polls came back in those ridings and you didn't get a single vote. It really isn't surprising. They're cynical out there and you've created this cynicism; it has never run deeper, never. Has the cynicism in the general population ever run deeper? Because I think they were believing you. They felt you were the principled party in opposition which would carry forward on what you said in the election, and the cynicism has never run as deep because if there's ever been a measuring stick for broken promises, you have to be the new high-water mark. You haven't just broken your promises, you've absolutely assassinated them.
As I said, the list is endless, and I want to come to deal with some of the other issues that we're facing today. I could go on with Mr Farnan. He made a couple of great speeches here on closure and Sunday shopping and time allocation and those terrible, dastardly things that arrogant, self-centred governments move. I don't hear him saying that about his own government, but those are the kind of things he said. And I've got Mr Cooke on the record and Mr Hampton on the record and of course you heard from Robert K. Rae QC.
I'm looking back for the member for Middlesex. She's still not here. I'll have to update her on the joke school later.
I've got a few points I'd like to make on some of the other issues facing this province today. I want to talk quickly on one of them that I don't think is a huge issue out there to a lot of people but I find it offensive, and that's photo radar. Why do I find it offensive? I find it offensive for the same reason I find offensive seeing Metropolitan Toronto police sitting at the bottom of a hill in a school zone at 10:30 at night. I find that offensive because I don't really think they're governing the laws of the city or the province. I think they're there to create revenue for the government.
It's really not good revenue, because you go through a school zone at 40 kilometres an hour and if you're going 50 or 55 kilometres an hour, you'll find that you get a ticket, and you get a big ticket. I don't think somebody's speeding at 50 kilometres an hour or 55 kilometres an hour through a school zone at the bottom of the hill, which is really a tough place to physically slow down in.
I get the same impression on this photo radar business. I get that same impression, because do you want to know where they set this photo radar, where the test project is? It's on Highway 403. There are many stretches on the 403 where the speed limit's 80 kilometres. You'd hardly know it was 80 kilometres, because it's a wide, open stretch of highway, just recently been built, a very, very, very good piece of road. I would bet a lot of people drive through there at speeds well in excess of 80 kilometres an hour. I think they drive through there probably at 100, 105, 110. You know what? I don't necessarily think they're driving badly. I don't think they think they're speeding in a lot of instances because the speed limit seems artificially low.
You ask yourself, "Why did they introduce photo radar?" I don't honestly believe it's to create a safer road. If they had wanted to a create a safer road, they could have built better roads or fixed roads that are broken. That creates a lot of accidents as well. Put up stop signs and lights. That could stop a lot of unnecessary accidents and deaths. But this photo radar seems to me to be an end run, a back-door use to generate revenue, and they're doing it under the guise of protecting the public travelling in their cars.
I find it offensive because I think it's a process to generate revenue. The more people I talk to about it, the more offended they are, because if they truly wanted to make people safer drivers, they'd put the photo radar in place so you could identify the driver. If you could identify the driver and the driver knew that if he went speeding through here, he could personally get a ticket, then I think there could be some merit in it because people may slow down, because when you get a ticket, you lose points.
Some people are upset because of the money they spend. Others are upset because of the points, because if they get so many points, they lose their licence. But that isn't the case. They just take a picture of the licence plate and it doesn't matter who's driving that car, whether it's the husband, the wife, the kids, or you lent it to somebody: The car gets the ticket. The person who owns the car has to pay the ticket, and he may well not have been driving the car. You wonder, is this really put in place to protect the people in the province, or is it put in place to generate revenue? It's been put in place to generate revenue, in my opinion.
The other thing that frustrates me is that there's been an appeal out there by the car rental industry. They're really hammered about this, they're upset, and I speak from experience. They're very, very upset about this because when someone rents a car, they can now travel the province's highways at excessive speeds and not have any fear about getting a ticket or losing points, because when that photo radar clicks that licence plate going by, the ticket will be sent to the rental company that owns the car. What is that doing? Is that providing safer highways? Is that scaring people to slow down? Not at all. It's just generating revenue, all under the guise of safety.
I wanted to comment on that because I think it's --
Mr Abel: You better not loan your car out.
Mr Stockwell: That's the point. The member from Wentworth says, "You better not loan your car." It's true: You better not loan your car.
The ones who are going to be impacted by this if photo radar goes through, I think, are the kids, the kids who have to get to school or get to their jobs and so on and so forth. The parents are going to think twice about giving them the car because you're going to get speeding tickets and you're not going to be responsible for them yourself.
I know that if you get one speeding ticket at 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit in an 80-kilometre zone, $120 isn't that unusual. You're talking about hundreds and hundreds of dollars. That's a lot of money. That isn't stopping one driver from speeding. That's not creating one safer road. That's just creating revenue for the province of Ontario. I find that a little concerning.
I went over the CAW joke school, and I get down to borrowing costs. I want to talk about the OMA first.
When this government was in opposition, the OMA, the Ontario Medical Association -- let me just say this: The Ontario Medical Association, I think, has been very responsible in its approach to this government. I say that because every time this government has gone back to the OMA to review a contract, to renegotiate a contract, the Ontario Medical Association has agreed. I think they've gone back on a number of occasions, two or three times. They made several attempts to go back and review contracts.
I think the OMA deserves to have a quorum here, Mr Speaker, to hear its concerns registered.
1840
The Speaker: Will the Clerk count to determine if a quorum is present?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member can resume his remarks.
Mr Stockwell: I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke West for calling that quorum. I think it's important that we have 20 members in the House to hear these issues.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Mr Mahoney: He went to the joke school.
Mr Stockwell: I went to the joke school. There's a bit of humour offered up.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Excuse me? The Minister of Agriculture is bellowing.
Hon Mr Buchanan: You went to the library to get some Hansards.
Mr Stockwell: I went to the library to get some Hansards. This could be a very successful program, this joke school. They could enrol a series of ministers and members.
I want to talk about the OMA agreement, because of all the groups, the friends of this government were supposed to be the unions. The unions were the friends of this government, and I specifically speak about the public unions.
I think about the teachers. The teachers did a lot for you last election. They did a lot for you to try to get you elected. The Minister of Agriculture knows that, being an ex-teacher or probably on leave. Don't give up that leave either, Mr Minister. Being the minister on leave, he knows the work that teachers did. Mr Wiseman, the member for Durham West, being a teacher on leave himself, knows the work that teachers did to help you people get this kind of crazy majority of a 37% vote.
The thing about it is that the teachers and the public service employees, Sid Ryan and his group, Liz Barkley and her group and Fred Upshaw and his group, it's kind of funny to me how uncooperative they've been with you when it comes to negotiating this wage rollback -- they haven't been cooperative -- because these are the people you counted as friends. You counted these people as friends when you were in opposition and you were campaigning.
Yet the Ontario Medical Association, which you never counted as a friend, in fact you were polarized against it on a number of issues, not the least of which was user fees, has been the most cooperative group when it comes to your breaking agreements and not keeping your word when it comes to negotiated settlements. Here's a group that has come to the table on a number of occasions to review and renew contracts with the idea of rolling them back, and they've done so willingly. Well, maybe not willingly, but they've at least done so and come to the table and renegotiated contracts.
I'm not sure if it was the member for Beaches-Woodbine who was the Minister of Health at the time, I'm not certain, but I remember the fanfare there was announcing the seven-year doctors' agreement. I recall vividly in opposition saying that seven years will not stand. I don't know why the member for Scarborough Centre's applauding, because it didn't stand. You had to go back and renegotiate. The doctors came to the table in the spirit of goodwill and negotiations. They in fact came back to renegotiate their deal and they did so without so -- well, not much, anyway -- public muttering.
I see the member leaving, but it's a true statement, whereas the Sid Ryans and Liz Barkleys and Fred Upshaws, your friends before the election, have done nothing but drag their feet and tear down every attempt you've ever made to do the same thing with them. I find that kind of shocking, and you know what it says to me? It gives me a greater sense of duty that the Ontario Medical Association has.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Does that bother you?
Mr Stockwell: No, I think it's good on their part. I think it's proven their mettle, and you know what it's proven to me is that they have a true sense of social conscience. They understand the dilemma that you've put yourselves in. They understand that you couldn't live up to the agreement which you so foolhardily signed in the first place, and they've come back to the table and said, "Yes, we fleeced you, we took advantage of you, and maybe you were not very bright in those first few months, but we're going to be happy to renegotiate it with the idea of renegotiating it down." I think that's a comment on the OMA and I think they deserve a pat on the back for that.
I only wish the Sid Ryans and Liz Barkleys and Fred Upshaws of the world had as much of a social conscience and as much responsibility as the Ontario Medical Association has, because they also received substantial increases over the past three years and they've done nothing but cause you headache after headache on these social contract negotiations and all you've done is to go out of your way to try and approve a deal that probably won't save a lot of money but may protect some jobs. So I'm sincerely disappointed in that crowd.
I did read in the paper that Sid Ryan doesn't think the Conservative Party -- Sid Ryan says that we're not a friend of the worker. Now that really discourages me. Sid Ryan thinks that we're not a friend of the worker. I guess he doesn't think you're a friend of the worker either, because he was saying that in the context that we voted in favour of Bill 48. So the only friend of the worker in the province of Ontario is the Liberal Party. I note Mr Mahoney is here. The only member in this House whom Sid Ryan considers to be a friend of the worker would be Steve Mahoney right now, the member from Mississauga.
But isn't that a terrible thought, that a government trying to institute a program of cost savings would be tarnished like that by a head of a union, not to be a friend of the worker because you're trying to save money for the benefit of the taxpayers? It discourages me that Sid Ryan would say that. It discourages me that Fred Upshaw would take the hard-line position.
It discourages me that Liz Barkley -- and I'll say this carefully: teachers. Probably a group of people who could afford to take, if any group could afford to take a cut as well as the OMA, it would be teachers. It seems to me that their pay packets are fairly good, their pension plans are second to none, and if anyone could suffer a 5% rollback and feel it as little as anyone, it would be teachers. So I'm discouraged that Liz Barkley has taken this hard line, and, you know, it's out of touch and out of step with the constituents out there. It's out of step with what the people of this province are thinking today.
I was knocking on doors a couple of weeks ago in my riding. We were knocking on doors to try to get a local school opened by the school board. I was in what I would consider to be an upper-middle-class neighbourhood, people who I think were reasonably secure and reasonably wealthy. As I went through there knocking on doors to try and get an average number of children in the area so we could determine whether or not we could open our school, it astounded me to find that in my three or four streets I did there were two houses that I came to that had notices of foreclosure on them.
I always thought this neighbourhood was a rather stable, upper-income neighbourhood, and it was rather scary for me to think that, before this, a family lived there and a family was raising their children and now when I came to the door I just saw one of those sheriff's postings that said this house, according to some bank or trust company, has been foreclosed on.
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Damn banks.
Mr Stockwell: Damn banks, the member says, and sometimes I agree with you. There are some damn banks out there.
But, you know, it was really discouraging for me to see that, because I think to myself of the kids who lived there and the families that were living there and the difficulty that now they are probably faced with upon being foreclosed on. I mean, who knows where they went to live? Who knows what they were doing at this time? Their house wasn't their home any more. It was something that caused me a lot of thought that night when I went home, and it's something that really has bothered me since.
The recession and this terrible time we're going through, we often hear about the homeless and the food programs and all those things that get a lot of profile because they have a lot of proponents speaking about them. But you don't get a lot of people talking about the houses that have been foreclosed on and the families that have left their homes and neighbourhoods, and the children who got pulled out of their schools and don't go to their same schools any more. They're just a family. There's nobody speaking on their behalf. There are no loud demonstrations down here. It's just a quiet evolution that's closing down the areas and neighbourhoods that I know in Metropolitan Toronto.
1850
I just think to myself that we often give a lot of thought to the food programs and to the homeless, and so it should be, but it's not often anyone comes in here and talks about, "Joe Blow around the corner from my house got foreclosed on last week, his children who used to go to school up the street don't go to school there any more and he moved in someplace with a family friend."
That, to me, was a very worrisome thing. It has bothered me quite a bit actually, because, as I said before, these kinds of things don't get a lot of public profile. The strength of our neighbourhoods is the people who live in them. I don't think there's anything that hit home quite to me as hard: There but for the grace of God go I, which is all of us, if we lost our jobs. Nothing has hit home quite as hard as going around that day to those four or five streets and finding those homes that were foreclosed on.
I've talked about the OMA agreements and photo radar and the CAW joke school. I want to talk about the crown corporations that you've set up. I'm not a believer in borrowing money by governments, because I don't think the governments have the ability to pay it back. That's my belief. I think to myself that politicians are generally human by nature, and "human by nature" means that if you can put off till tomorrow a decision that is an unpleasant one, you will do that.
Mr Paul Johnson: Procrastinate.
Mr Stockwell: They procrastinate, yes. I don't trust any government of any party. If I were in a party that was in government, the first thing I would do is vote for a balanced budget motion.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): You would ask for a recount.
Mr Stockwell: I did go through a recount once, the member suggests.
Hon Mr Wildman: No, if you won government, you would ask for a recount.
Mr Stockwell: No, I wouldn't. I don't think I'd ask for a recount. Although did you hear the CAW joke school? I would like to send an application to the Minister of Environment and Energy, because the joke school may work.
But why I would ask for a balanced budget is because I don't think you or the Liberals or we are capable of borrowing money and paying it back. I don't think we are because we procrastinate and we put off tough decisions and we have a tough time saying no, and borrowing money is a lot easier than telling a bunch of people, "No, I don't have enough money."
I don't like borrowing money. I think the municipalities are only in as good a shape as they are today, which is significantly better than you and significantly better than the federal government, because they never could borrow. They never had the legislation that allowed them to borrow. If they couldn't borrow, they made tough decisions. We used to make tough decisions every year at council when it came to budget time, because we couldn't say, "Yes, give everybody money and we'll go and borrow it and pay it back next year," which of course is what provincial and federal governments did.
When we talk about crown corporations, it concerns me that now you've moved another little trick in your bag of financial wizardry. You've set up a bunch of crown corporations to process some of your debt off on.
I think there should be a quorum to hear this, Mr Speaker, because I think it's important.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West can continue.
Mr Stockwell: I'm bringing this crowd in here for quorum, because I think it's important to talk about the crown corporations you've set up. I forget it's name, but I call it the jiggery-pokery act, these crown corporations you've set up to move some debt off your books on to their books.
Why does that bother me? It bothers me for a couple of reasons. The only times you've allowed other corporations to go out -- I don't mean you specifically; I mean governments -- to borrow, they've got themselves in a hell of a mess. I think of Hydro. They have borrowed themselves silly. Mr Maurice Strong is up there now trying to rein in that operation, and that is a tough job. I give Mr Strong full marks. Have you noticed? As Energy critic for my party, I've not asked a question in this Legislature because I think Mr Strong is doing a bang-up job. I'll say that publicly; I'll say it here. He is doing a bang-up job with a very difficult situation.
But why is he in a difficult situation? One of the reasons is that Marc Eliesen and previous people who have been in that position have allowed that operation --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Wildman: There was a fellow named Franklin as I recall.
Mr Stockwell: I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's just his fault, but previous chairmen and previous operators of that facility have made some very crucial errors in judgement, and when you make crucial errors in judgement in business, it only does one thing: It costs you a lot of money. This facility is in serious debt crisis. So we speak of that one.
What's another one that can go out there and, to a degree borrow, differently but borrow? WCB. I know the Minister of Labour knows all about WCB. WCB has an unfunded liability that literally changes monthly, it's going up so quick. Is it $12 billion now? I don't think that's unreasonable. A $12-billion unfunded liability. That's another government agency that was given quasi-capacity to borrow.
So we think of Hydro, we think of WCB, and we think of us.
Mr Abel: Forget about lights, forget about the injured workers.
Mr Stockwell: The member from Wentworth says forget about the injured workers, forget about lights. I'm not arguing with you that those things are important things, but that isn't the issue. They won't be important in the next generation if we can't afford to fund them.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): They're not important to you, though, Chris.
Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview says they're not important to me. They are important to me. Don't think you've cornered the market on compassion. Just because I attack an issue from a different angle doesn't mean it's not important to me, and only to you. I think it's important because I want to get its fiscal house in order; otherwise, it won't exist. Don't you see?
Mr Mammoliti: You said you don't want anything to do with workers' compensation; that's what you said.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Mammoliti: That tells me that you don't care.
Mr Stockwell: The member isn't even in his seat.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Yorkview will come to order.
Mr Stockwell: I'm just attacking it from a different angle, because if this isn't rectified quickly, they won't exist. WCB won't exist. You can't keep going into debt without one day having to pay the piper. We think of three organizations that are either given the authority to borrow or a quasi ability to borrow, and they're all in debt up to their eyeballs.
On principle alone, on that basic principle, I will not support the crown corporation deal you're starting. That's the idea that we strike three or four different agencies that have the capacity to go out and borrow and build roads or build sewers or create clean water. I know what will happen, as sure as we're standing here today: In 10 or 15 years they're going to be in big-time debt. It's a natural evolution of any government agency, because the bottom line is that nobody owns it and nobody's there day to day to ensure their dollars are being spent wisely. That to me is a scary thing, because as these things gear up, these three corporations, you will discover that we're going to be further and further in debt because they have the capacity to borrow.
That's just a fundamental disagreement I have with you people, and I honestly thought you held that opinion. I'm not quoting NDP policy chapter and verse, but as I recall, in the water-sewage deal that the Liberals were putting forward, you were opposed, opposed fundamentally, because of the reporting structure and so on and so forth. It seems to me that you've done primarily the same thing here.
1900
I know why you've done it; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why you've done it. You've done it because you want to keep that deficit figure under $10 billion: this year you moved $800 million off book, next year I think it's $1.7 billion, and the year after it's something like $2.6 billion. I can understand why you're doing it, because it's a way of moving that deficit off book and getting your deficit numbers down a little. You'll say, "We're doing a good job," but you ignore those crown corp deficits. I don't find that very honest. I think that's a big reason.
The other reason I think you're doing it is that come 1995, when the election's called, you're going to want to look like good fiscal managers. You've screwed up any credibility you had in the first couple of years, I think, with your billions in borrowing and your spending and so on. There's not many people out there who would classify you as good fiscal managers. But I think you think that by moving these corporations off book, you're not only going to move your deficit off book; I think you think you're going to move employees off book. You're still going to have those employees and you're still going to be responsible for their payroll and you're still going to have to guarantee their borrowing, but when it comes down to the basic public sector, you're going to exclude them. Come 1995, they're going to say, "How many employees do you have?" and you're going to say, "We have x minus what those people had, so we have y, and we've cut employees by this much," but they'll only be in these crown corporations. I think that's, to a degree, a machiavellian plan you've devised.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Read the bill some time.
Mr Stockwell: I did read the bill, and that's what I think you're going to do. I think you're going to do that because that's why you set up these corporations. I don't understand why you'd set them up otherwise. Anything these things can do, anything this group can do, you could have done internally. There's nothing they do that you couldn't have done internally. If I can stand to be corrected, I look forward to that, but I've checked it and there's nothing they could do that you couldn't do internally. If you wanted to lend money the way you're going to lend it out and then pay it off over 20 years and so on, you could do that internally with the boards of education and so on. If you wanted to create a balanced building process between the private sector and government, you could do that internally. There's nothing to say that you have to create one of these quasi-corporations.
I don't know why you did it unless those were the big, compelling reasons. It seems to me that you're so fixated on your deficit -- which I don't think is wrong -- that this was a compelling reason. But I don't believe for a moment that there's some kind of long-range plan taking place that will in fact deal with that. That bothers me. Those crown corporations really, really bother me.
I know what's going to happen. In five or six years they're going to have huge debts and when we get into power we're going to have to deal with those debts, just like in Bill 48, where there's going to be a pile of deferred payments for payroll there and we're going to have to deal with that. It really is concerning, because here we'll be in government and we'll have all these bills we're going to have to pay.
I want to talk briefly in my closing portion about one of the things I think you've done, one of the programs you took over. I'm glad the Minister of Environment and Energy, Mr Wildman, is here today, because if there's one process you have thoroughly messed up, one process you've absolutely botched from the word go, it was the landfill issue, the dumps. Now, I've known the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for a number of years, and I know her position on landfill issues.
I think there should be a quorum to hear this, too, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has the floor.
Mr Stockwell: I'd like to thank myself again for calling that quorum, because I think it's important to have a quorum here.
Mr Mammoliti: Are you refreshed? You look refreshed.
Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview is asking if I'm refreshed. Thank you for your concern, sir. Yes, I'm refreshed. The member for Yorkview should note that if he's not busy in the latter part of this month, there's a joke school taking place. Sheila Gostick and Mike Constable will be giving a joke conference in August. It might be of interest for you to go. You may enjoy it. It may help your political career, you never know.
Why do I want to talk about the IWA? The Minister of Environment's here, so I'm glad. If there's one issue you have thoroughly messed up, screwed up from the word go, it's this one. Probably it's had as much exposure as your financial crisis and mismanagement, but probably more so in the greater Toronto area than outside.
Being on Metropolitan Toronto council during the period when we were searching for a long-term landfill site, we took this job very seriously and went to great lengths to accommodate the provincial government in its hope of finding a willing host.
Mr Jim Wilson: Spent millions.
Mr Stockwell: Literally millions. We spent millions and millions of dollars to try to be a fair and reasonable owner of a landfill site in the province of Ontario.
I think a quorum should be here to hear this too, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is indeed a quorum.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has the floor.
Mr Stockwell: I think back to the time we were discussing the IWA. We had a couple of commissioners of works, Mr Frank Horgan and Mr Bob Ferguson -- Mr Horgan is the member from Simcoe's uncle -- and they were extremely good at their jobs. We spent a lot of time trying to find a long-term landfill site.
During that process, we had a number of public hearings in neighbourhoods and areas and parts of this province that did not want a landfill site. This government got elected and immediately stopped any process that was taking place. It seems to me that what they have done in the past three years is absolutely nothing. They've been spinning their wheels, and all they've done is to upset practically every community surrounding the greater Toronto area.
I couldn't have asked for a better political tool than what the Minister of the Environment then, Ruth Grier, did. She succeeded in upsetting 57 communities around the greater Toronto area. She upset them because she created this mythical, hopeless process to find a landfill site, when we knew full well, having gone through the process for three or four years, that in the greater Toronto area there are only four or five legitimate sites. We in this party said, "Why waste another three years doing what we've already spent the last four years doing?"
1910
After three years of public input, I say to the Minister of Environment, after three years of wasted tax dollars, of upsetting community after community out there, what does your report say? Your report says we should go to these three, four or five communities for a landfill site, and they're the very same communities that we had picked three years ago, that we told you were the only acceptable sites. I think of the $30 million you've spent on this process to establish what was already established. It was such a waste of money.
I'm going to start crystal-ball-gazing on this issue. I think this Minister of Environment --
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Is the best we've ever had.
Mr Stockwell: -- is the best this government has ever had. I think this Minister of Environment, upon announcing the final three sites, is going to also do one other thing. I'm saying this long in advance of what -- I just get this sense, I get this feeling, I get this certainty taking place. Any time I've had a call on this government, I've got to admit, I've been pretty close. I think he's going to say he's going to allow an environmental assessment hearing on Kirkland Lake.
I look at Mr Wildman. I don't want him talking to the member from Kingston. I want him to listen to this prognostication. Mr Wildman, I think that you are going on the announcement to call for an environmental hearing process on Kirkland Lake. I think that's going to happen. I think that because it seems to me, and I'll be clear about this, that everything you've done in the past three years has led you to finally deciding that what Metro was doing four or five years previous to your being elected was a worthwhile exercise, because the only conclusions you've come to are the exact same conclusions it came to.
Furthermore, you're also going to find out that poor Mr Wiseman is going to bail out big time, that Mr O'Connor is going to have real difficulty, that Mr Drummond White and my friend Gordon Mills are going to have some real, real concerns with the announcement that you make, so by announcing an environmental process on Kirkland Lake, it's going to, you think, get them off the hook. The only problem is that it won't get them off the hook enough to win the next election. But it may turn some people who aren't quite as mad as the majority of the people in their ridings.
That is what I think will happen. I want the Minister of Environment, maybe in the two-minute questions and answers, and again he's talking to the member from Kingston, to get up in the questions and answers and put that terrible rumour to rest that is out there, that on announcing the final dump sites, you are in fact going to call for a full environmental hearing review on the Kirkland Lake site. If you could put that rumour to rest, you'd probably create more unrest out there in the greater Toronto area, but I think you should do that.
In summing up, I've touched on quite a few issues. I've touched on Hansard's ability to come back and bite members in government from when they were in opposition. I've talked about photo radar, which is something that bothers me. I'm glad I got it on the record, because it's been really ticking me off. I think it's just a revenue generator. I've talked about the CAW joke school.
It's a shame. In my whole address, an hour and a half, the member for Middlesex, who got really upset, still didn't come back so I could read her the press release that was released by the CAW. It says clearly and categorically in here -- I don't know about her sister and what course she's in, but it's clearly not this course, because this course, the CAW joke school, for $30,000 of government money, is hiring two comedians, Sheila Gostick and Michael Constable to hold a joke forum at the CAW retreat in August in Port Elgin. That, to me, is not anything the member for Middlesex is talking about. I get the impression that she doesn't want to hear this. I think she's staying out of this House on purpose until I sit down so she won't be embarrassed by hearing this. I know that's imputing motive, but after an hour and a half, you have to wonder, maybe this member is avoiding this place.
Mr Owens: Where are the rest of your colleagues?
Mr Stockwell: The member for Scarborough Centre pipes up. I say to you, sir, if you get any more comfortable, you may well fall asleep.
Mr Owens: What's Mikey hiding from?
Mr Stockwell: The member for Scarborough Centre is heckling me in his usual fashion. I don't know where he is, but if you really want to know, I'll find out for you. I don't know what you're doing there, but I wonder if it hurt.
I touched on the CAW joke school, Bill 48, my concerns about Bill 48. I'm a believer in the bang, bang, bang scenario: 5% across the board for everybody, roll it back. I talked about borrowing costs and the crown corporations. The Ontario Medical Association: That's an important issue to me. I talked about the crown corporations and the fact that they're going to be allowed to borrow, and the lack of progress in this place.
I didn't get a chance to get around to the conservation authorities, but it seems to me that a government that is so intent on planning and the planning process, and the zoning and development of areas -- the member for Scarborough Centre waves his hand in entire delight, but I think you've got a lot to answer for. On local councils, your representatives in the New Democratic Party, one of whom was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, held very, very firm convictions about conservation authorities and their ability to deem land to be public.
Do you realize the crisis you're putting this conservation authority in today by taking all this very rare and public open space that we create parkland with and forcing these conservation authorities to put this property on the chopping block, to be sold off to the highest bidder, which no doubt will be none other than a developer? All this public open space, this parkland, will become developable.
I find that offensive. I find it offensive for a government that believed in parkland, in zoning, in public open space, in densities and the planning process to in one fell swoop create more lousy development in parks than any government in the history of this province.
The last thing I want to do is that I want to go on the record for the poor people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, because there's an issue out there that I think the member has not spoken to very well. The issue is the development of psychiatric grounds. It's a personal, local issue that I dealt with when I was on council. This member, when the Conservatives closed down the psychiatric hospital, was absolutely apoplectic. She suggested that all they were doing was opening the doors and letting the patients walk the streets of Toronto.
So I am myself absolutely astounded that a short week or so ago, the same member who chastised a Conservative government in the late 1970s and early 1980s for the closing of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore psychiatric grounds would in fact be doing the very same thing. No shaking your head, Scarborough Centre. Them's the facts. You can look them up.
That, to me, is an offensive abuse. It's an offensive abuse because this is not the area we should be cutting back on even in the coldest days in this province. I think the people of Lakeshore, in the city of Etobicoke, in Mimico, in New Toronto, in Long Branch, have been fighting the fight for no development on the Etobicoke-Lakeshore psychiatric grounds and the Humber College properties and they haven't had any cooperation from their local member of provincial Parliament.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: No. No cooperation. The dogma that's in place is that those lands are being developed over the objection of practically every resident in the Lakeshore community. Why is that? It's because the dogma about social housing ruining public open space at the shoreline of Lake Ontario is absolutely the most insane use of public property.
I, as a member of Etobicoke council, never supported development on this site. I can't believe that it's taking place under this government. I say to the members opposite, please investigate this. It's prime, public open space on Lake Ontario. You can't get that back. You can't get that kind of property back. Once you've build on it, it's gone. The open public space in Etobicoke, the lake, is infinitesimal. This is the last chance we have for the jewel in the city of Etobicoke, the jewel, the park by the lake, to save it from the developers' ball, the wrecking ball, in the development of the Humber College site and the Lakeshore psychiatric grounds.
1920
This is not a local issue in Etobicoke West, but it's very dear to my heart, having spent some nine or so years representing the good people in the community of the lakeshore and the city of Etobicoke who fought long and hard to ensure that this kind of development wouldn't happen, and the ruining of public open space on the lakefront in Etobicoke would never take place, without any cooperation from their duly elected member of Parliament, the Minister of Health.
In closing, I wanted to bring that up, because those are the kinds of issues that this government has forgotten about. Those are the kinds of local issues that you've sold out on. Those are the kinds of planks that I agreed with you on. I agreed with you on the planning process. I agreed with you when it came to conservation authorities. I agreed with you when it came to zoning requirements. I agreed with all those things, and now, in one fell swoop, you're wiping out public space in the conservation authority; you're building on property fronting Lake Ontario and Etobicoke; you're selling out on all kinds of planks that you believed in in the past.
That leaves me not only breathless but discouraged, because there's a cynicism out there, and a cynicism that has been embellished and in fact helped out by this government and its lack of integrity and commitment to the positions and decisions that it took in opposition.
I opened this up with your positions on Sunday shopping and closure in Hansard. I think all you members should take some time to go back to those debates and read them and remember what it was like to be a minority in this place. It was frustrating and difficult. Then you'll understand why I stood here today talking about the differences between you now and then, and the frustration and anger and bitterness that is building up, not only on this side of the House but in the public in the province of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Mississauga West.
Mr Mahoney: Did the minister wish to go?
The Acting Speaker: I see the honourable member for Algoma.
Hon Mr Wildman: Just one brief response to one portion of the member's remarks, and that regarded the possibility of an environmental assessment with regard to a particular site in the province.
I just want to reiterate what I've said a number of times in this House, that any proponent who wishes to bring forward a proposal for environmental assessment for a landfill site anywhere in the province is quite within his or her rights to do so, and of course the Environmental Assessment Board would evaluate the site on the basis of environmental factors, socio and economic factors as well, and of course government policy and Bill 143.
Mr Mahoney: I'm responding to the member for Etobicoke West, but I couldn't help but hear the minister suggest that anybody could bring any particular proposal forward for an evaluation of an environmental assessment. There's been a request from a group from Kirkland Lake for some time to have an environmental assessment.
Hon Mr Wildman: They can go ahead if they'd like.
Mr Mahoney: Well, they'd like you to --
Hon Mr Wildman: No, I'm not going to make them.
Mr Mahoney: No, okay, I understand, "You can go ahead and organize your own environmental assessment, but we, the government responsible for waste management issues in this province, don't want to be involved in it." I'm sorry, I didn't understand the difference.
Let me address the member for Etobicoke West. First of all, let me congratulate the member for Etobicoke West for giving the first speech by a member of the Conservative caucus that I've heard in this session where he didn't mention the former Liberal government. I want to tell you that either you're slipping or you've forgotten. I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Maybe he's mellowing.
We heard him talk with some passion about the lakefront in great city of Etobicoke. I grew up in Etobicoke. I don't know if you know that, but I spent a lot of time there. I'm delighted. There were some members opposite, when you said it was close to your heart, who said they didn't know you had one, so I think you've really sort of set a new tone for the Chris Stockwell fan club in this place, and I want to congratulate you for doing that.
I enjoyed the speech. I thought that even though you drove the member for Middlesex out -- I think she's gone to a class, actually. You drove her out of this place because she got rather passionate about the people who were involved in the joke school. Even though you did that, even though you may have ruffled some feathers and upset some people, I think you talked in this debate about the things that are not only important to your constituents in Etobicoke West but also to the people of this province. I look forward to continuing this debate as well.
Mr Jim Wilson: I'm pleased to rise and commend and thank my colleague the member for Etobicoke West for his eloquent remarks this morning. I say to the member for Mississauga West that although Mr Stockwell may have not mentioned the previous Liberal government too many times in his remarks, you can rest assured that Mr Stockwell had many more opportunities to inform the public and remind them of the Liberals' record in office between 1985 and 1990.
But I do want to say most directly to members of the Legislature that having Mr Stockwell in the Ontario PC caucus is indeed an honour and a pleasure. He comes to our caucus with many, many years of experience for such a young man and he brings a wealth of knowledge to our caucus and to this Parliament. When he speaks on issues, he doesn't do that frivolously or without background. He does it with a great deal of knowledge and he knows of what he speaks.
He spoke about the conservation authorities and I wanted to take a moment to comment on that section of his remarks because it is one of the most ironic things, I think, for me as a member of the Legislature -- and I'm also an honorary member of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority foundation -- that in the last election, during the all-candidates meetings, neither the Liberal nor the PC candidate could possibly out-green the NDP candidate. They had a corner on compassion, they had a corner on the environment and no matter what you said, it wasn't good enough. To see that party and this government now cutting conservation authorities in such an unrealistic manner is beyond belief to me, and I'm being polite, because the conservation authorities' association has come forward with a very sensible plan to save money and the government's rejected that. I find that ironic and I take this opportunity to plead with the government to listen to the conservation authority association and to work with them and bring a meaningful response to this issue.
Mr Mammoliti: Just a comment to the member for Etobicoke West: Listen to your constituents. Listen to other constituents before you stand up and go on for an hour and a half and do nothing but criticize. I think if I were to go back into Hansard for the last three years, any of your speeches would certainly be critical, critical of everything. I don't think there's one positive thing that has come out of your mouth in this place.
One bit of advice I'd like to give you is, be a little positive in life. Look at life and say, "Thank God I'm here," and I guarantee you'll feel a lot better and you'll come across a lot better in this place as well. If you do that, Mr Stockwell, you will feel better. If you do that, believe it or not, you might even hear the cries out there. And if you do that, you will know that almost everything this government is doing, it's doing because there's a cry out there for it. They're doing it because people are saying: "Jobs, we want jobs. We want government to create jobs." That's why we're doing most of the things that you're criticizing.
You talk about Hydro. Mr Fiscal Manager, you talk about Hydro. Who introduced Hydro? Who, Mr Fiscal Manager, is the one and what party is the one that couldn't handle it? You -- and the Liberals, for crying out loud; the Liberals ignored the deficit and you neglected to mention that in your speech. For that reason, I'm being negative towards you right now. I'm saying to you, listen to your constituents. Listen to the people of Ontario and I don't think you'd be as negative as you were today.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West has two minutes to make a response.
1930
Mr Stockwell: Thank you to the member for Mississauga West. You have to know the difference between having a heart and wearing your heart on your sleeve. I think that's the difference that I've come to learn about politicians. They wipe their noses on it, and that's the difference.
I'd like to say thank you to the member from Simcoe West, Mr Horgan's nephew. He gave, I think, a good dissertation, and I'll probably frame it and send it out in my next householder, although I don't do householders.
The Minister of Environment was talking about not giving an environmental assessment hearing. I don't know if I believe that. I think there's something cooking over there and I just want to give all those people in the GTA some knowledge, in Durham and in York and in Peel. I think he's got something cooking and it could be percolating in the next few months.
To the member for Yorkview, the guy is just way too negative. He's always standing up and being too negative. I think what he should do is accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, because I myself in my speech just moments ago said what a great job Maurice Strong was doing. I said it; I was here. I spent five minutes on saying what a fantastic job he was doing. I supported everything he did and I think that he was probably paid appropriately.
So I just think the member for Yorkview should take a little time in August and just reduce some of those negative ions. I think he should go up to Port Elgin and enrol in the joke school that the CAW is offering and just take it easy, tell us that he's tired, he just got into town -- boy, he's tired -- and, "It hurts when I go like this, doctor," so the doctor says, "Don't go like this." Just lighten up, George.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Mississauga West.
Mr Mahoney: The former speaker said there's a difference between having a heart and wearing it on your sleeve. It reminded me of Johnny Barker. I see the Minister of Labour. I don't know if you ever knew Johnny Barker up in the Sault, a great trade union man and a real fighter. Bud, you would remember Johnny, a great friend of my dad's. He always used to say very clearly, I think, something that made sense, in the same vein, where he said, "Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head." Clearly that was a message that Johnny Barker and many of the folks in the local in the Sault and around the labour movement in the 1950s and 1960s understood, that there was a --
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): "Don't get caught in your own bullroar."
Mr Mahoney: What was that one? Don't get caught in your own bullroar. Yes, Barker would have said that. I'm absolutely sure he would have said that, along with my dad and many of those other cronies when they were making those great decisions in those days.
I don't know how many of the members opposite have ever had the privilege of going into the health clinic in Sault Ste Marie, one of the finest operations and examples of community health care, I think, that exists in the province, a model, and that too was started and built by the Steelworkers, by Johnny Barker, by my father and by many of the good men and women -- mostly men in those days, I might add -- involved in the labour movement, and particularly in steel.
I'm delighted that the Minister of Labour is here because I received a copy of a letter today. You talk about the history of the labour movement and the relationship with the New Democratic Party, and in many ways with the Liberal Party -- more clearly with the New Democrats and with the CCFers before that -- and the tradition that built up of the relationship. There's a problem, I guess, out there in the community today. It must be awfully hard for the current minister, Bob Mackenzie, a long-time member of the steel union and an advocate on behalf of workers. I remember in this place when the injured workers were breaking down the door. We've had to change the rules to tell them they can't demonstrate inside the place because of that.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): We had to replace the floor, too.
Mr Mahoney: They were banging down the doors and I think the current Minister of Labour and the current Premier were chanting at them to come on in. I think they were quite encouraging that. But in those days there was a bit of a different relationship and today it must be awfully difficult, I say to the member for Wentworth North, I believe it is. I'm sure you feel the pain when you go home and the phone calls that you must have to answer on the weekends from members of OPSEU or CUPE or anyone. I can appreciate the fact that with the difficult times -- you don't get those phone calls, or you just don't return them? Maybe that's it. I don't know if I'd return them, maybe just save the pain, because you know what they're saying. Tell your staff that you're busy at Queen's Park all weekend and don't bother returning them.
But it must be awfully painful because there's been a metamorphosis, I guess is all you could say. It's been quite remarkable to go from this side of the political spectrum and even bypass the traditional Liberal side and go right over to the Tory side. It's really been something.
And you had your provincial council on June 19, 1993, and I was particularly struck -- what were there, four standing ovations for Bob? I guess you must have had people in the audience. It's like a leadership -- what you do in a leadership convention is you get people in the audience whose job it is to lead the applause. So at the certain spontaneous time and moment when the Premier's speaking, I guess some of the members of the caucus were out there and jump to our feet. Peter, were you one of them? You were one of the cheerleaders? Did they give you uniforms and gloves or how did that work.
Anyway, I'm sure that must have happened for the Premier to get four standing Os. I can't imagine that they were awfully spontaneous.
When I received a letter today from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, you might know him, Mr Russ Whitney. Anyone know Russ? George, you know Russ. Wonderful guy, I understand. Writes a very, very impassioned letter to the Premier to express his deep concern with the government's position and actions on the social contract. Let me just tell you that one of the things that's most interesting about this is how we try to polarize all our different positions. You know, it's the socialists' job to paint the Liberals into one corner, paint the Tories into another corner, and if you're against the social contract, it means you're against restraint. Are all the unions that are against the social contract against restraint? They're taxpayers; the rank and file in CUPE are taxpayers. They have families, they have problems, they love this province, they have concerns. They don't like to see, whether it's the NDP in office or the Liberals or the Tories, budget deficits up in the five-figure range, $10 billion plus. They don't like to see that. So they have concerns. Does that mean that because they oppose the social contract they're against restraint? Yet when we stand up in this party to take what clearly is a very traditional position for this party, to talk about our concerns about the impact of government legislation, the implication, whether it's from the third party or the government, is that we're opposed to restraint. It's absolute nonsense.
Mr Mammoliti: Where is the third party?
Mr Mahoney: That's not parliamentary, George. We're being gentle persons tonight, so settle down.
It really is nonsense to try to do that. I heard the Premier in response to the leader of the third party accuse him of not caring about the province. What kind of rhetoric have we sunk to in this place when a Premier of the province, regardless of whether you respect his political views, certainly we all must respect the office of the Premier of the province, and for the Premier of the province to stand up in this place --
Mr Paul Johnson: But do you, Steve?
Mr Mahoney: Of course I do; I respect that office. Of course I do, and I think you do, and for someone holding that office to accuse another member who obviously aspires to hold that office of not caring about this province simply because they question the direction and the economic platform of the current government, I just found that statement to be absolutely incredible. I think what that is, it's the current Premier reverting to his opposition days, when he would do anything, say anything, attack anyone, slay anyone with absolutely no remorse whatsoever. He's got a little bit of that statesman stuff because he's out there on the front page all the time and so people are saying, "Bob's not such a bad guy," and then he slides back into the gutter from where he was operating when he was Leader of the Opposition, and so all the acrimony comes out again. I found that most unfortunate.
1940
I don't mean to have to defend the leader of the third party. I find I disagree strongly with many of his policies. I find there are frankly a lot of things that are -- how could I kindly put it? -- phoney, that are not quite legitimate in that position, but I respect his office. I respect the fact that he was elected by his constituents, and then he was elected to be the leader of what was once a fine institution in this province, the Progressive Conservative Party.
One of the things that bothers me is that I think we are losing rapidly what little respect we have for each other in this place. I saw last night the acrimony. I felt the feelings that I had last night, and they're very dangerous. The whole situation is very dangerous, because there doesn't seem to be any attempt by the government to respect the fact that opposition has a role to play, that I respect the leader of the third party and the office he holds, I respect the leader of our party tremendously and the office that she holds and I respect the job the House leader has to do and that everybody has to do. I also share respect and understand the job that a backbencher over there has to do, because I had to do it.
I know how difficult it is to go back to constituents of traditional support, of pressure groups with traditional support, and tell them that you're going to do exactly the opposite of what you said you were going to do and that you're going to have to somehow justify that by saying -- you can make up all the stories you want about how we were left in a mess. Your own Treasurer admitted that was not true in the first press conference that he held on that. But I don't want to argue that debate, because we spend a tremendous amount of time here in this place, blaming one another for the problems and frankly, as I said the other day in this place, I think there's enough blame to go around.
Before I get into the letter from our friend, Mr Whitney from CUPE, I was recently in Atikokan. A member of the OSSTF came forward to us, and they were making a presentation. This individual said -- I hope he's watching -- he was part of the fine-tuned machine that helped put the NDP in office. He said, "Mr Mahoney, I'm ashamed because I've been betrayed." And then he said, "We are shopping for a party to support." Holding his vote here, dangling it in front of me, he said, "If you can defeat the social contract and if you can defeat the government, you might get our vote."
He sat down, and I said, "Sir, I think you should shop till you drop, because the problem in this province, in this country, is that special-interest groups are more concerned about their own interest than they are about the general interest and the good of the people of this province." It's time frankly, as politicians, that whether we're on that side of the House or on this side of the House, we had the guts to tell him that.
That doesn't mean you don't listen to them. That doesn't mean you're not concerned about what affects their everyday life because they're taxpayers too. But don't dangle your votes out there. Don't try to use a vote as an instrument of blackmail, because it just has got to stop.
You know what? I've got a simple policy. I'll listen to my constituents, I'll debate on a stage against the people running against me, and if at the end of the day, you don't like what I say, don't vote for me. Pretty simple, pretty fundamental. I think more of us in this business frankly -- I see less of that than we need.
I see politicians at every level, why are we so discredited? This is an honourable profession. This is a profession that allows you, Mr Speaker, in your capacity for the folks in Haliburton, to get something done for them. For you to come to this place and to stand up and say, "I don't agree with casino gambling," or whatever it happens to be. That's an honourable profession. The folks at home want to see every one of us standing up and talking about the things that are of concern to them and to our communities.
Why have we fallen so low in the polls -- not in the political polls, but -- what's the word I want? -- in the respect of the public. You see the senators gouging 6,000 bucks a piece, and you just read that stuff and you go, "Why would they be so stupid as to do something like that?" They destroy it for all of us, because in this business we are all judged by the lowest common denominator. Today, in the newspaper, the lowest common denominator in the political world happened to be a bunch of senators who decided they weren't getting enough out of the trough, so they gouged some more. When will we learn?
We all have responsibilities. There's a great hue and cry about all our mileage and our expenses. Once a year, all that stuff comes out. If you're doing the job, for goodness' sake, there are costs involved. I find my constituents at least say, "You've got to do the job." They expect me to go to meetings. When I leave here tonight -- it's quarter to eight on Thursday night -- I've got two events I've got to attend in my riding, as I'm sure many of you do.
Because I live closer to my riding than some of you, I very often have to go there and come back two or three times in a day. If I don't do that, then those people I work for in Mississauga West say: "Where the heck's Mahoney? Doesn't he care about us?" Yet we get judged by the people who abuse those kinds of things. If we could only all collectively learn that we've got responsibilities to perform and responsibilities to one another.
I openly admit that in speeches in this place, I can get fairly rancorous perhaps at times and bitter, because there are some things that I feel very strongly about, that I think this government is doing wrong. I have an obligation, indeed a responsibility, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to put that viewpoint across, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine; you stand up and say so.
But the minute that we stifle debate in this place -- we've already changed the rules dramatically from what they were when the Liberals were in power and the Tories were in power, and there are some good aspects to that. I guess there are people who would say, "If you can't say what you want to say in 30 minutes, you probably shouldn't say it." Other constituencies around the country have rules like that, other legislatures. I don't have a big, big problem with that.
What bothers me is, I can remember the time -- and you heard some of the speeches out of Hansard from the House leader and the Premier and other people, read by the member for Etobicoke West, about their feelings about closure and time allocation at the time that they were in opposition. It was their job, and there's a big difference here.
In this Parliament, I find that when we go out the door too much everything comes out with us. The only other experience I've had in this place, which was the Parliament from 1987 to 1990, that didn't happen. There were a couple of members of the NDP caucus whom I considered my closest friends in this place. I don't see them any more. It's not politically possible any more. I find that really unhealthy. We should be able to have our debates in here be within parliamentary rules, be acrimonious, be tough, be angry, make points and go out of here and leave it here. But we're not, and I don't know if we'll ever be able to get back to that. I really don't. It worries me.
I find that whatever the reasons -- whether it's, I don't know, the great change -- we went from 42 years in the wilderness to, all of a sudden in 1985, a coalition government; all of a sudden in 1987, a 95-seat majority for the Liberals. I'm sure that the NDP, who were the official opposition at that time, must have felt somewhat like perhaps we feel today.
Then you make the complete turn to a 75, 74-member majority for the current government, so that the dynamics of the political change in this place, with the ideology that comes with being a party in opposition for so many years -- able to go to the provincial councils that I referred to earlier and to adopt policies and positions, whatever they are, whether it's on the environment or the economy or whether it's on parliamentary procedure, the ability to be able to set a party's policy and direction without ever having the responsibility to govern -- is something that I'm sure has come home and hit the current government full in the face.
As a result, they've got there and realized that -- and I don't even care about the issues like Sunday shopping or auto insurance, I say to the House leader, who is the minister responsible for that. Frankly, I'm glad you made those decisions, because I just dreaded the thought of government-run auto insurance. I dreaded it when you guys were all shouting for it when we were in the government and I dreaded it even more when you finally became the government, because I don't believe in that kind of thing.
1950
I personally believe that if government can do something more expensively, or whatever it does, it will be more expensive than the private sector, it will be more bureaucratic, it will be less efficient. There are some things government must do. We must look out for the people who need our help in society. But why can't we let the people who can take care of themselves do that? Why can't we get off the back of the small business community and say to it, "We really think you can thrive just fine and we'll put in place some policies that maybe will give you a direction of what we see as where the conscience of the province should go"?
Why can't we say to them we believe in better training for occupational health and safety in the province without, Mr Minister of Labour, implementing a $6.5-million agency to act as police for the thing? I say that with respect to the co-chairs of that agency, who I know are trying, but $6.5 million is a lot of money.
Why can't we convince the business community -- and I think we can -- that less time off for its workforce through sickness or accidents mean a better bottom line for the company, which means growth and economic development, which means more jobs. The circle goes on and on. Isn't it common sense? What's that saying, that nobody knows why they call it common sense because it's not very common? But isn't it common sense? No, we've got to come in with these agencies. I don't care what they are.
Talk to me about pay equity. Who in fairness -- I don't care what your political stripe is -- could disagree with the principles of pay equity? But once again we have set up by our government a $6.5-million commission to act, in essence, as pay equity police. Maybe this recession/depression that we've gone through will give us an opportunity to say to people in the province of Ontario, "Look, you're going to have to start cooperating and buying into some of these fairness, equity and training programs so that we can eliminate all these agencies."
It's costing millions and millions of dollars. When I was the budget chief at the region of Peel for seven years the joke was, you know, "What's a million?" You spill more than that in this big regional government. Down here it's, "What's a billion?" Nothing's changed. We've got more government, bigger government. I don't think we're learning from our mistakes.
We made some mistakes. Let me tell you, I travelled all over this province for a year speaking to people and openly admitting to Liberals where we had made mistakes. We have to do that. Goodness gracious, they didn't throw us out of office because we did everything right. We made some mistakes. The Tories lost power after 42 years. Why can't they look in the mirror and say, "We made some mistakes"? Admit to some of those problems and let's find out what we can all do collectively.
What bothers me is that I see this government -- and I'm, you might notice, trying to be a little less partisan than perhaps I normally am, but I really think we've got to address some of these things. I notice this government sort of making a decision -- you know, it's like the Second World War bomber going through and the flak is coming up all over and it doesn't matter: "We're just going to keep our hand on the stick and we're going to get to the target and release the bombs and we don't care. That's what we've decided and we've just go to hold on to this."
Why can't we change that? For example, if you want to make this place more relevant, if you want to take the acrimony out of this place, why can't we finally get serious about parliamentary reform, why can't we talk about committees that aren't whipped? Don't send a bill to them. Don't send them legislation that's got -- I realize that there is some that has come through.
The debate we're having tonight is on supply. You can't mess around with that. You've got to pay the bills. I understand that. We all understand that. That's why we agreed tonight that we would bring this bill to an end and we would have a vote, because we know that for any government to function, it has to pay the bills every day.
That's fine, but why can't we take some of the issues -- you notice the issues that become the most acrimonious around here are things like auto insurance and Sunday shopping and these things. How many years has that Sunday shopping been kicking around here? About 15 that people have been debating that? Why can't we send that out to a committee without instructions, or with instructions that simply say to that committee, "We'd like you to investigate this and see what the people of the province want, and report back to us in this place and tell us what your findings are"?
I often talk about the select committee on education in here because I'm really fond of the memories of the work that committee did, with Richard Johnston, with Dianne Poole as Chair and I had the privilege of being Vice-Chair. In the work we did, you didn't see -- well, there was a little bit of jabbing, but very little. We met with the stakeholders on issues of concern around education.
I see Mr Allen here, and I remember the work on the Constitution. I had the privilege of serving for a very brief time on that committee, and I was so impressed with how we worked together to try to come to a resolution that we could bring into this place with a united front. There was no partisanship there, because we were talking about Canada. We had a goal, a common purpose. One night, we almost went through the whole night, if I'm not mistaken. It was very impressive work and it made you feel, as a parliamentarian, like you really accomplished something. You didn't have to go home and say, "Boy, I kicked the heck out of them today." You went home and said, "You know, that Richard Allen had some good ideas." What is wrong with that, and why can't we get back there?
I think it's because the parliamentary system has become so dominated by the interest groups I mentioned earlier, so dominated by the press. The minute there's a headline, we all run around and we get our EAs on the phone and do this and do that and blame them and blame them. It's a circus, a real circus.
I mentioned pay equity. I got an urgent fax sent to me today by the Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services. They said they watched last night, with all the problems and the closure motion that was put by one of the members from London to take the vote on pay equity; this group is telling me we should stop messing around and vote on the thing. My immediate reaction and my staff's immediate reaction is, "The NDP phoned these guys and told them: 'Fax Mahoney. He's the whip."' You see, everyone's shaking their heads, "Come on; we didn't do that," but that's my immediate reaction and that's my point. Maybe it did happen and maybe it didn't.
But the point is that we're losing the ability to govern. When we get into a situation like we did last night -- I am an opposition member. That means I have a duty and a responsibility to oppose, hopefully to oppose constructively. It's not easy. You all know that better than I, because many of you were over here for so many years and saw things you had to oppose. But I can remember when we were in government with that huge 95-member caucus. We'd go into meetings and Premier Peterson would walk in. We'd have had a bunch of debates for several hours, days -- Peter Kormos, fond memories -- and we'd ask Peterson, "Why can't we use the hammer?" The answer would be: "Just calm down and relax. We don't want to throw the place into disarray." I see the Attorney General is frowning, having been the one to defeat that particular member, but that's what happened; that's the truth. He would say: "We don't want to do that. We don't want to do that, because we want to make Parliament work. Let's let it drag on a little bit longer."
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: You weren't here. Ask some of the members of your current cabinet who were here. It wasn't and it shouldn't be a very light decision to bring in time allocation and sure as heck shouldn't be a light decision to bring in closure.
There was always a debate about the mix of the two. We would time allocate and you guys would stand up and yell that we had brought in closure. Time allocation clearly says the debate will go here and there and here and there and then we will vote. Closure says vote now, no amendments, no further debate, no discussion, game over. The acrimony that we saw in this place and the tempers that were flaring were clearly a result of two closure motions put on two separate motions in the same evening. I say to the House leader, we've got to stop that. If you've got to have time allocation, put it forward. If that's the route, put it forward. We'll order our speakers. But closure is the most insidious tool that anybody in a true, democratic parliamentary system can use.
2000
Time allocation, you understand. You get your critics up, you get the debate out, you deal with the issue. You may not like it. You may rant and rave about it. You may accuse the government of stifling debate, but at least the debate, as structured as it may be in a time allocated motion, is still free debate. I must say, Speaker Warner probably saved this place from exploding last night. I happen to think he should have given you closure on the second motion and that the closure motion on the first motion should have been denied.
I readily admit that the person in the chair was a member of my own caucus. There were two rounds of debate in here when the closure motion was put, and it was accepted and the vote was done and it was over. On the pay equity bill, I admit there were some six or seven hours of debate and there was probably more justifiable cause to allow closure on that motion than on the first one, but Speaker Warner, in my view, recognized the tension that was in this place and made the wrong decision for the right reasons and saved us all from a lot of grief and allowed us to go home and collect our thoughts and come back into this place.
I've only got a minute left. I can't believe it. I didn't even intend to talk about all that stuff, because I did want to tell the folks that Russ Whitney, the national representative for CUPE, was quite upset and is asking -- he's begging, as a matter of fact. He says, as a member of the NDP, "For the party, for labour peace, for workers across this country, don't proceed with this legislation."
We're talking about the social contract. Our party is against that legislation. We think it's very damaging. We think it's creating chaos. We think this government has options; we've put them forward, the municipalities have put them forward. If we could ever break down the acrimony in here and what I sense too many times, the real peer dislike for one another, maybe we could get back to governing this province; maybe disagreeing, but at least bringing a sense of confidence to our people.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just briefly, I want to say that the presentation I just heard from my colleague across the way was, I thought, one of the more reasoned presentations we've had in this House in some time.
I have some difficulties, and I'll be as frank as I can right up front in the very few seconds I have on this. I think the acrimony around here is dangerous and is not helpful to the House. I think it's true that there is a growing dislike, and I think that's also a danger to the very traditions we're talking about.
I'm the first to admit that I'm not innocent in these matters, but I'd suggest you don't start that with an inference that I or my leader may have helped or encouraged workers to storm this Legislature. When the events that were being mentioned were happening, we were doing everything we could to see that that didn't happen, and I think it's important. I also don't think you start an excellent presentation, in my view, with accusing the leader of the government of somehow or other operating in and out of the gutter on issues.
Having said that, I want to make it very, very clear that I think there was some real meat in the comments that were made by my colleague across the way, and I think anything we could do in a legitimate and honest way to try and lower some of the temperature in here would be useful. That doesn't mean I agree with him on some of the positions he's taken or some of the arguments he's made, and I would reserve my right to be as tough as I wanted on those particular issues. But I think otherwise there is some real merit in the comments that have just been made, and it's the first presentation I've heard in this House in some long time that has been that positive. For that I say, well done.
Mr Callahan: I want to congratulate the member for Mississauga West as well. It's the first speech I've heard where he wasn't in an attack mode.
I want to pick up on one issue he raised. I think it's a very important issue and it's one that we, as members of the Legislature, are going to have to deal with. We have to deal with the reform of this place. This place is an anachronism, with all due respect. There is very little power. People elect 130 members to this Legislature. They pay our salaries and they expect us to produce: They expect us to have input from our ridings and perspective in all the legislation that comes through here. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works, as you well know.
What happens is that a few people in the government, the Premier, about four cabinet ministers and about six unelected, as we lovingly call them, spin doctors down on the second floor in the Premier's office -- and I'm not suggesting it's just your government -- decide from the polls they've taken with taxpayers' dollars what will get them re-elected so they can come back to power. That's how public policy in this province is shaped.
I tell you something, I'm not going to be around here that much longer, but I will feel very uncomfortable if I don't see some direct efforts being taken by all members of the House to reform this institution, because in my mind, it's nothing more than a big club. The decisions that are made are not made for the benefit of the people of the province of Ontario; they're made for the benefit of the politicians. It's time the people who elected us got what they paid for, got what they expected, got what they deserved and stopped this entire joke that goes on, not just here but in Ottawa.
Parliamentary democracy in Canada doesn't work. It's a big club, and it's got to change. We watched the senators today gouge the eyes out of the people of Canada.
Mr Jim Wilson: I want to commend and thank the member for Mississauga West. I thought most of his speech was quite useful, unlike his colleague's, Mr Callahan, who just spoke. Mr Callahan might have missed a couple of shots at my leader with respect to the social contract. I do want to follow up on not only the member for Mississauga West's comments but also the Minister of Labour with respect to the conduct in this House and particularly last night.
I too am obviously not innocent. Hot heads were prevailing much of last night. There was good reason for it. It's hard to explain to the public what it's like and what the frustration is on this side of the House when you have difficulty expressing the concerns of your constituents because you're under time constraints and because the government brings in closure motions to further limit your ability to debate in our democracy.
I do want to remind members, though, that Parliament is a substitute for war. As I tell school children who come here and wonder what we do some days when they sit in the galleries and watch question period, Parliament is indeed a substitute for war. In other countries, where they don't have the ability to come here and debate in a forceful manner, they simply shoot each other.
Everyone should go back to their political science textbooks and realize that this is, in essence, a courtroom for the people of Ontario. It is an adversarial system. As the Minister of Labour said, I do reserve the right to speak out forcefully on behalf of my constituents who feel from time to time that they're not being listened to by the government of the day.
In fact, it applies to the very symbols of this place. The mace is a symbol of warfare; it was originally the sovereign's battle club. The distance between the front rows of the government benches and the front rows of the opposition benches is exactly the distance of two men with outstretched swords in hand. It's a reminder that we have to be civil to each other because we live in a civilized parliamentary democracy, but it is also a reminder that this forum is here to express our views in strong terms but to part friends.
Mr Mahoney: I want to say to Mr Wilson that I appreciated the analogy of this being a substitute for war. I guess the gist of my comments was that I want us to keep it that way. When you take a look at what goes on in other parts of the world -- later on tonight I'll be speaking at a Croatian hall. We all know the heartache of this community, with the terrible situation that's gone on in the former Yugoslavia, with really everyone involved over there. It's even caused a good friend of mine, Mr John Sola, a tremendous amount of pain and the obvious result of him not being part of our caucus at the present time.
2010
In any event, let me just say to the Minister of Labour that the tone of the speech being one of worry and concern does not detract in any way from -- I would not expect you not to be tough on issues nor would I expect you to expect me to lay down and simply say, "Well, gee, that's okay," because if we became friends, just because we're friends doesn't mean that we're not adversaries within the political spectrum. I really think that that's so important.
As I said earlier, I won't mention them by name, but there were two members of the current NDP cabinet who I considered personal friends, who we used to socialize with on a regular basis. That's not doable under the atmosphere that exists in this place, and I find that regrettable.
Having said that, I think that my caucus might give me a kick if I didn't say that we do have serious concerns about some of the things that this government is doing that are not based purely on partisanship. We have concerns when we ask about the plans for the municipalities to be able to find ways to dig themselves out of the problem, with the inability that they have to perhaps deal with the cuts that they require in other ways, and with no time left, just to say that I really did appreciate the comments of the Minister of Labour and hopefully we can get on to some good things in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further debate?
Mr Jim Wilson: I'm pleased to have a few minutes to speak to a number of issues in my riding of Simcoe West. I take the opportunity during the supply motion to do that and I want to begin on a positive note, in all sincerity, and thank the government, and particularly the Minister and Ministry of Transportation, for installing traffic lights on Highway 26 at the intersection of Highway 26 and Mosley Street of Wasaga Beach.
This may not seem like a terribly big issue to some people in urban areas where traffic lights are quite frequent, but I am a resident of Wasaga Beach. Having been born and raised at the south end of my riding, in Alliston, the last year or so I've resided in the north end of Wasaga Beach. For 18 years we've pleaded with successive governments to recognize that there is a problem at this particular intersection, and I was pleased that some three weeks ago the Ministry of Transportation began the construction of, and now they're in operation, new traffic lights.
I'd like to think that I had something to do with moving the government along to the position of actually putting up the lights, perhaps not myself but one of my staff back in December. After a lengthy day in the riding with me, one of my constituency assistants managed to smash up his girlfriend's mother's car at this particular intersection. It was the last straw for both myself and the residents and obviously for the government when I came back to the Legislature and indicated to the government once again the hazards in that area.
I thank the Ministry of Transportation for doing that. It means a lot to the tourist trade. Often, coming out of Mosley Street on to Highway 26, it could be up to a 30- to 35-minute wait when the stop sign was there because there's so much traffic going north and south to Collingwood, back and forth to Collingwood on Highway 26. With the stop lights, everything's working much better.
However, on a little more of a sour note, the same minister, M. Pouliot, has not responded, I think, in a fair way to another situation in another section of highway near Collingwood, and that's Highway 24, just south of Collingwood. Two or two and a half years ago the government quite rightly decided to redevelop that section of highway. They elevated the highway and, unfortunately, an undesired consequence was that there is now flooding in a number of the ditches along that highway.
This again may not seem like such a big issue to a number of people, except for the fact that where I come from and where the residents of Nottawasaga township, where the piece of highway is located, come from, is that they didn't create the problem, that the government and its engineers and the people they pay to engineer and construct the new road, simply messed up and simply created a terrible drainage problem. But rather than the government admit its mistakes -- and it wouldn't cost very much money -- I'm told by the regional office of the Ministry of Transportation that it could find the money if directed by the government to do so, to correct the drainage problem.
As it turns out, it has become a national issue. This issue was on one of the CBC national news programs. It's also been featured a couple of times on the local CKVR station in Barrie. I've had calls from a couple of provinces about this, because the government is petitioning for a municipal drain and going to force adjacent property owners and downstream property owners to pay for its mistake.
I simply ask the government, in the time I have, to revisit that issue, because I don't think it's fair, the national media doesn't think it's fair, and I really don't know any other way. We've tried every route to try to convince the government that it made the mistake. The NDP talked a lot about fairness, and if you really want to practise fairness, here's an example where in terms of money in a very small way you could practise fairness in my riding.
The worst part is I wrote the minister. I got back a form letter. I've talked to the minister, I've given him photos, and I'm the only one communicating with my constituents. The Ministry of Transportation and the minister himself have never bothered to communicate directly, in recent months anyway, with my constituents.
I do a regular radio show in Collingwood called the Chat Show, and, needless to say, two weeks ago I had a few calls with respect to this issue, people mainly complaining now that the government doesn't seem to listen to them. We hear that on a number of fronts.
The second issue I want to raise -- and the Minister of Agriculture and Food was here a few minutes ago; I think he just went to the back room to grab a cup of coffee, because we do have these late-night sittings -- is one that's of great concern to the newly amalgamated area of New Tecumseth. The town of New Tecumseth was created by the Liberal government in a forced restructuring or amalgamation of the former town of Alliston, the village of Beeton, the township of Tecumseth and the village of Tottenham, which have come together to form New Tecumseth.
I say this to other members in Simcoe county and other parts of the province that may be forced to restructure by governments which claim they know better than the people themselves, that one of the downsides is you've got to come up with a new official plan. In New Tecumseth, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, or as my constituents call it, the Ministry of Aggravation and Frustration, has decided that New Tecumseth, since it now must develop a new official plan, will become the guinea pig with respect to zoning.
We have in that township, Mr Speaker, as you may have in rural parts of eastern Ontario, a specific designation now, which is a rural-agricultural designation for zoning purposes. The ministry has come along and said, "You must split that designation," and it has said this in a very forceful and ill-mannered way to the committee which is developing proposals for the new official plan.
I'll get into how the ministry has insulted farmers in my riding in just a minute, because I will read an excerpt from a local newspaper article. But I just want to say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, whom I've given a number of letters to, whom I've spoken to a number of times on this issue -- and I'm still awaiting his response, as are the people of my riding -- that it's very well and fine to say that you want to preserve agricultural land. But, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, who is here, to do it solely on the backs of farmers in Tecumseth township is pretty unfair.
The problem we have is that farmers are not making a decent living, particularly farmers close to Toronto. Now, this area of the province is just outside the GTA, although Ruth Grier, when she was Environment minister, kept trying to drag this part of the province into the GTA. But it's immediately north of Highway 9 in Simcoe county.
The current rural-agricultural designation allows us some flexibility with respect to development and land use. To split it off and to say to farmers, "The status quo is no good and Big Brother knows best, ie, the NDP government, and you must designate much of that former dual designation, it must be split and designated strictly agricultural," is unfair because it limits our ability to -- really, it limits the ability of these farmers to retire in dignity. All they have is their land. We don't have, as in other countries, pensions for our farm community, and hence all they have is the land.
I've had a very difficult time explaining this to OMAF reps. The minister seems to understand, but OMAF reps don't seem to understand. We had bank managers in before the planning committee to explain that if you do this, they're immediately going to check the loans of these farmers, because with a rural-agricultural designation there is a greater potential for development on that land and there is therefore a greater value, a speculative value, assigned to that land that bank managers take into account as part of their thinking process when it comes to extending money to farmers, particularly during the beginning of the growing season.
2020
I say two things on this issue. One is that prosperous farmers will jealously guard farm land. In my area, on my mother's side of the family we still have a family farm. I come from agricultural roots. I lived for the first year of my life in Colgan, which is a very small area in Adjala township, right next to the area I'm speaking about in terms of the official plan amendments or proposal.
I know that if farmers are making a living, there's no problem with preserving the land. When they're not making a living and when the government comes along and says it wants to put a greenbelt between where we live in our part of the province and Metro -- they want to put a greenbelt but they don't want to pay for it -- I say if you want to make Tecumseth township a greenbelt, then be prepared to buy the farmers out at fair market value, lease the land back and they'll keep the weeds down and the land in production.
That's happened in other areas of the province. For some reason this government, because it doesn't have the money but it has some environmental and green space goals, has decided to take the Food Land Guidelines route, the official plan route and force farmers to be designated for ever in poverty. That's unfair, and I'm going to plead again with the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food to revisit this issue.
I want to read the attitude that's been bestowed upon my constituents by a local Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food bureaucrat. I just want to read for a minute here.
It says, "The New Tecumseth Planning for the Future Committee loaned its voice as a forum for the farming community and its contenders Wednesday night." It's a very recent article. "Sharon Johnston, district manager for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food spoke to the issue of enforcing a strictly agricultural designation on what is now a rural agricultural 'status quo.'
"Agriculture was considered an 'industry' by Johnston, with the Food Land Guidelines ensuring key areas are kept for agricultural purposes. According to Johnston, a strict agricultural designation for special crop land and high productivity is vital in creating the official plan."
In other words, OMAF has come from down on high and indicated, "You've got split this and we're not prepared to listen to anything."
Roger George, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, attended that meeting. I was unable to attend it, but Mr George graciously did and brought credibility, I think, to what the farmers -- and there were some 65 at the meeting -- were saying.
"Roger George, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, voiced opposition to the policy saying the guidelines are outdated.
"'We can't make policies if something is not viable,' he charged. 'Allow a decent living with traditional farm assets.'
"George, backed by the entire assembly of approximately 65 farmers, spoke out against ministry guidelines that restricted rural-agricultural land designations.
"He supported the split designation to allow a wider range of use. Flexibility was needed for economic growth."
He goes on to say, "'There are farmers who are not global traders. Not all are prime production. I urge you not to be stampeded by the Ministry of Agriculture.'
"The farming community challenged Johnston's" -- that's the bureaucrat -- "arguments by citing difficulties in obtaining financing for strictly agricultural land." I spoke about the attitude of bank managers with respect to strictly agriculturally zoned land.
"'The first thing the bank manager asked is the value of the best crop I can grown on the land,' said one farmer.
"'Who's going to get in an industry that's not in sound financial state?' asked another."
More important, I want to talk about this:
"Laughter greeted Johnston's reference to the multi-million-dollar holdings of Caledon's Armstrong family to reflect farming potential in New Tecumseth.
"Further, she charged those farmers wishing to survive were not present, as they were satisfied with their lot:
"'I don't think we had the ones who want to survive.' She cited 150 farms generating over $100,000 annually."
This particular newspaper checked that fact. The fact is, it says, "(In confirming statistics, the Ministry of Agriculture could only state there were 812 with sales over $50,000 in Simcoe county.)" That's sales. That's not profit. Most of those farms didn't make any money. In fact, they lost money.
"Farmers responded with a demand for a voice in making policy, rather than Queen's Park or another municipality. They supported the 'status quo' of rural agricultural zoning."
The final comment is a quote from a local farmer who says, "'If it's not broken, don't fix it."'
The point is a bureaucrat named Ms Johnston, who is a district manager of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, showing up at a local planning meeting, citing that farmers make $100,000 a year, citing an example of a Caledon farm many, many miles away, an entirely different type of farming operation, nothing like what we have in my riding, and claiming that was the true plight of farmers in Ontario, that they're all rich.
This bureaucrat, I don't think, ever worked on a farm. I don't think this bureaucrat spent a day on a farm and I don't think this bureaucrat's visited too many bank managers with respect to farm operations. It was an insult. I've told the minister to get that person out of the field. She's an insult to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which at one time went to bat for farmers and in recent years has been fighting farmers.
It is a big issue in my riding. Not only were 65 farmers present at that meeting, there have been other meetings. Over 200 have signed petitions asking that the status quo remain. I again bring that to the government's attention and will continue to do so.
In conversations with the minister, to be fair, he agrees with me that perhaps the best thing to do would be -- he won't budge on splitting the designation, rural-agricultural, he wants it split, but he said, "Maybe we'll make it all rural."
I say that's good, because if my farmers can't make a living and if people aren't prepared to pay farmers what they're worth, then we're going to have to grow houses. There's enough development pressure in that part of the province and we've got enough farm land in the rest of the province to allow us to grow houses, which would ensure that my farmers have a decent retirement income.
Secondly, as I said, if the government wants to go about its merry ways and try and put a greenbelt there, it had better be prepared to buy out those farmers and lease the land back. I think that's the only thing that's fair and I think taxpayers throughout the province, if you explain this to them very clearly, would absolutely agree with that.
Finally, I want to thank Mrs Helga Elie, who was very helpful to me and has represented farmers on the New Tecumseth planning committee with respect to this issue. She was the one responsible for inviting Roger George to the meeting and has done just an excellent job. It's unfortunate that the ministry of aggravation and frustration is really ruining this poor lady's life. I've visited Helga many times at her home with her husband Theo and she has spent many a sleepless night worrying about this issue. It's unfair. There's no need for it if some common sense would be brought back to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
I want to use the 13 minutes remaining to go over what some of my constituents have been saying. Recent surveys to my riding -- when we send out our householders, I always have a survey section. The responses are quite interesting. All of the responses, or the vast majority, indicate that the most salient issues to my constituents are the deficit, the growth of government and government waste. I say to the government members, listen carefully.
I would particularly like to tell the Liberal members, if there were any here, to listen carefully because their stand on the social contract or the principles of the social contract, which is what we voted on on second reading, the principles of deficit reduction and control of government spending, is hypocritical. They run around pretending they're now fiscal conservatives, that they understand the need to get government waste and government spending under control, but when the crunch comes, they're afraid to do anything. They're afraid to do anything.
At least Bob Rae in recent weeks has come around to trying to address the issue and we're trying to help him. We voted for the social contract on second reading because the principle is what we've been preaching, and I think one thing the public wants above all else is that politicians be consistent, that we not say one thing in the 1990 campaign and come here and do something else. However, we've left our options open on third reading.
Mr Rae has been presented by my leader, Mike Harris, with a number of amendments that we would like to see in the social contract legislation. We're trying to make the legislation more humane. We're trying to put some more common sense in there and preserve the principles of deficit reduction, government spending controls etc.
2030
On the topic of deficits, in the last two surveys to my riding, the majority of people surveyed said the most important issue facing Ontario was debt and deficits. The following is a sample of some of the comments made by my constituents:
Mr Bert Schaly of New Lowell says the most important issue for him is "the rising debt load in all areas of government."
Mr G. Woods of Wasaga Beach says, "Debt reduction must be more sincerely tackled by all levels of government."
Craig Fraser of Alliston -- and I must thank Craig, he writes me fairly often, a young lad, a tremendously bright person -- says: "The deficit of Ontario seems to be soaring out of control. It seems to change every week. The NDP must start to control it."
Jim Thompson of Collingwood says the government "is spending money unwisely with no hope of paying it back."
Les Aldis of Alliston says the most important issue facing the government of Ontario is "stimulating the economy, especially by measures to help small businesses, whilst controlling and reducing their deficits."
Roy Emerton of Creemore says the most important issue facing Ontario is "governments that don't have to balance their bank books like every other person has to."
Mr and Mrs Gibson of Alliston say that the most important issue for the government is "the deficit which continues to grow and is out of control like the Hydro."
On the second topic, growth in government, my constituents also believe there is too much government and that the bureaucracy should be reduced.
Mr and Mrs Kosierb of Collingwood say, "Create new jobs and cut bureaucracy."
G. Bruce McKendrick of Collingwood says, "Government employees at all levels are not sharing cost cutting measures that are necessary."
Sam Sharpe of Collingwood says: "There is too much government. Government should reduce taxes and interference in small business."
My neighbour, who lives at 164 Smallman Drive, Mr Jessop of Wasaga Beach, says: "Tight times equal tight measures. We must cut back and manage our budgets better; so must the governments."
Mr J. Robbins of Collingwood says the most important issue facing the government is "cutting back on spending, starting with downsizing the bureaucracy."
Mr Nelder of Cookstown says, "There is too much government at every level."
Ms Watt of Loretto says, "There should be more house cleaning done by our government and they should be made more accountable with our money."
Mr Bill Barr, a dear friend of mine who recently lost his son, of Wasaga Beach, says the most important issue facing the provincial government is "curtail the irresponsible whirlwind of spending on which they have embarked."
Mr Harwood of Tottenham says the government should "get costs under control. Don't fire people but make all of them take two weeks off per year without pay."
C. B. Camplong says, "The government should cut costs, not raise taxes."
Under the topic of government waste, my constituents believe that the social safety net has turned into a hammock and that there's too much fraud in the social service system. More accountability could eliminate the need for the government's panicky social contract legislation.
Mr Chris Coleman of Tottenham believes the most important issue under this category facing the government of Ontario is "tighten control of social assistance payments."
Ruth Hughes of Creemore says: "Where is the quality assurance program for OHIP? Does it not check the approved services versus the billings?"
Again, today in the Legislature, as Health critic for the Ontario PC Party, I brought another example of OHIP fraud where there were double billings with respect to hysterectomies.
Dr Maurice O'Neil of Collingwood says, "Abuse of government services at all levels and lack of will for government to prosecute abuses." That's what Dr Maurice O'Neil, who has become a great adviser to me, said with respect to the important issue facing the government of Ontario.
Eric Elliot of Angus says, "The welfare system has to be reformed to stop the ripoffs."
Mrs Bennett of Tottenham believes the most important issue facing the government of Ontario is "Welfare: Too many people claiming benefits to which they are not really entitled."
Kelly Lawes of Collingwood says the government should "thoroughly investigate the welfare system to prevent misuse."
That's a sampling of my mailbag. I've spared reading you the entire text of those good people's comments, but it's clear to me that when you send out two surveys and you get back overwhelming responses and of those responses, the vast majority want the government to get spending under control, I think it's important that we listen to those concerns.
The government, I think, after telling us in the last two and a half years that you could spend your way out of a recession, has finally come around to hearing that segment of society which the polling actually shows is the vast majority of Ontarians, and certainly that's reflected very clearly in my riding and in the comments I've just read. People believe there's been a vast growth in government, and they're right.
My predecessor, George McCague, who was the Chairman of Management Board during the last six full years of the Ontario PC government during the Bill Davis era, very quietly through an attrition program slashed 8,800 civil servants over the last six years that he was Chairman of Management Board. The problem with George is that he forgot to put out a press release.
When Mr Peterson came to office, I argue government changed. You can't do anything around here unless you put out a press release. The red track suits and the red ties and the flamboyant style meant that you really, really, really had to get in the ball game of informing the public, and the style of politics changed.
George McCague and his colleagues at the time, I think, believed, as we do today, in good management. George wasn't flamboyant in either his presentations in the House or in his management style. But it was a sound management style. I think the hardest thing that our predecessors, when they went into opposition, had to deal with was the fact that they really didn't know what they were to do in opposition in terms of getting their message out. We've corrected that. Mike Harris has brought this party a long way.
To Mr Davis and to our predecessors of that era, good management came naturally and it didn't warrant a press release, hence they weren't used to having to explain. To cut back on the number of bureaucrats -- now 93,000 that work for us here at Queen's Park and in the ministries -- to cut back on those in the early 1980s was a natural thing. The government of the day sensed the public was tired of the big government of the mid-1970s. The government had got too big and it simply through attrition -- and really no one got hurt.
It's that type of approach that our amendments to Bill 48 reflect. It's with that type of commonsense approach that we're trying to get Premier Rae to change his social contract legislation, adopt some of our measures, as I said earlier, to make it more humane legislation.
It's tough out there, I know. My mother is a teacher and she, quite understandably, does not like Bill 48 or the social contract legislation. But she says to me that if we don't do something now, it's going to be worse in two years, and she might even lose her job in two years, and that would be very sad because she's close to retirement. She realizes that governments have lived beyond their means, that a $68-billion debt is really immoral and that $10-billion deficits every year, if that's what we're going to have, are immoral, that it's not right to pass on our problems to the next generation, and I agree with her.
I'm the generation that grew up believing you could get something for nothing. I think we went through many years of my parents and their generation where the programs were being added on and added on, until recent years. The bills weren't necessarily ever going to be paid is what we kind of figured out in the afterthought, and I and many of my friends are stuck paying the bills, as are the people of Ontario now. The chickens have come home to roost.
We realize that something has to be done. I don't think Bob Rae, to be fair to the Premier, takes any perverse pleasure in having to bring in this social contract legislation, in having to take on unions, in having to bring in expenditure controls. I don't think he enjoys that, nor did we enjoy voting for that principle on second reading.
But unlike, I know Mr Phillips will get up and argue, what we've seen from the Liberal side -- they've not offered alternatives. They've simply opposed every expenditure restraint measure that the government has brought forward, and I think that's unfair and I don't think that's responsible.
Hon Mr Wildman: You've got to admire them, though, for being able to sit on that picket fence.
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes. The minister says you've got to admire the Liberals for being able to sit on the picket fence, and it's a balancing act indeed.
2040
Mr Phillips: The Conservatives aren't going to vote in favour of this bill, though. The Conservatives aren't going to vote in favour of the bill, are they, or are they?
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Phillips, when you speak, I'll be sure to interrupt you.
So in summation, I've enjoyed my 30 minutes here. I hope I've brought forward some concerns on behalf of my constituents. I hope the government has taken note of those. I will certainly be following up on the Nottawasaga drain issue, on the zoning designation in New Tecumseth. We'll be talking a lot more in the few days coming about the social contract. We'll be watching the Premier to see what he does with respect to that legislation while it's here in committee of the whole House.
I remind people that yes, one out of four Ontarians work in the greater public sector, but three out of four Ontarians don't. Many of them are unemployed and they have no hope of a job as long as we have huge deficits and debts. That's the fact of the matter. Even the New Democratic Party that promised the world has finally come to its senses, to a certain extent anyway, on that issue. We want to encourage them to embrace expenditure controls. I suggest they do a little more on the home front here, with the 93,000 civil servants we have here at Queen's Park, and I look forward to further debates on these and other issues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments.
Hon Mrs Grier: I regret that I was not here for all of the member's speech, and I know he ranged far and wide and commented on a broad number of issues, but I couldn't allow the opportunity to pass without commenting on some of the points that he made.
I listened very carefully when he said that for the Conservative government, which we all know was here for 42 years, good management meant not sending out a press release. He then went on to talk about one of his predecessors, a member with whom I served in this House who, as chair of Management Board, diminished the civil service by thousands of public servants, but there was no announcement.
What distresses me is the pleasure and the pride that the member opposite seems to take in the fact that these kinds of decisions were made behind closed doors and that there was no sense on the part of the government that it governed for, with and alongside the people of this province and on behalf of the people of this province, and that the people of this province had a right to perhaps be informed of those decisions, participate in those decisions or, perish the thought, sit down at the bargaining table and perhaps discuss whether in fact these same objectives could be achieved in a better way.
That is what this government has tried to do and that responds to the demands of the people of this province in the 1990s. No longer can decisions be made by fiat. No longer are decisions made by cabinet without the participation of the public or of the public servants, and that is how it should be.
He also talked about the spending in that era and acknowledged that the chickens were coming home to roost, and they have indeed -- spending that was done without any concern for the future. I'm glad the member recognizes that there ought to have been that concern for the future because the other thing he said was that farmers in his area had no choice but to grow houses. If ever there was a shortsighted approach to the future of this country and to future generations, that is it.
Mr Phillips: I wanted to comment on the member's speech, much of which was, I thought, useful.
The one thing I want to comment on is a remark he made around the social contract and the view on how the social contract might be handled. I know often we don't listen to things that are said in the House, but I would just say that my leader, Lyn McLeod, made a recommendation at least eight weeks ago on how to handle this situation. I think the way the House operates, oftentimes I don't think the Premier was listening when she said it. She said that in her opinion this is a very straightforward way to handle the situation. You give the employer community and the employee community clear guidelines on the amount of money that has to be saved and then you give those individuals, those groups the tools to reach their own agreement.
That's the recommendation she made eight weeks ago. You can check Hansard and you'll find it's there. Very straightforward, very simple and one that, in our opinion, would have allowed this process to work.
The other thing she said was that the government should sit down with OPSEU, its own employees, and reach a model agreement so at least that could be shown as a model that the other employers could use. That was the recommendation eight weeks ago.
What we've now got is a proposal that I'm afraid won't work. I think it's unsaveable. I think it is so complicated, with sectoral agreements, local agreements, and then in the final analysis, for the next three years, the minister -- I gather it will be the Minister of Finance -- will have to approve every collective agreement in the province. I just don't think that's workable.
I think the recommendation that my leader made eight weeks ago is the one that should have been followed; I still think it's the one that will be followed. I'm afraid we're going to find in five weeks that we've got a very unworkable bill before us.
Mr Turnbull: I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member for Simcoe West for a very thoughtful debate, which is typical for him.
I'm very sorry, after having heard another very thoughtful dissertation by the member for Mississauga West earlier tonight, which I thought was a very non-partisan type of comment, to hear the Minister of Health with her comments with respect to my colleague.
She criticized the fact that the Conservative government reduced the civil service through attrition and the fact that, she said, it made the decision behind closed doors. No, they didn't. They simply managed the economy properly and didn't spend millions of dollars on propaganda. For the Minister of Health to make that as a criticism and then to walk out before she can even hear the response, the rebuttal, from my colleague the member for Simcoe West I think is crude and inappropriate and it lowers the tone of debate.
So far this evening, there has been a good quality of debate, thoughtful debate. I particularly was listening to, as I said, Mr Mahoney in his debate where he was dwelling on some of the problems that exist in this province and offering some solutions.
I'm rather sad to think that the government is reacting with this knee-jerk reaction of just simply criticizing the fact that the Conservatives ran the economy properly and reduced the civil service without a great hoopla, but simply ran it efficiently so that this province was a very viable place to live. There are an awful lot of people wishing they could return to those days.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe West has two minutes to make a response.
Mr Jim Wilson: I want to thank the Minister of Health, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and my colleague in the PC caucus the member for York Mills, Mr Turnbull, for their thoughtful comments.
I don't know. I didn't take the Minister of Health's comments too badly. I think she missed the point. The point is that we say, in a commonsense way in my riding, that we maybe have to grow houses on our farm land if the government is going to force us into perpetual poverty by designating the land, through some social theory, strictly agricultural when farmers have no other retirement income.
I'm a little tired of the Minister of Health, who has a home in my riding up in Glen Huron, coming up on weekends and staring at us as if we're some perpetual Kodak moment. My constituents and the farmers in my riding are entitled to make a living, and if you don't like it, get out of government, because you're not doing any service to the people of this province who produce your food. To come up and stare at us on weekends and want us to live in a picture frame is a little unfair, because the policies that follow this government seem to be that: "We also want you poor. We don't want you to develop, we don't want you to make a living and, for God's sakes, don't have a decent retirement like MPPs. Just stay the way you are."
To a certain extent, we agree. We'd like to stay the way we are in Tecumseth township, so we ask the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to get off our backs and to let us keep our rural-agricultural designation, let us keep the status quo and let us live for another 200 years as farmers, dealing with God's land and providing your food.
2050
Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to join the debate on the vote on supply. Just in case people aren't aware of what we're doing here, we will be voting, I assume, later this evening to permit the government to have the necessary funds to pay its bills. It's a normal debate that we have. It does provide the members an opportunity for a relatively wide-ranging debate. I'd like to focus my comments on the economy and on the budget, in that we will be looking for funds to help the government to implement its spending plans.
I think members of the House know that the most troubling page in the budget for me was the page that spelled out the unemployment situation. It's on page 45, for any of the people who are interested in the budget and perhaps have copies of it. I thought the government was actually mildly courageous putting this chart in, because it shows what I believe and what the government believes to be the real situation on unemployment.
I would say to the people of Ontario, we are in the middle -- I hope it's only the middle; I hope it's not the beginning -- of a whole new unemployment situation. We, as a province, have never seen unemployment rates that will run in the double digits for at least five years.
The chart I'm referring to points out that while Statistics Canada, the group that reports the unemployment numbers, says Ontario has an unemployment rate of 10.7%, the real unemployment rate is 14%. The reason for that is, as the budget points out, there is a large number of people who have simply stopped looking. Everyone knows they're out there, everyone knows they would like to be in the workplace, but they've simply dropped out. What this chart shows is that the real unemployment rate in Ontario is now 14%; by 1995 it gets down to perhaps 13%, and it just barely gets below 12% in 1997.
So, for me at least, the most serious part of the budget is that we are now looking at unemployment rates that will run dramatically higher than we have seen before for a very long period of time. I've raised this issue in the House because these numbers reflect the government's plans. The government knows what its plans are now, what its plan will be over the next two to three years, and this is going to be the result of it.
The Finance minister, Mr Laughren, was at our finance and economic affairs committee this afternoon. I had an opportunity to ask him that question and he confirmed, yes, this is taking into account the plans they've got and the situation as they're best able to predict it. We are looking at real unemployment numbers in that 13% range after 1995.
I raise this because I don't think we in the province, we in the Legislature, have begun to really internalize that and say to ourselves, "What does that mean?" This, in my opinion, will be the first time in at least 50 years in the province where we will go through a long period of time where a large number of qualified people who are anxious to find jobs will not be able to find jobs for a considerable period of time.
As I say, I spend a fair bit of time looking at this. When you're in opposition, you have a little more time on your hands than if you're a minister, so this is an area I have an interest in. I've gone back 50 years in unemployment and we've never gone through this stretch.
I realize that right now we are all of us, particularly the government, involved in dealing with the fiscal side of the economy. That's an important side and I will touch on that shortly, but I really don't think we've turned our mind to what this means.
Some of our friends in the Maritimes have had this situation for some time. I don't think they've learned to live with it, but they've dealt with it, and I'm sure not all that effectively at some time.
I'm not suggesting that the solutions are easy, but until all of us recognize the magnitude of the problem, we won't begin to find the solutions. I commend the government for putting that chart in, because I think it highlights for us -- look at the 1982 recession. We had one year of double-digit, 10.5% one year and then it got below that and eventually we saw it drop to 5%. Go back and look at the unemployment rate in the 1960s, and it's tough to think it was a 3% unemployment rate.
It seems that what is happening is that we have a level of unemployment, and then we have a recession and it goes up and it never comes back down again to the level it was pre-recession. We go along, we have another recession; it goes way up and then it drops down, but never as low as it was before the recession.
So this is a challenge for all of us. Frankly, the solutions aren't going to be easy. I accept that. If you follow what's going on in Europe right now, there's an enormous debate in the European Community just in the last week, where the European Community is facing a similar situation -- not to the same extent, but a similar situation -- and it's split on how to deal with it. There's a raging debate, but they're having the debate at least.
I think the thing we can conclude with certainty is that jobs will not be created, we will not see a growth in jobs in the public sector in the next five years. That's something that looks to me like it's a given, and as we know, about 20% of jobs are in the public sector or broader public sector. When we talk broader public sector, by the way, just so the public is aware, that includes in that 20% the doctors, the teachers, the university professors and all those people.
There is no doubt that the growth will have to come in the 80% private sector. The Minister of Energy is nodding his head, and I think we all accept that, but I will just say it's not going to be that easy. If you look at where the jobs are in the private sector, historically 20% of the jobs in this province have been in manufacturing, about a million jobs. There are five million people who work in the province, as you know. Historically, about a million work in manufacturing, but even in the boom times in manufacturing, probably the last really good period was the late 1980s, where manufacturing output went up dramatically but the number of jobs in manufacturing actually declined. From 1985 to 1990, the number of people working in manufacturing actually declined in spite of the fact there was an enormous increase in output.
So it won't come in manufacturing. Even though I think we need to collectively put an enormous effort into our manufacturing sector, jobs will not come in the manufacturing sector. Output will grow, but we will not see significant growth in jobs.
It will not be in what they call the trade sector, retail and wholesale. In fact, the jobs are declining fairly significantly there. For those of us who watch the retail sector, you'll see very large stores coming on the scene that have a very small labour component; these huge warehouse stores employ very few people compared to the traditional smaller stores. So it won't be in that area.
It will not be in the agricultural sector. It won't be in our resource sector.
We all have felt it would be in the service sector. That's where the economists and most people will say we'll grow, in the service sector, and the service sector in the province is about a third of the jobs. But the thing we must remember is that literally half the service sector jobs are in education and health and welfare. If we look at that, we're not going to see substantial growth in that sector.
There is the problem. The solutions are a little more elusive than identifying the problem. Frankly, identifying the problem is comparatively easy. My own view is that the jobs will come from small business, and every economist will tell you that's where the jobs are created, in small business. They will come from us aggressively going after our ability to compete globally. That's a cliché, but I think it's true. I think all of us have all reached that same conclusion. It will come through a lot of the things we talk about: increased training and all of those things.
2100
I would say, though, that I am one who embraces technology and the need for that, but I think we have to be careful of how we respond to it. I'll give you a specific. I think collectively we have let our tourism industry lag, particularly when we get caught up in thinking about technology. We are now into the information era, but I think we make a big mistake by focusing singlemindedly on what we traditionally regard as high-tech areas and ignoring an amazing asset we've got, which is tourism.
Frankly, I was pleased to see the minister's task force. The tourism people were in to see our caucus about a month ago. I said: "My advice to you is that something the Premier loves is this telecommunications report. He waves that around a lot." That was where you got the various stakeholders and the ministry together and worked out --
Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Gerry, you're not taking credit, I hope.
Mr Phillips: I'm not looking for credit, although it would be nice. I said, "My advice is go and wave that report in front of the government and say you want the same thing done in tourism." The Premier is quite caught up in technology and those things, and that's good, the ideas and all that are good, but we make a huge mistake if we singlemindedly go at that and ignore some of our enormously high-potential areas. To me, tourism is one where we can't even stand still. Every country in the world is focusing very heavily on that, because it is job-intensive, it brings in good hard currency, it does all sorts of good things for you. So there's another area. I will use that as an example we must focus on. It's job-intensive, brings in currency, keeps currency in the country, in our province. You can look at other countries, at how they've developed enormous destinations.
I wanted to focus on what for me is the most important problem facing the province. I don't mean to say that our finances aren't important, but for me how we are going to create an environment where jobs are going to be created is important.
Whenever we get talking about this, I think the old-style politics come in and people say, "How much money do we have to spend to create these jobs?" We make a big mistake if we start thinking that. Even when I raise a question in the Legislature around jobs, I'm asking, "How do we create the environment where individuals will create jobs?" not where we will go out and spend money to buy jobs. We've got to get that mindset.
I'm not one who accepts that it is inevitable that we are going to lose much of our manufacturing base. I happen to think, by the way, that we made a huge mistake 15 years ago, when we said: "The smokestack industries are gone. We've got to focus on the information industries." I think what we should have said then was: "The smokestacks are gone from the industries. We have to focus on helping the industries adapt modern technology."
I can remember back 10 to 15 years ago when many people were encouraging their children: "Manufacturing's gone. We're into the information era" -- whatever the information era is; I've never figured that one out. But my own view, as I said, is that we should have said, "The smokestacks are gone from the industries." Now I think we're paying the price. Some of our most treasured assets are -- drive by a factory where you've got a vibrant business with 200, 300 or 400 really good jobs. That is an incredible asset to a community, unbelievable: 400 long-term, quality jobs, often where you've got high technology able to create good-paying jobs, and every one of them's a jewel. I think we have lost an awful lot of them.
Free trade: I know as soon as you mention free trade, one party says it's great and the other party says that's the cause of all our problems. We get into this sort of, "Blame everybody." I think the one thing that everyone can agree on -- well, I hope there are two things we can all agree on.
I think the government members would agree to this: that we have to become a global trading nation. If you don't accept that, we should have a debate around that, but I don't think that's an option for us. We have to become a global trading nation.
The second thing is that we could not have implemented the free trade agreement under worse conditions. For that, I do fault the people who brought it in, because the people who were negatively impacted by it I think were done an enormous disservice.
What do I mean? The free trade agreement came in. We had at the time it came in a 77-cent or a 78-cent dollar, in that range. It went up to 88 cents, and just at the same time that happened, interest rates rose dramatically. Whatever opportunities were there for our manufacturing sector to take advantage of with free trade, we essentially put the handcuffs on them. We essentially raised their prices 10%. By the way, labour often gets blamed: "Well, labour costs went way up." One reason labour costs went up was that the Canadian dollar rose and, automatically, labour costs versus the US went up 10%. The point I'm making is that we've had a strong negative impact as a result of the free trade agreement and we have lost a lot of jobs.
So the first thing I wanted to say in dealing with this is that I think there's far too little discussion about jobs going on because the government is singlemindedly focused on dealing with its fiscal situation. I guess I can understand that, but I don't accept it.
I keep the little speeches the Premier gives. It was in September 1991: The House came back and the Premier gave what I call his finger-pointing speech, when he said "No more finger-pointing," and then later in question period he started pointing the finger. But it was, "Our number one focus is going to be on jobs." Many of the members may recall that speech in September 1991. Every major speech we've had from the Premier is, "Our number one focus will be on jobs," but if you look at where the energies of the Premier have been spent, I think a fairminded person would say they have not been on jobs. That has not been where the Premier has chosen to put his energies and his time.
The Premier spent a lot of time dealing with the Constitution, and that's an issue that is important. It's an issue that I wish we could have reached a successful conclusion on. The Premier exerted an enormous amount of his personal time, his energy, his enthusiasm, and in the end it was a valiant effort that just was not able to come to a successful conclusion.
The Premier now is focused very much on the deficit and wrestling it to the ground. I remember in February, for those of us on the finance committee, the Finance minister came in and laid out the finances for us and said: "The deficit's going to be around $14 billion. Here are all the numbers." He worked very hard on them, so I was really surprised when, about five weeks later, nothing else had changed but the Premier had concluded that the deficit now was $17 billion and we were into an all-out war to wrestle this one to the ground.
2110
Even here in the Legislature you can see that the energies of the Legislature, I dare say the energies of most of the cabinet, are on the social contract and wrestling with the deficit. In the meantime, my own feeling is that -- in fact I was struck today on the job situation. The Treasurer brought quite a comprehensive report to the finance and economics committee on the economic outlook, on the budget and what not.
In the budget which was presented on May 19 it said 98,000 jobs have been created in Ontario in the last eight months. Today, one month later, it's now 85,000 jobs that have been created in the last nine months in Ontario. My point is that we have been hoping and expecting that the number of employed and the number of jobs was going to get better and better and better, but it looks like it's stalled somehow or other.
So I think we're going to have to learn to deal with a couple of issues at the same time here. We must wrestle with our fiscal situation, but I think the Legislature's going to have to turn its attention very, very heavily to the whole issue of how we are going to deal with this, because essentially what the Minister of Finance said today was: "I'm sorry. That's how it's going to be. To the best of our ability, looking at all of the plans that we have, that's how it's going to be."
I'm not sure any of us will find that acceptable. I'm not sure any of us are prepared to live with that, prepared to live with unemployment at 13% through 1995. Youth unemployment, no doubt, will be running above 20%. It is now and, with those numbers, it will continue. That will be unacceptable.
I want to share that with the Legislature because I don't mean in any way to say that what we're dealing with on the fiscal side isn't extremely important and, by the way, linked to jobs. I understand that. I think if we were not dealing with our fiscal situation, we would not be able to solve the employment situation because there's no doubt that, to use the old cliché, capital is very, very easily travelled these days.
People who will create the kind of job situation we want in the future -- and it isn't just money, I think it's intellectual capital. The real thing we need here is --
Mr Callahan: Talent.
Mr Phillips: My colleague said "talent," and enthusiasm and commitment. There are thousands of people out in Ontario with good ideas and we need to create the environment where they're prepared to invest in the idea and often invest financially. That takes an environment.
My background is business. I ran one company and I started up two companies from scratch and it's never easy. You literally put your house on the line. I can remember one day the bank phoning to say, "You better come and re-sign this mortgage or we won't meet your payroll." Those are the sorts of situations you get into and I don't think -- you talk to any successful business person who started a business up, I'll bet you nine out of 10, or nine out 100, will say, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it," because they go through an enormously difficult period of time to get it rolling.
My point is this: We do need to have the right fiscal climate for that to happen, so we need to deal with it. There's no doubt about that. But I hope all of us really begin to turn our attention to the job side of it.
How did we arrive at the fiscal situation we're in? I'm never one to say it's all one group's fault. I think there can be no doubt that we've gone through a world recession. There's no doubt that Ontario has been impacted by all of the restructuring -- and, by the way, the word "restructuring," I think that's misused as well. Some people say we are going through a period of restructuring. My own judgement is that we are now into constant restructuring, that the thought that restructuring would end and we would go back to some period of normalcy -- I think we're into constant change, which, by the way, throws out a new set of problems for us.
Many of us have had at least the comfort of a workplace where we are going to be for a considerable period of time and that provided an environment where we had some comfort. Many, many of us are going to see many job changes in our life. I know everybody says that, and actually I think it's true. So how do we help to add some stability to our communities when we take away, in my respects, the stability that the work environment provided in the past? That's an aside, but it's part of my own belief that we're not into a period where the restructuring will end and we'll be back to normalcy. I think we're into constant change.
But back to how we got here. I hope I don't sound overly partisan. If there's one event that was more responsible than any, I think it was the first budget by the government. I don't think any of the government members could ever say this, but I do believe that in their quiet moments they would acknowledge that if they could turn the clock back to that first budget, trying to spend one's way out of the recession has proven to be a mistake. It just didn't work, and once you build those costs in, they are very tough to extract.
Now we're wrestling with that, and in the very few moments remaining to me I would say that the social contract is an enormous experiment. I put out something called the Treasury Watch, which is just my comments on things in the treasury, and I said back on May 26 on the issue of the social contract that:
"The $2-billion-a-year social contract expenditure reductions have been built into the financial plan without assurances it will be realized. This is of course a very challenging experiment for the government and everyone hopes it will be successful. It's the cornerstone of the 1993-94 financial picture and indeed all future financial plans."
I would say to the government that once -- I mean, we're in the middle of a debate on this thing, and I know you cannot acknowledge that you have reservations about it, but I think that perhaps when we have another debate in the fall, then time will have told the tale and you can say, "Well, I remember, Mr Phillips, you got up and said you didn't think it would work and we've proven it would work."
I'll go back to what I said in response to one of the member's comments, that I believe what should have happened from the outset was for the government to give its clear guidelines on the financial picture and then let the employees and the employers bargain the resolution themselves.
What we've got now I think is the worst of all worlds, which is sectoral agreements which impact on local agreements and then a minister who has the final authority to approve any plan. The NDP might like that right now, but I'm sure if you were on this side of the House and it was a government of another stripe, you would find it totally unacceptable that a political body would have the authority to have the final say on 9,000 collective agreements in the province, and not just one shot; this runs for three years.
The chamber of commerce no doubt is patting you all on the back right now and saying, "Go get it; it's a great job." but that's a very significant step. It's complicated and it has, literally, unprecedented powers, and I would have hoped they might have found a solution that would have been true collective bargaining where we wouldn't be interfering.
I will conclude because my time is up, and I appreciate the chance to debate this supply motion.
2120
Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): I want to compliment the member on an unusually reflective set of comments in the remarks that he made. I think all of us do agree that his sense of the economic change that is swirling about us is not just a passing phenomenon, that restructuring is a word that is not a phase. It's an ongoing circumstance that is driven by the pace of technological change of our time, and that is impacting dramatically on working relationships, upon the relationships of economies and of all peoples. It's a very dramatic phenomenon which is very potent in terms of our destiny.
I would suggest to him that when we look back from our current fiscal situation to the first budget and the first year in power, there indeed are those of us who do not regret the first budget. There was nothing improper in terms of the classical economics of our times in attempting to move some further public sector spending into the economy in order to maintain employment in some sectors, in order to enhance job opportunities, in order to stimulate the economy to some degree.
I don't think there were any of us who at that point in time thought we were spending our way out of the recession. I don't remember hearing that language around the cabinet table. I don't remember hearing it in government. The language was that we were trying to do something to maintain the economy in a number of ways that we thought were helpful, and I think were helpful. But there is a limit to debt and at some point one has to recognize that, and I think we recognized there would be a limit to debt and that is where we are now, trying to deal with that issue.
Again, compliments to the speaker. I thought it was a very reflective and helpful statement.
Mr Callahan: I picked up on one of the comments my colleague made in his speech and it's about young people. Young people are asked to invest their capital, their time, their energies in earning higher education. I think it's reflected in a letter from one of my constituents, a Maria Greifeneder. I hope I haven't ruined her name. She talks about it as "fleeing Ontario."
Is this what we have done? Is this what we, collectively, as the government of Ontario, are about to do, to make young people flee this province? Are we in fact going to pay for educating these young people, are we going to squander their efforts, their time, their energies and let them go to another jurisdiction to find a job? Yet that's in fact what we've done. As my colleague said, it's not just capital that flees this province when you have oppressive taxes, when you have oppressive steps taken in terms of labour legislation; in fact it is young people.
I have great concern about the young people of this province, particularly this summer. I saw last year they were going around selling chocolate bars at doors. I'd never seen that in the province of Ontario before, and that's a very devastating, a very humiliating and a somewhat depressing scenario, because I really don't see these young people seeing a future for themselves in the province of Ontario.
I think if there's anything we as legislators have a responsibility to pass on to our young people it is the fact, yes, work hard. We will provide the institutions for you. We will make them available to you. We will make jobs available so you can work to pay for them, but when all is said and done and you've got your education, you put in this effort, there will be jobs here for you in the province other than serving hamburgers at McDonald's. I really find that very depressing. I apologize to McDonald's. It's probably a novel job.
Mr Turnbull: I must confess that I almost always enjoy the debate which is joined by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He brings a lot of very useful points to bear and he has a thoughtful analysis of the economy of Ontario. Indeed, I will be debating immediately after him and I hope I can bring forward the same constructive type of tone. I think it behooves us all to reflect on what he has said and what has been said here tonight.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I feel moved to comment on the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's comments, partly because of the comments made by my colleague the member for Hamilton West, but also by the member for Brampton South. I would think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would prefer not to have commented on his very sensitive discussion, I thought, of the issues that face us. After all, the member for Brampton South probably never answers his own door. Those of us who do answer the door know that people have sold chocolate bars for a long time door to door. It's nothing new.
The fact is that as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt mentioned, there is a constant restructuring going on. It just so happens that before the member for Scarborough-Agincourt rose, I was reading a book called To Preserve and Defend: Essays on Kingston in the 19th Century. The point is made that Kingston in the 19th century looked much different from Kingston as it is now. So the same kind of restructuring was occurring then, slower, but it was occurring. People had to address the needs.
A lot of those people came from Great Britain, where obviously changes there meant that the number of people couldn't live in a way that was sustainable, so they had to go to other countries in the world. These kinds of changes are always happening. What we're trying to do is create the circumstances where people can live a decent life in the place where they're born and where they would prefer to live.
Let me mention some of those factors in 19th century Kingston that affected the economy. I must say that the author says: "...factors over which Kingston merchants had no control. These factors are British imperial trade policy, technological innovation and the shifting balance in North American intercity commercial rivalry," things that face us today. Substitute American or Far East imperial trade policy. That affects us.
The member said it's a global economy we face now and it's the kind of changes that we make. We include, as he said, the ideas of all our citizens in meeting these challenges.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to make a response.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of the members and I appreciate the last comment the member from Kingston made. I keep thinking to myself as we look at this unemployment situation that I'm sure legislators stood around 100 years ago when machinery was being invented and said, "Gosh, we're going to have 90% of our farm community unemployed." But we somehow or other worked our way through it. Each time, we've worked our way through it.
That's the optimistic side of me. It says, "Listen, I'm not sure what the solution is to these unemployment rates, but we'll find it," and I'm sure we will, but it will not happen by accident, I guess is my belief, and it may not be as easily come by perhaps as it has been in the past.
The member from Hamilton mentions that he's very proud of the budget. I recall the first budget's words to this effect, "We could have fought the deficit or we could have fought the recession, and we're fighting the recession." I think I'm accurately paraphrasing it. I go back to the point I made earlier that we may have to learn to do more than one thing around here at once.
It's tough to have a debate around here, because it's impossible. I once asked the Treasurer, "If you look back now, Treasurer, on that budget, would you acknowledge you were mistaken?" He said: "You want a headline that says 'Treasurer Admits He Made a Mistake'?" You can't do it. I'm saying that I do think the focus on fighting the recession, the thought of spending our way out of the recession that was there, that was a hallmark of that budget, was a mistake in the area of spending more than should have been spent.
2130
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Turnbull: As I came here tonight, I had been out briefly to present a scroll at a school in my riding. I came back and I went to our caucus room, and I ate a piece of pizza while I watched the debate of Mr Mahoney, the member for Mississauga West. I thought that was an excellent speech in which he reflected on many of the problems that we have in this House, and I determined then that the frankly fairly partisan speech that I had intended to deliver was not what I wanted to do. I wanted to get on the record some of the concerns and some of the solutions that I would personally put forward to this government and, in fact, any government.
First of all, I must for the record point out that it is disappointing that I haven't been able to have any input on the budget. Just to go back to the history of the budget, we had a pre-budget consultation period in which our party put forward a document with a great deal of detail, in which we put forward 15 points where we suggested the government could become more efficient and could save the taxpayers money and alleviate the need for tax increases.
The budget was brought in on a Wednesday immediately before a constituency week, and on the Thursday, the leaders of the two opposition parties were allowed to join the debate. Then one week later, on the Monday, we were given one further day of debate; we had one rotation. It means that our party has had two speakers; our leader and one other speaker have debated the budget. So before I start offering the solutions that I believe would help to eradicate some of the problems we face in this economy today, I must point out that I believe very sincerely that some of our democratic rights are being eroded, Mr Speaker, and I know that you have been very concerned about the conduct of Parliament and the relevancy of opposition members and backbenchers.
I would suggest that given that I'm given to believe there are only two official debates which are considered to be without any doubt a matter of confidence -- that is, the throne speech and the budget -- and the fact that the government has not brought this forward for debate and for a vote on the budget, I have not had my right as a duly elected member of this Legislature to express the displeasure that my constituents, the people of York Mills, feel for the budget.
The post-budget consultation that my party involved itself in was quite extensive. We had members who travelled the whole province and spoke to chambers of commerce, to union leaders, to people on the street, and they gave us their concerns and we undertook to bring them back to this Legislature. We weren't allowed to do that. I think there is a fundamental problem with the way our House is working when that happens.
Let me just talk a little bit about the situation we find ourselves in. There's no doubt that the spending of this province is out of control. Last year, we had the second highest revenues in provincial history, and that is something worth reflecting on. Notwithstanding the fact that the government has told us it has this terrible revenue problem, it had the second highest revenues in history.
What we have is an expenditure problem, not a revenue problem. All governments, of all political stripes, have added to the debt of this province, but none more so than the present government. The problem we have now is that we have a budget which calls for expenditures in excess of $10 billion by way of deficit financing. The government would have you believe it's less than $10 billion, and yet if you read the fine italics at the bottom of their own budget pages, you will find a note which suggests that $805 million is in fact taken off book into crown corporations, which is nevertheless debt that this province is responsible for.
In addition to that there will be $600 million which will be borrowed by schools. Instead of going to the old grant system that the education authorities got from the government, this government has moved to a system where it's saying, "Okay, school boards have borrowing power that the government apparently doesn't feel it has. We will have them borrow the money and in turn the government will service the debt," that is, $600 million. By any measure, according to any accountant I have spoken to, this is debt. The deficit of this province this year will be significantly in excess of $10 billion, even though we were told it was less than $10 billion.
The great problem we have with the growing debt is that the approximately $10 billion worth of bonds which were floated by the government at the beginning of this year were not fully taken up by the public. There is a concern about the quality of our bonds, and so many of the issuing agencies, the banks and so forth, are holding these in their treasury. That is a very serious problem for this government, because its ability to roll over debt as it comes due is severely limited if not totally blocked by the fact that those bonds are in the treasuries of the issuing organizations and therefore we will not be able to go out with any further debt.
We have an unemployment rate which is rather alarming. That is not, in and of itself, entirely the fault of this government. We have a very serious world recession going on. My friends on the other side of the floor would have us believe that is somehow due to free trade, and yet we know that free trade is not responsible for the job losses in Germany, the job losses in England, the job losses in France and even the job losses in Switzerland. Switzerland, which has historically had an unemployment rate which was measured in the decimal points has now a 5.5% unemployment rate.
Mr Jim Wilson: The US has lost three times more than we have.
Mr Turnbull: The US has lost a huge number of jobs. Yes, indeed, free trade has caused some job losses, but mainly it is the restructuring and the world recession which have caused the problems. In fact, the one bright light on our economic horizon has been the trade with the US, because since free trade we have in fact increased our exports to the US. They are now at record levels.
But let us turn to the solutions which I would suggest the government should consider very seriously. Presumably, at some point in the summer we will get away for a holiday. Who knows? Maybe not. But I would like them to at least go away and consider the possibility of adopting these measures.
I think we should move to set up an office of the comptroller general. The comptroller general should be completely independent of all political parties. The appointment should be made in consultation between the three leaders of the political parties and with the broadest possible consultation with the private sector, accountants and so forth. The job of the comptroller general would be to oversee and approve expenditures before the government gets into them. Unlike the Auditor General, who can only examine what has gone wrong in the past and blow the whistle on it, this would be a way that the government would be able to understand the effects of any program it's about to go into.
If you think back to the late 1970s, the Auditor General of Canada at the time recommended the appointment of a comptroller general. This was under the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. Their expenditures were out of control and so the Auditor General said this would be a way of handling it.
2140
I remember speaking to the man who was appointed as comptroller general on the day that he was appointed. He was a vice-president of Xerox and he was not appointed as an independent comptroller general. In fact his appointment was welcomed along with a statement from the minister -- I believe it was actually the Prime Minister -- and then one of the senior civil servants who briefed him and said: "Your first job is to set up your own personal office. You have an allowance of $50,000" -- now remember, this is the late 1970s -- "to buy new furniture for your office." This was not for the whole of the department; this was just for his own personal office, and $50,000 was an awful lot of money. This new man who was being appointed was shocked, because he saw in this one statement an indication of how seriously he was needed, inasmuch as the government thought in terms of spending big money on everything it did.
If we were to appoint an independent comptroller general, I think all parties, whoever was in power, would have the benefit of some wise counsel to say: "Wait a minute. This might be the conclusion of what you're doing now."
I believe that we should establish a very good econometric model of the Ontario economy. There are about three or four good national econometric models, but we don't have an econometric model of the province, to the best of my knowledge. We certainly don't have one in government. This econometric model should be available to the government at all times. It should also be periodically made available to the opposition parties for them to run and model their ideas. We should also endeavour to offset the cost of establishing this model by selling the services to the private sector. There are an awful lot of large businesses that would be very interested, I believe, in using this.
One of the advantages in making it available to the opposition as well as the government is that political parties would not just have it available, but they would be required to set out their agenda for the next election and test it with this model, so that we don't get one of these elections where a whole lot of promises are made and then a government comes in and says: "Oh, gee, we find there's no money. We can't afford it." The information would be available to those parties and nobody would have any excuse for buying people's votes with their own money, because the people who cast the vote would be in a position to be able to understand exactly what the implications of these programs that are being proposed would cost.
I believe we need a review of all government programs and we should be considering the original purpose for which the programs were established. For this reason, it is rather important that there be a very clear understanding, when we launch a program, as to why it is being launched so that we can measure with objective criteria how well we are doing with this program. We should be able to measure the cost of it on an ongoing basis and compare it with the projected cost and we should be able to consider on an ongoing basis, are there other ways of delivering those services on a more cost-effective basis, and also in which way we can service our clients better?
Another point which I believe is very important is that we must get to the situation where arbitrators in this province who arbitrate both public and private sector labour disputes have much clearer guidelines as to how they should be considering arbitration awards. There must be consideration for the ability of either the public or the private sector to be able to pay the arbitration award. There must be consideration for the impact on that business or on government, and if that means that there would be a requisite cost in terms of tax increases, we would have to be able to put that plainly forward.
The arbitrators should consider, when they're looking at a sector, and just hypothetically let's take school teachers, rather than just simply looking at school teachers in another municipality, they should also be looking at the amount of education that is required and the amount of stress that is inherent in that job as compared with another parallel job, so that we don't get sectors of our economy which are vastly out of step with others.
I remember seeing the Premier, Bob Rae, quite agitated when there was an arbitrator's award, I believe it was for the TTC, coming out. He thought that it was wrong. Yet here we have a perfect example of how an arbitrator is so independent and does not have to take consideration of the economic realities we're in.
I believe that we must move to change the committee system within our government. The present government -- and I'm not just talking about the governing party; I'm talking about the whole Legislature -- doesn't work terribly well. It is apparent to all members who arrive here. During their first term at a certain point they hit themselves on the head and they say, "Gosh, this is crazy." What are we doing? Why are we playing these games? We must be governing for the betterment of the people of Ontario, not for a small number of people who may be our partisans. We must seek to reduce the size of government.
Indeed my colleague the member for Simcoe West reflected on the fact that the last Conservative government reduced the size of the civil service by several thousand people over a period of years without any job cuts. They used simply guidelines that said, "We should not be increasing the size of government; we must reduce." In this, it was done simply by attrition.
We have got to stop unwise spending. A perfect example of this, and this is where I know the government will disagree with me, but the present expenditures on non-profit housing, which are projected to grow by 1995 to $1.5 billion, are absolutely unsustainable, particularly given that there are plans within your own Housing ministry which suggest that shelter allowances could be provided to those same people, those same target people, particularly the working poor, for much less money and would have a much broader application so that we could help more people. Rather than the small target that we're hitting at the moment with very costly housing, we would be able to help a much broader section.
We absolutely have got to stop abuses of the public purse, like spending $50,000 to develop a new union song or spending $30,000 to send 20 union members on a course on humour. Now, I must say, I am absolutely convinced that had I been around this House when we were in government or when the Liberals were in government, I could cite examples of where we have made stupid expenditures and where the Liberals have made stupid expenditures. But let us please get to reality and admit that it is a stupid waste of taxpayers' money. Having said that, let's move to having a more reasonable approach and a more fiscally responsible consideration for the taxpayer.
We must move to having greater concentration on the high-tech industries. I applaud the fact that the Premier has invited various members of the opposition parties to sit on panels of the Premier's Council to advise him. That is a step in the right direction, which has never been made by governments before. The present Premier's Council was established by the Peterson government and continued by the Premier, and some of the council members are still there from the Peterson days; not many but a few. This is a reasonable way that we should be planning the future, so that no matter which party comes into power, we are all a party to the very difficult situation we find in the world today.
2150
We must move to have a system which rewards the employees of the government for finding efficiencies, much in the way private business rewards its employees. The most successful businesses are the ones that have found ways of rewarding their employees, and often the private businesses that do not succeed have not found that way. In the same vein, we must move to have exactly the same type of regime in government. We must have a tax structure which rewards rather than penalizes the entrepreneurs who create jobs.
In a very curious discussion I had a few weeks ago, at the time that we were out consulting just after the budget -- by and large, we had terrific response from the public -- I came across one man who was a lifetime socialist. He was rather annoyed at the fact that we were having the audacity to say that taxes were too high. He said, "No, I think taxes should go up more." I said, "Oh, do you want to pay more taxes?" His answer was, "No, no. It's those fat-cat business people."
He was utterly convinced that they should be paying more taxes, absolutely ignoring the fact that there were a lot of businesses which are going out of business or are leaving the country. I pointed out to him at that time that even if he considered they were paying too little in taxes, if they find a more friendly regime today, jobs, and particularly ideas, are very portable. If we lose that intellectual depth, we will lose the jobs and we will lose the race to keep our standard of living.
I'm alarmed by the number of my constituents who are talking about leaving this province to go to other provinces or to the United States. As most of the members in this House know, I have an unusually affluent riding, but I have a lot of people who are in Ontario Housing who are not affluent. We need to keep the affluent people who are the job creators so that we can continue to have a high standard of living for all Ontarians.
The number of conversations I've had with entrepreneurs, doctors, surgeons, scientists and computer consultants who have already applied for their green card is alarming. My answer is, "Please stick around and fight to change the way we are so that we can once again move forward, so that our children can enjoy the standard of living we have."
These are just a few of my thoughts that I've presented, I think probably in a much quieter tone than I typically debate in here, and I would ask the members of the government to go away and consider the thoughts I've put forward to you. They're not particularly partisan. Consider them and think about implementing them, because I think all of Ontario would be a better place for it and our children will thank us for it.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Callahan: To the relief of the House, and I suppose the relief of my wife, who tells me I --
Mr Stockwell: This is questions and comments.
Mr Callahan: I thought it was further debate.
Mr Stockwell: The member addressed some of the major issues. Speaking about interim supply, I thought it was rather important that he speak about financial issues that arise when you borrow or spend billions and billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.
The member for York Mills has, in my estimation, spent a significant amount of time reviewing this budget and he does give it much consideration, as we hear every day and every Tuesday in caucus. He has spent the time investigating the expenditures and the controls that he feels need to be put in place to bring this deficit under control.
It seems to me that in his comments tonight, some of the points he made were extremely poignant. They are points that I think any government today or in the future will have to address in a far more significant fashion than they have in the past. It seems that governments have gone about spending money and taxing constituents with not much thought about the redress they face at the ballot box. Those days are long gone.
I travel this province, and I know the member for York Mills does. As he travels the province, the number one issue you hear about today is deficits, taxes and government spending. There's no longer a sacred program, as we've seen. Even the NDP itself has started putting in user fees for the health care system. The health care system is no longer a sacred cow. Social services are no longer a sacred cow. It seems such a distant memory that back in 1990 this government on the campaign trail said it would eradicate food banks. That seems like a lifetime ago, another century, when that promise was made, but it was just three short years ago.
I would like to compliment the member for York Mills. He has put long thought into this, and I appreciate his comments. If the government were truly looking for ways of seeing how it could save taxpayers' money, the first person I'd talk to is the member for York Mills.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I promised the member for York Mills that if he gave a good speech I would get up and say something. I think the member for Mississauga West started something tonight in an attempt to correct some of the difficult scenes we had here last evening. What I want to say to the member for York Mills is that I appreciated the style of this delivery. I believe he has the reputation of being fairly partisan and hard-hitting when he gives his address in this House, but this evening he took a reasonable approach. He made some good points -- not many that I agree with, I might add -- but he made them in a very serious way. I know he believes very strongly in them.
One point I would like to comment on, though, is that he said we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. That is not completely accurate. There are difficulties on both sides. We have to meet the needs of people who have special needs in this province. There's a need to increase social assistance, for example, for those who are most vulnerable. It's important that we meet their needs with taxpayer dollars. We do, however, have a revenue problem as well. Our revenues are down by more than $1 billion over the last couple of years. We have to make up that shortfall either through taxation or through borrowing, and we've tried to have a balanced approach. I think the member should look at all sides of the issue and not be single-minded and simply talk about expenditures as we look at our overall fiscal situation.
However, I think we should compliment the member. It's one of the first times I've seen him give an address in here which was fairly straightforward and rational, and I appreciate his different tenor this evening.
Mr Callahan: I wasn't going to take the two minutes because I'm sure everybody is tired and wants to get home, but I'm going to use it to add to my 30 minutes because I wanted to address the question of small business development loans.
The Minister of Labour, I have always found over the years I have been in the Legislature with him, is a man who is terribly concerned about jobs. I have two instances -- which I hope his colleagues will relate to him, and I will get the material to him -- that occurred in my riding.
One of them was Panther Systems of Canada. The other was an individual by the name of Mr William A. Bravin. Both attempted to access funds to create jobs in my community through a small business development corporation. Both of them went to extreme effort in trying to gather the capital they required in order to gather the money from the government to get the jobs going. But because of the cuts, the small business development loans were cancelled. The net result was a loss of about 125 to 130 jobs in my community. That impacts on the cost of government because, obviously, when these people are not employed, it means they collect unemployment insurance and, as we all know, there's a single taxpayer in this country. I'm going to be giving these to the Minister of Labour and I hope he would give serious consideration to them.
2200
Small business accounts for about 80% of our jobs. With respect, I suggest it was unwise to have done one of two things: number one, to have gotten rid of small business development loans, but more importantly, to have cut them off at the pass and not given those who were already in the system the opportunity to complete the capitalization. What it did in my community, as I said, is that it lost us 120 to 140 jobs. We can't afford to lose those.
Mr Jim Wilson: I want to really congratulate my colleague from York Mills for what was excellent participation in the debate this evening. The 10 points he brought forward included such things as:
-- Setting up an office of controller general.
-- A review of all government programs with respect to their cost, effectiveness and their value to the taxpayers.
-- Giving greater direction to arbitrators in terms of ensuring that arbitrators take into account competitiveness in the private and public sectors and also, I think, the employers' ability to pay.
-- Change the way government committees work. I thought he spoke from the heart with respect to some of the frustrations members of the opposition and members of the back bench of government feel with regard to committees and their effectiveness, the hours and hours we spend in those committees and whether or not we truly have any effect on how the government conducts its business.
-- A reduction in the size of government, particularly through attrition, really simply going back and working on the model established by the former Conservative government in Ontario.
-- Controlling spending.
-- Concentration on high-tech industries as an industrial strategy for Ontario.
-- Rewards to government employees for efficiency. Right now, we see near the end of each government fiscal year what we call the burnoff, where there's a mad dash to spend your budget in case they cut it next year.
-- To bring some much-needed tax reform and tax relief to the people of Ontario.
I daresay I miss the former member for York Mills. The metamorphosis we've seen this evening is hard for a partisan person like me to handle. None the less, I'm sure his wife, Cecile, is proud, and his two children, Nicole and Andrew, are very proud to have him as their father, as we are proud to have him as a colleague in this Legislature, particularly on an evening like this when he brought forward such constructive thoughts. I do hope the government takes his suggestions seriously.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr Turnbull: It sounded like my swan song, didn't it? No, I'm not resigning.
The comment I would have for the member for Hastings-Peterborough is that he asserts that it is a revenue problem, not a spending problem. I fundamentally refute that. He said welfare was up over $1 billion. I don't refute that; indeed, to those people who are out of jobs and need welfare we should be offering every possible assistance. It's the other programs you have created, with all due respect, which have caused your spending problem.
You're shaking your head, but I will undertake, if you want to come to my office or if you want me to attend your office, to go line by line through the budget and I will point out the waste which is causing your drastic overspending, your more than $10-billion deficit which is causing this province, in fact the whole country, to have a serious credit problem. There is a very real potential that this province could be downgraded in its rating. That will have an impact on not only your government but future governments in terms of the cost of borrowing.
I would certainly thank my colleagues. I also have to apologize to my assistant Charis Kelso, who is sitting in the gallery, who laboured today to produce the speech which I didn't give. But I've enjoyed this debate and I do hope, once again, that the members will consider these potential savings and go home and consider them.
The Speaker: Is there further debate?
Mr Callahan: I would like to have said that this speech will be shorter than 30 minutes, because I'm sure everybody's tired, including the people who are perhaps not paid as handsomely as the people in this Legislature, but I have to rise to speak to three issues.
One of them I've already addressed in the two-minute speech. I hope my constituents will be happy with that, and I intend to take their concerns to the Minister of Labour. That was over the Small Business Development Corporations Act, the opportunities being cancelled under the act due to the cuts that were required because of our financial situation. I hope they will be satisfied with that, because I do intend to take them to the Minister of Labour. I'm sure all members of the House are honourable people, and I think all members of the House wish to see jobs prosper and satisfied. Hopefully, we can get that back on the track.
One thing I do want to address tonight is something that's concerned me since I was elected to the Legislature in 1985. I note today, which is very interesting, in the Toronto Star, Thursday, June 24, 1993, there is a headline that says: "'All-Out War' Planned On Schizophrenia." If I could, without being pejorative, get the attention of my colleagues over there, this article is rather interesting. It's an article that says schizophrenia is a disease that costs Canadians an estimated $4 billion a year. It affects 270,000 Canadians -- I hope we're all listening. Mr Speaker, I'm going to sit down until I can get the attention of my colleagues.
The Speaker: Order. There are a number of private conversations. The member for Brampton South has been recognized on the floor, and perhaps private conversations could occur outside of the chamber.
Mr Callahan: The reason I asked for that attention is not for me, but what I'm trying to say to you is that schizophrenia is a disease that affects 270,000 Canadians. It costs Canadians an estimated $4 billion a year. We're concerned about the question of cutting costs, of paring down costs because of the tremendous deficit we have in this province. Schizophrenics "occupy 8% of Canadian hospital beds" -- think of the cost of that -- "and cost the health care system $2.3 billion a year." The problem is --
Mr Stockwell: A point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Callahan: I would appreciate it if we didn't call a quorum call.
The Speaker: The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that my colleague didn't call the quorum call.
The concern I've got, to put a real face on the situation, is that the amount of money spent in finding a cure for schizophrenia is $4 million a year. With any other disease, heart disease, cancer, whatever, eight times that is spent. With the small amount of money that the schizophrenia researchers have had, they have been able to find, in a short period of time, not just the cause of schizophrenia in locating the gene, but at the same time they have located the gene for Parkinson's disease. They're mirror images of one another. One is too much dopamine and the other one is too little dopamine.
Think of what would happen if we took the amount of money, the $4 billion a year that we spend on schizophrenics, the hospital beds that are occupied, and we took that money and the government invested that in research to increase, at least to the extent of research there is in other areas, the combined efforts in terms of finding a cure for this disease.
Let me put a real face on it. People who come to Toronto from outside -- and I include myself from Brampton -- see the poor souls who are wandering the streets of this city whom we all sort of just cast aside and ignore as being weirdos, the people we find sleeping up against the grates at the YMCA during the cold winters because they haven't got a place to sleep, the people we see begging, the people we see sleeping on park benches, the homeless, the people I think we all care for or should care for. Many of those people are schizophrenics. I remember that one politician -- I can't remember who he was -- made the comment that these people want to do that because that's their lifestyle. Well, I suggest to you it's not their lifestyle.
2210
Let me say as legislators we made one very serious mistake in 1985 or 1986 when we amended the Mental Health Act. We let these people slide right through the cracks. We have a system that is a revolving-door system for the most tragic event of human kind, and I'm sorry to say that it exists in Ontario or Canada. We have a system that allows people to be picked up off the street and made involuntary patients only if they are a danger to themselves or to society.
The net result is they're picked up because they are a danger to themselves or society, they're taken into the hospital, they go before a board and that board declares that they're in need of treatment, they get the treatment and then they go before an appeal board that says, "You no longer need treatment," and they're ushered out the back door back on to the streets.
Now, the Attorney General should be very interested in this, because I have had judges in the courts where cases have been brought before the courts and in fact they've been schizophrenics who have committed a crime and the judges have told me, they said, "This is not a problem for the justice system, this is a health problem."
Back in the days of the Davis government and after, it was thought to be humane to let all of these people out of the institutions back out on the streets. Well, it probably was. But if we don't provide the backup for them and if we don't provide the research money to try and find a cure for this terrible disease -- and I'm sure I could go through the 130 members of the Legislature and I would find that each and every one of you has someone who has touched you in your lives who has schizophrenia and you would dearly like to be able to help, and that's why this is so important.
You could say that in standing up here I'm asking the government in a time of bad economic times to spend more money. I'm not. I'm asking you, I'm asking the Minister of Health, who unfortunately is not here, but I'm asking you as cabinet colleagues to bring this to her attention, that in fact you have an opportunity to strike, to put an iron in the fire to help people who are costing us -- forget about the human side of it -- $4 billion a year.
Now, $4 billion a year would allow Floyd Laughren to not have to negotiate the social contract, would not have to disrupt the lives of all those people who are going to lose their jobs or have to take time off from work, would allow the Minister of Labour to carry on as the honourable man he has always been in the years I've known him in terms of being able to tell the unions, "All right, your jobs are secure." That $4 billion would be there. All we'd have to do is take a billion of that, or even less, and redirect it into investigating a cure for this, and we would have the money to deal with Mr Laughren's problem as well as dealing with this very sad problem of people who are involved.
Let me give you an example of what happens to a schizophrenic, and I hope by doing this I'm not revealing any type of a conflict in terms of my professional career. Take an individual who does something very bizarre and as a result the police are called. The police come to the scene to try to deal with the situation and one of the policemen is hurt in the course of doing it.
Normally when policemen are hurt in our courts, they deal them a very serious blow in terms of it being a jail term, and it makes sense. These people have to be protected. They're the people who put their lives on the line every day to protect us. Yet what happens is, the minute you try to put your defendant into the witness box to try to defend himself or herself by saying, "The television set told me to do it," the crown attorney stands up and says, "Well, this person is insane, so we're going to send this person off to Penetang," and the person will be there at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor.
The net result is, these people who are actually innocent -- this has been caused by an illness -- are required to plead guilty, even though they're not guilty, and suffer some other penalty.
Mr Speaker, I really find this objectionable. Doesn't anybody care about schizophrenia? Do we have to have 3,000 conversations in this place? I think it's a very important issue and I wish the people would stop their conversations, and I ask you, Speaker, to intervene.
The Speaker: The member for Brampton South makes a valid point that indeed there are a number of private conversations, which more appropriately should be held outside of the chamber, and the member for Brampton South has the floor.
Mr Perruzza: Get him to be a little more exciting, Mr Speaker.
Mr Callahan: I do find that last comment absolutely abominable, Mr Speaker. Maybe you should become schizophrenic and maybe you'd understand it, okay? You've got about as much sensitivity as a rat. Oh, I'm sorry --
The Speaker: The member for Brampton South will know that his comment is not parliamentary. The member for Downsview is completely out of order.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: No one's listening anyway.
Mr Callahan: I don't know whether the Minister of Labour said that, but he said, "Nobody's listening anyway." I find that really insensitive too, Minister of Labour. I intended to do the last speech in this House on a high note, but you've made it very difficult to do that. I'm sure that the people out there who have schizophrenic children are certainly not complimented by the fact that you made that statement and another one of your colleagues made an insensitive statement as well.
Maybe I'm wasting my time trying to talk to a government that's looking for ways to save money. If you're looking for ways to save money and to solve the problems of the people in this province, the young people, then for God's sake, wake up and do it. Don't sit over there and make insensitive comments about people who have schizophrenia and it's not their fault.
Try to take some positive efforts. You're always looking for positive reasons; you want positive suggestions from this side of the House. The time that's given to you on a sensitive issue, what do you do? You chuckle and you talk, you make comments like were made by the member from -- wherever. I'm not even going to look it up.
Now I'm suggesting to you and I'm asking you, I'm pleading with you: You are the government of the day. You have an opportunity to use the money wisely instead of unwisely. Instead of incarcerating these people, why don't you direct the money in a way that it can be used to solve the problem?
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: It's obvious, Mr Speaker, I'm sorry to say, that this does not seem to be turning anybody on, but you should be. You should thank God that your children are not schizophrenic. I have six close friends who have schizophrenic children. Their children are wandering the streets tonight perhaps and they're wondering where they are. They love them very dearly.
Believe me, they're not my children, thank God, so this is not a personal situation. It is personal in terms of my fighting for the people I care about and we should all care about, the most vulnerable. We talk in this House very eloquently about protecting the most vulnerable: Give them housing, give them welfare, give them whatever. Yet when it comes time to look at an issue that we can solve, that we can deal with, we turn an insensitive eye.
We say: "Well, it's a quarter after 10 at night. I'm tired. Let's not listen. Let's not do anything about it. Let's consider it to be a minor issue." It's not a minor issue, believe me. So I ask you to consider that with your colleagues.
We ruined it; we ruined the Mental Health Act in 1985, literally. We created a scenario where -- and I'm sure that you've been on committees, many of you, before you were in government, where you heard the pleas of parents, "Help us, do something for us. Give us the tools, give us the legislation to try to help," and we didn't do it. Now what I'm asking is for you to redirect funds in terms of investigating a cure for it.
You can save $4 billion a year. I didn't write that, the Star did. Now maybe they've got their facts all washed up, I don't know, maybe they're wrong. But I suggest it's worth looking at if we can save that kind of money.
If we can avoid 8% of Canadian hospital beds being used by schizophrenics; if we can get into research; if we can take a look at a good start, it would be an extra $10 million to $12 million. That's what Dr Jones, who is a research person in this regard, says it would cost us. So Mr Laughren would not have to even give $1 billion away. If he gave just a couple of million away, we could have a good shot at trying to cure this problem.
The other thing I want to raise is the question of the government's direction in terms of removing help for the learning-disabled. It's the efforts of this government, this government that says it cares for the people who can't help themselves, to take away the provisions that were in the act, that John Sweeney, who is a man I thought was probably the most noble man ever to serve in this House, fought for. He would not vote for Bill 82 until that was included, and you people are going to take it out with one swipe of a pen. You're going to eliminate it.
You know, learning disability is something you're going to find as you turn around and perhaps have children or look at your children or your nieces and nephews. You're going to discover maybe they have a learning disability, maybe they are kids who cannot be helped in the regular system and by the stroke of the pen, by what you're doing now, you're accomplishing, I suggest, the same injustice that was accomplished in 1985 with the Mental Health Act amendment.
Done in good faith, no question about it. We thought that was, or at least the government of the day -- not the government of the day; actually it was the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives -- thought that these amendments were appropriate. I won't mention the member's name, but I can understand the reasons he wanted these in. But in fact what happened, and he admitted it afterwards when I did my private member's bill, was we went too far. We created a situation that we didn't encompass, we didn't imagine would happen, and we have now created a scenario out there that's a problem.
2220
We're going to do the same thing with the learning-disabled. I don't understand. I spoke to the Minister of Education of the day -- it's now changed to someone else -- and he indicated to me that the reason they were doing it was because the school boards found it an easy way to ship these kids out if they couldn't find a way to deal with them.
In fact, I suggested to him, why don't you cut half a loaf? Prevent the school boards from doing that by requiring them to pay one half of the cost and the province pays the other half of the cost. Instead, what's happening is the proposal is to get rid of it completely.
It doesn't do any good to be on record as saying, "I told you so," and I don't want to have that benefit of being able to say, "I told you so." But for God's sake, look at it before you decide to do that, because in fact we may be going down the same slippery slope that we went down in terms of schizophrenics.
I have a young person in my riding -- I'm going into another issue -- who wrote me, and she made some very positive comments. She was particularly looking at Bill 48, and she's a political science student. As I read through the letter, I couldn't determine whether she was a Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat. It really doesn't matter. She probably has no political affiliation whatsoever. She's a bright person who wrote to me to try to explain her feelings and also wrote to the leader of the third party.
She was incensed that they voted in favour of Bill 48, so that tells me she mustn't be a Conservative. She was not in support of everything we said either, so that tells me she's not a Liberal. She was certainly unhappy with some of the things you're doing, and let me tell you the things she told me.
I think they're very constructive and maybe it will help the Premier, because Bill 48 is something that I'd prefer to see you people achieve through negotiation. I quite frankly would, because the minute you get into legislation, you've got all the problems of the possibilities of challenges in the courts and all that can create.
She raised a couple of points. One of them I hadn't even thought about is the fact that when you set an artificial barrier of $30,000 and only those people who are above it are subject to this act and the people below are not, you immediately run afoul of subsection 15(1) of the charter. You're not dealing with people equally, and unless you can satisfy the Supreme Court of Canada or some court that in fact section 1 will free you from that being unlawful legislation on the basis that this is something that government can do in a free and democratic society, you're going to find yourself in deep trouble.
If I'm right -- and I must admit that I'm wrong more than I'm right, but if I'm right -- you have created a scenario where, if you have laid people off, the legislation now protects the government and therefore the taxpayers of Ontario from being sued. But if the legislation is struck down at some point, somewhere along the line this government or the government of the day and therefore the taxpayers of Ontario are going to be subject to very significant lawsuits for wrongful dismissal. The act specifically protects us, but if the act is gone, you're in trouble.
I suggest to you that's something that should be looked at very carefully, and I wish you well. I hope that you can accomplish this through negotiation. I think that's the way it should go. It would certainly make me feel better and I think it would be fairer to the people you're negotiating with. But if you have to go the legislative route, this lady says -- and she's not a lawyer; she's a third-year student and she's raised a couple of issues which to me signal red flags that we should be looking at it -- we are the guardians of the taxpayers of this province and, whether we're in opposition or we're in government, we have to be certain that what steps we take are not going to cause more grief, more loss of income, more deficits down the line.
She also raises another very significant issue, the fact that she is a young person who has worked very hard to get educated. She's worked during the summer, she's never accepted any type of handout and she now finds as she gets into third year of university that there's nothing out there for her. She in fact had some very uncomplimentary things to say about Jobs Ontario. She said it was a babysitting service. I don't know whether she's right or wrong in that regard, but it was certainly her comment. She made some suggestions about hiring freezes as opposed to trying to eliminate jobs. She may be right.
I thought it was rather nice that she would take the time, because a lot of people, rather than take the time to write to their members of Parliament and perhaps suggest positive statements, are usually just apathetic. They don't do anything. They're not prepared to say anything. They don't vote in the next election. But this young lady, I congratulate her for having taken the time to do this.
I want to get back to the question of health cuts. It's always been a hallmark of this government, when it was in opposition and we were dealing with the question of extra-billing, it was always the argument that the question of health care should be something between the person and their doctor. That was always the hallmark of the day. In fact, without raising the spectre of abortion, that has always been the argument about abortion, that it should be a question between the woman and her doctor.
Yet here I have a letter from Dr Dickson, who is the new president of the Ontario Medical Association, and the gist of what he's saying is that the government has now stepped in and said it's no longer a question between the doctor and the patient; it's now a question between what the government thinks the patient can have and the patient can't have. Dr Dickson may be wrong, and if he is, I hope you will respond to him.
In fact, for the first time, you've interfaced the government between the doctor and the patient. I find that flies totally in the face of everything that I understand the New Democratic Party has always stood for. I have some friends who are members of the New Democratic Party and they've always told me it's sacrosanct between the doctor and the patient. It's a decision between the patient and the doctor. You can't intervene. You can't interfere. It's not a question of what the result is of the treatment; you don't interfere. Yet here we find that's exactly what's happening.
It's done with an effort to try to protect the universality of our health care, and I can't quarrel with that. Even this young lady, in her letter to me, my constituent, tells me that there are abuses, obviously. There are abuses where people go to the emergency service of the hospital because their child has a cold, whereas they could have gone to their regular doctor or whatever, or they could have given him some type of remedy. There's no question that there's abuse.
Maybe the answer is that every person in this province should get a listing of how much he's used in health care services over a year, just to draw to his attention the fact that this is what it's costing you. If you really get pressed for taxes, maybe the next step is to say, "If you use over a certain amount, then it's added to your taxable income." That way you maintain the universality of the program, because the people who are poor and in low-income brackets aren't going to pay anything for it, but the people who are in the higher income brackets are going to have to pay for it. Maybe that's the way you protect universality.
But I don't think, and I'm trying to be helpful, that you tell a doctor, if he's seen this patient for an ear infection, let's say, or an eye infection, to say, "You can only come back to me once more and after that I don't want to hear from you again." I don't see any doctor comfortably practising under those circumstances, because he's risking his professional capability. He's also risking his civil liability, because if he can't see the patient again and the patient develops something that's more serious and dies, where do you think they're going to go? They're going to go to the lawyer next and they're going to sue the pants off the doctor.
2230
Maybe you should look at some of those alternatives. I don't think the people of this province -- and I've talked to a lot of them -- would object to the first part of my suggestion, that they in fact be sent a list of the services they've used in a year, just so we all know that we are -- well, it has two purposes. It lets us realize that we're getting something for our tax dollar. Also, as we see the health care system expand and become more costly, it makes us more aware of the fact that if we continue to frivolously go to our doctor or allow the doctor to frivolously bring us back, then we're injuring or perhaps putting in jeopardy the health care system.
I urge you to look at that as opposed to interfering between the services that a doctor can perform. We're not doctors. We should never take on that responsibility. We're legislators. We try hard to do that and I think we do the best job we can, but let's not interfere with the health care system in the way that's being suggested. I think the doctors would find that most acceptable. It might be something you could try on them.
I want to go back, finally, to my constituents. I see the Minister of Labour -- and I don't say this in a pejorative fashion -- is here. I want to draw to his attention -- because I presume he's the person who would have been involved with small business development; I may be mistaken. Minister, I was raising the issue in the House that there were two constituents of mine from the city of Brampton; one of them was Panther Systems of Canada. I spoke about them in the House on a private member's statement, and in essence what happened was, by the small business development legislation being withdrawn -- this gentleman had an opportunity to occupy some 30,000 square feet of a facility in an electronic manufacturing area employing and training 35 to 40 personnel by February 1994. As a direct result of the NDP government discontinuing the small business development corporations program, this isn't likely to happen. This letter was dated April 25, 1993, by the way.
They'd arranged for a number of investors to supply an influx of $2.5 million into the corporate coffers. This would have allowed them to move into the new facilities and hire and train 35 to 45 new employees. The arrangements took over eight months of negotiations and countless expenses to complete, in effect, five to six other small businesses and $10 million to $15 million in total investment of capital of their own. The funds would have been capitalized over the course of the summer, as the investors would not be able to release their capital from other investments any sooner.
As the SBDC avenue is no longer available -- listen to this; we're worried about the North American free trade agreement -- these investors have now decided to put their money in other areas such as US-based GICs. So we lost that.
The second one is Mr Bravin, whom I spoke to you about. He, as I said, travelled for a year in Europe in November 1991. He arranged for mortgages to be placed on his family properties and arranged collateral to collect the capital that he could. He spent a year of painful search, sleeping in hotels and flights back and forth. He finally succeeded in obtaining credit in a form he could use here in Canada.
On his return on January 10, 1993, he contacted the program in Oshawa to ascertain that the program was still in effect and that there was funding. He was given a positive response, which prompted him to continue to formalize the loans. When he contacted the program on May 18, 1993, to inquire if he had to reapply and revive his application, he was told the program was cancelled in order to cut costs.
This gentleman spent in the neighbourhood of $150,000 during that year to achieve his share of the capital. He planned to invest about $4 million in Ontario small business. That was to create jobs to help our economy, and it would have created 40 new jobs, save from bankruptcy another 30 jobs and secure stability for 10 more. The grant would have generated $1 million for him, which is understandable. It would also have saved the treasury -- this is the federal treasury -- UIC payments for 40 persons now and 30 in the future.
He worked it out as to how much this cost our treasury in cancelling this program and he figured out that Ontario's portion was $245,700 that we lost because the jobs weren't created. We also lost the benefit of 70 persons earning about $35,000 a year and paying taxes at a rate of 30%. Ontario's portion would have been $294,000. The disposable income, if spent, generating sales tax -- and that's an estimate, obviously -- was $56,000. He came to a total of $595,000 per year we lost because we cancelled that program. All I say is, if his figures are correct, it means that in an attempt to cut costs, we in fact lost out.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Brampton South for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Hon Mr Allen: I want to thank the member for his address and I want to say to all members who participated this evening that I have enjoyed this evening's debates in a way that I have not enjoyed the House for a long, long time.
Having been in this House for many years, I know that this House can rise to very fine debating. It has always been able to and it can do today. There are many members of this Legislature who have outstanding experience in fields both personal and professional and who bring to this House a great capacity to inform us, each other, about their knowledge, their experience, and can lead us into better policy formation as a result.
I want to thank the member in that regard. I know that he in particular has got some deep interest in learning disability questions, and the remarks that he made on that subject I thought were very germane, as were some of this other remarks.
I want to note, where he raised the question around the $30,000 income cutoff in Bill 48, that not only is there the provision of the question in the charter of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society; there's also subsection (2) in section 15, where it at least suggests that with regard to unequals, it is proper to treat unequals differently in order to achieve an equal result. If he will go back and look at that section, he will see that that principle at least is in the charter and would probably defend the low-income cutoff as a proper proposition.
Finally, might I also add that I certainly believe that all of us need to get out of some very bad habits that we've developed in this Legislature since the election. We do need to listen to each other better and more, and we'll be able to learn something as a result and our policies will be better both as a government and our contributions from the opposition as well.
Mr Phillips: I wanted to comment on my colleague from Brampton South's remarks and say it's fairly vintage -- I might say Callahan, but fairly vintage the member for Brampton South in that, as the other member opposite suggested, there are many issues that the member feels deeply about. I think he's one of our best members in terms of representing both his constituency and certain issues that he takes an extreme interest in.
I think one of the challenges for the Legislature will be that as we wrestle with the fiscal situation we on the opposite side will periodically be bringing issues to the Legislature that perhaps do involve expenditure. I know that in the cut-and-thrust of the House, it's, "There they go: Spend, spend, spend." I would hope that we would at least listen to some of these issues.
I kept the speech, actually, that the Minister of Education and Training gave because it was an announcement of spending. The justification for it, understandably, was that this is an area we are going to increase our spending in because it's an area that has priority. Although the member for Brampton South indicated, at least in some of the areas he raised, that there was no increased spending, I think we are going to have to, on the opposition side, feel free to bring forward areas where we think the priorities are wrong and where we are perhaps making the wrong spending decisions.
I would hope the government, as it can, would periodically listen to those areas. They should certainly feel free to say, "There they go spending again," but I think we're going to have to discriminate a little bit on where legitimate spending cuts are being made and where we're not making legitimate cuts.
2240
Mr Stockwell: The difference, I think, today between even locally elected or federally elected or provincially elected legislatures, or politicians of all sorts, is that public time is being taken up with debates about finances. Money has become the issue. It just wasn't the case; I can remember 10 short years ago it was never a question of money, hardly ever a question of taxes. It was a question of services. It was always of service expansion.
I can remember vividly debates on social assistance increases and health care expenditure increases, grants from the cultural to the social side. The difference I've noticed, at least in the last few years, particularly since this government got elected, through no adjustment on its own -- the simple fact is that the recession hit. It's a very difficult recession, and the whole makeup of what we debate in this place and places about, in municipalities and even the federal government, is almost completely dominated around financing, because everything needs money. Whether it's health care or social services, anything needs money. If you don't have money, you begin to dominate with the topic, "How do we get money, how do we create money or how do we cut?"
It was refreshing to hear the member from Brampton speak, because it has been a while since you've heard a discussion like that. I don't think it's wrong, or I don't think that we're wrong in the discussion and the thrust that this place has gone. It does become a little more difficult, a little more confrontational, because when things are cut, everyone feels that everything that's cut that they want is the wrong thing that cuts should be made to. You learn that from any level of government you're at.
I'll commend the member. It was a good speech. It was interesting and certainly -- vintage Callahan? I'm not sure. Vintage Callahan I've seen. That wasn't vintage Callahan, in my opinion. But I enjoyed it and I thank the member for the comments. I don't honestly think there was any thought of frivolity about the comments you made. I think everyone took them as seriously as you meant them to be taken.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I just want to make a comment in regard to the specific remarks made regarding schizophrenia, mostly because I agree with the member. I want to state it on the record that I will be doing my part to assist in terms of what I appreciated most about the comments, that he wasn't asking for more money to be spent, just that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, of course -- there was a reallocation of funding to the research and development that can go into schizophrenia.
I know that in my riding I have had the Friends of Schizophrenia come and speak to me on numerous occasions, as I'm sure most of us in this House have, and we have heard the heart-rending stories, as has been stated, if we haven't all been touched by someone who has schizophrenia or who has to deal with the disease.
Having said that, it is very true, and speaking as someone who was an advocate for both Elie Martel and Shelley Martel prior to my election, we had to deal in many instances with the fact that they do utilize the criminal justice system, that our social network costs are unbelievably high and that our health costs are unbelievably high just in relation to this one disease. It has been lost between the cracks, as the member opposite has stated. I do appreciate the comments that were made, and I want to reaffirm my position on this and thank him for his participation.
The Speaker: The member for Brampton South has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Callahan: I want to thank all members for their comments. I want to start off by apologizing to the member from Yorkview.
Mr Mammoliti: Downsview.
Mr Callahan: Downsview, or whoever. It was uncalled for. I shouldn't have done that. I have great admiration for everybody in this House. The issue is one that's extremely close to my heart and I guess I misinterpreted what was happening.
It's late. I promised as the last speaker that I would turn out the lights and put out the cat. I think it's time to go home. Mr Speaker, without using up my full two minutes, which my wife will be very pleased about, I must say that the other night -- Mr Speaker, you weren't in the chair, Mr Villeneuve was -- I did use the name of someone greater than I and I shouldn't have. I apologize for that as well.
Having said that, I believe I can move adjournment of the House. I move adjournment of the House.
Ms Murdock: No.
Mr Callahan: No? Oh, I'm sorry. I will defer to the House leader.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the interim supply motion carry? Agreed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business for the coming week.
On Monday, June 28, we will consider, in the following order, second reading of Bill 25, the loan act; third reading of Bill 102, the pay equity act; second reading on Bills 32 and 34, the vehicle transfer package; second reading of Bill 29, an act to repeal the commercial concentration tax; and certain private members' bills which the three House leaders have been discussing, and we hope to have them determined by Monday.
The business for Tuesday, June 29, and Wednesday, June 30, will be announced.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The government House leader moves adjournment of the House?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, I move adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock, Monday next.
The House adjourned at 2247.