36th Parliament, 1st Session

L008 - Tue 10 Oct 1995 / Mar 10 Oct 1995

ORDER OF BUSINESS

JUSTIN EVES

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

CHILDREN'S AID SERVICES

SELF-REGULATION

EVELYN DODDS

LAYOFFS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

JENNY LAVOIE

PROJECT FIRST STEP

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

TAX REDUCTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HURRICANE RELIEF

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

BARRIE COLTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

DUTY-FREE SHOP

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

VETERANS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT, 1995

WATERLOO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1995

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1995

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE


The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I rise to seek the consent of the House to rearrange the routine proceedings for today only. This will have the House consider oral question period now, after which will follow members' statements, followed by the remainder of routine proceedings in their proper order.

I would ask the consent of the House that if there are any recorded divisions today on the conclusion of the throne speech debate, those divisions be deferred until Monday next, immediately following routine proceedings and before orders of the day, with the previously agreed upon division bells limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I also seek unanimous consent of the House for a few moments to express our sympathy to the Eves family.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

JUSTIN EVES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Quite clearly at a moment like this words are absolutely inadequate to express what we're all feeling, but all the members of my caucus wanted to join in expressing our sincere sympathy to Ernie Eves and to the members of his family in the tragic loss of their son and brother.

I think each of us who is a parent can only begin to imagine the kind of anguish that the family is experiencing, but we did want them to know today that they are in the thoughts and prayers of all of us here in this Legislature.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'm sure that all of us have an extraordinary sense of sadness and loss. The member for Parry Sound, Ernie Eves, is a good friend to a great many of us in this House. He's certainly been a good friend of mine over the years, and when I had the chance to speak to him on Saturday, I simply expressed a very few inadequate words which I would share with the House.

All of us have, at different times in our lives, experienced great sadness and great loss, and we know that life sometimes has a way of breaking our hearts. This is what's happened to Ernie and to Vicki and to Natalie in their loss of Justin. We can only hope that the passage of time and the reaching out by all of us, and indeed by thousands of people across the province, as well as the support of close friends and family, will help Ernie and all the members of his family get through this very difficult moment. We share our thoughts and prayers with the Eves family on this occasion.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me thank the leaders of both of the parties who have expressed sentiments.

This is a very difficult time for the Eves family, a difficult time for those of us who are close to the Eves family, and I think the leader of the New Democratic Party is quite correct that he is a very good friend and colleague to all who know him in the Legislature.

This kind of tragedy hits us all from time to time, directly or indirectly, family or friends, but when it happens very close there's some strength that comes from somewhere. I happen to believe it comes from God, others will believe that it comes from another source, but it comes. As I met with the family yesterday, there was a strength there; I don't understand how it comes. Mr Eves expressed to all of you who have sent well wishes, who have called, who have offered support, their thanks.

I thought it would be appropriate that I say a few words about Justin. As difficult as this is for me, it would be more difficult for his father and I think it's something we want to know.

This young man, at age 23, was a loving son. He was somebody who cared very much about people -- about his friends, his relatives, his family, his community. He overcame adversity, a learning disability, with the help of friends and the support of family. He was able to attend Boston College, which has one of the best programs in North America for children with learning disabilities -- dyslexia. He overcame that. He was successful.

While studying in Boston, he still had time to be a Big Brother to two inner-city kids. He was very special to these boys who for a period of time, for four or five months, carried on -- one just a teenager, I believe, one not yet a teenager -- before any adult knew that they were on their own. He continued to help these boys in a Big Brother capacity after having left Boston.

I might add that the federal government assisted in making sure that if they wanted to attend the funeral, they could; these are two boys who don't have birth certificates or passports or travel documents. That gives you some sense of the despairing situation that, because they knew Justin, they've overcome. There are many others, of course, who are still facing those situations.

But this was a small measure of who he was and how special he was, of helping people. He's going to be very much missed, I believe, by those who will never have had the opportunity to know him or meet him. I think that he would have sent ripples through his community because of his very caring and very sharing way.

I say these things today -- I think his parents would want me to -- so that others can pick up and learn from this tragedy, that others can share the spirit of Justin. The family has asked and friends have asked to not send flowers, to set up a trust fund in Justin's name to help children with learning disabilities. I think this is a worthwhile cause and it will be one way that he can be remembered.

His mother asked me to pass on to all of us and to all the people we know that while nobody will know for sure whether, if Justin had worn his seatbelt, he'd still be with us or not -- two of the three in the car wore their seatbelts and are walking around today; Justin did not and he is not -- his mother somehow or other found the courage to tell me to make sure I had my seatbelt on all the time and to pass that one message on to you and to everybody I had a chance to talk to.

The family extends their deep thanks and their appreciation, and on behalf of my caucus and our party I want to indicate publicly how saddened we all are. I'm just astounded at the strength of this family. Even yesterday they were talking about lessons that could be learned, and that would be the best way we could pay our respects to Justin.

1340

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As I rise I recognize the fact that it is somewhat difficult for us all to move into the routine proceedings of the House today. Nevertheless I do have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I want to note that last week the minister indicated he would fix one of the promises which had been broken and would make sure that people who are on social assistance and have had their welfare benefits reduced will be able to earn back the full amount of their welfare benefits before their income is clawed back. We'll look forward to the details of how he's going to correct that.

But today I want to ask the minister about another broken promise. It states categorically in the Common Sense Revolution that the government will not cut support for seniors and the disabled. It specifically states in the throne speech that "...welfare benefits for seniors, persons with disabilities and their families have not been reduced."

Yet in fact, according to the government's own figures, more than 17,000 seniors and disabled people on general welfare assistance did have their benefits cut last month. It's clear, and I say to this minister, you're in such a hurry to make the cuts you have to make that you're quite willing to overlook yet another promise. Will you acknowledge today that even as the throne speech said that welfare benefits for seniors and the disabled had not been reduced, you were cutting the welfare benefits of some 17,000 seniors and disabled in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): This government appreciates the importance of this issue and this is why the government has taken the time to examine all the options before taking action. We remain committed to moving seniors and the disabled off the welfare system. They don't belong there. We are going to set up an income supplement program that's better designed to meet their needs.

Mrs McLeod: The question was, is it not so that 17,000 seniors and disabled had their welfare benefits reduced this month in direct violation of the statement in the throne speech that those benefits were not being cut? We know in fact that has happened. We wanted the minister to acknowledge the violation of the statement that was made in the throne speech.

We also know how much the government is saving by cutting the benefits of seniors and disabled who are on welfare assistance. It amounts to what I think is a rather staggering figure; it amounts to some $10 million a month. The waiting time for moving people from welfare assistance to family benefits so that they would not be still experiencing the reduced income is getting longer and longer. It's anywhere from eight to nine months. We've even heard of cases which go back a matter of over a year. So more than 17,000 seniors and disabled people have had their benefits cut, waiting to be able to restore their income, and in the meantime the ministry is saving $10 million a month.

Minister, will you confirm at least that you are indeed saving $10 million a month on the backs of seniors and the disabled?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: During this transition period we are committed to protecting the system for people who are truly disabled and for seniors. We also need a clearer vision as to who these people are and we're reviewing this. At this time, no decisions have been made, but I might add that we have allocated more resources in order to process people.

Mrs McLeod: It's interesting that the minister notes a transitional period, because we've all come to have some real questions about what kind of transition he and his government in fact are looking at. We don't see the protection for seniors and disabled in the interim period because we know that the welfare benefits have been cut. We were shocked to learn, and the minister has mentioned it again today, that they're looking at determining who are the disabled who should be qualifying for family benefits. We ask, Minister, how many more millions of dollars are you planning to save on the backs of the disabled by coming up with some new definition? How far are you prepared to go in making the disabled of this province pay for your Premier's income-tax-cut promise?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to reconfirm this system must be protected for the disabled and the seniors. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. Frankly, we talk about compassion: Is it compassionate to let the status quo continue when obviously if that status quo does continue there won't be anything left for people who are truly vulnerable in this province?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is also to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it concerns the impact of your cutbacks on the disabled. Last week, in response to a question regarding the redefinition of "disability," you stated: "You have to define `disability.' We've clearly gone to a medical definition of `disability,' and unfortunately that's what the catchment is going to be."

According to ministry figures, there are currently more than 144,000 disabled people who receive the disability allowance. Officials in your ministry say that under your definition 115,000 disabled people and their families will become ineligible for this allowance. That would mean that 80% of the people who now receive disability allowance in Ontario will become ineligible. These disabled people and their families would then be pushed on to general welfare assistance, which means their benefits would be cut by approximately 40%.

Can the minister confirm that it is planned to change the definition of "disability" under the act and in the process eliminate disability allowance for approximately 115,000 disabled people in Ontario who now receive this assistance?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This question is very similar to the one that was just posed to me by the leader of the official opposition. I must say once again that we do need a clearer vision of the people who are disabled. We're reviewing that right now, and no decisions have been made.

Mr Agostino: I think the minister's own words in the House last week gave us the real answer, that you're moving to define a strict definition of "medical disability"; you're planning to break your promise and slash benefits to the disabled and their families by approximately 40%.

In dollars and cents, under your changes, a disabled individual would lose $410 a month from the benefits they're now receiving. A disabled person with a spouse and one child would lose $552 per month. In total, under your definition that you spoke of last week, you'll remove 115,000 disabled people and their families from the allowance. The province and your government would save $787 million a year on the backs of the disabled and the most vulnerable in this province with your proposed redefinition and change.

Will the minister confirm finally now that he is breaking his commitment to protect the disabled in this province and also confirm that as a result of the changes there would be a savings of $787 million by eliminating the disability allowance from the 115,000 people who now qualify?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I find it very interesting that the honourable member is talking about a definition that, as I just stated a couple of seconds ago, no decisions have been made on in terms of what the definition is going to be composed of.

I will once again confirm that we are committed to protecting the system for the disabled, that, once again, we have to truly protect the system for the truly disabled, and that's really what we have to do to fix the system.

Mr Agostino: It's becoming more difficult to try to understand the philosophy and where this government's coming from in this issue. I go back to what you said last week, Mr Minister: "We've clearly gone to a medical definition of `disability,' and unfortunately that's what the catchment is going to be." They were your words last week, Minister, not mine. You have gone to a medical definition of "disability" and that is what the catchment is going to be. That's what you told the House.

1350

You are now trying to justify a betrayal of your party's commitment and your Premier's commitment not to reduce funding for the disabled. By your move you're significantly going to reduce the funding by approximately 40%, you're going to save $787 million a year and you're going to make 115,000 disabled people ineligible. That to me is a clear betrayal of your commitment, and what you're simply doing is saying, "Well, we're not really betraying them, we're moving them somewhere else," where you were going to reduce their benefits by 40%.

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Minister, will you give us your definition of "disabled," and when is a person sufficiently disabled to receive disability benefits in the province of Ontario under your ministry guidelines?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I must agree, that is a good question. That's the same one that was just asked of me two seconds ago. Clearly, as we've said, we're looking for a clearer definition of what disabled is, and clearly I've said as well that we haven't decided on a definition, regardless of what the honourable member would like to attribute. I would like to confirm again that this government has a commitment to protect the most vulnerable in this society, which means the disabled -- the truly disabled.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): To the same minister, if I could have his -- I know he's getting instructions from the Premier, so I'll wait for those instructions to end and then I'll ask the question, if that's all right. I want to make sure I have your undivided attention. When the prompting stops, I'll start.

The Speaker: Proceed with your question, please.

Mr Rae: All right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Could we get the time back, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: I have nothing to do with that. Order. The leader of the third party.

Mr Rae: If the minister will turn to page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution, he will see at the top of page 10 there is a section entitled "Seniors and the Disabled." Describing welfare reform, it says:

"Another important step in welfare reform will be to move 170,000 of our citizens -- seniors and the disabled -- out of the `welfare system' altogether. They should never have been there in the first place.

"We will establish a new and separate income supplement program, specifically for those unable to work." "Specifically for those unable to work." And this is in bold print: "Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels. Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut."

My question for the minister is, how does he square that promise with the statements that are being made with respect to a redefinition of "disability" and to the fact that under the proposal for a redefinition of "disability" people in fact will be moved out of the family benefits program into the general welfare program and will have their benefits cut? How do you square what you promised to do in the Common Sense Revolution with what you are now telling people you're planning to do in redefining "disability," in redefining the problem and in depriving thousands of people of benefits to which they are now legally entitled?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I want to confirm once again that we remain committed to moving the seniors and the disabled off the current welfare system. Seniors and disabled should not be on the welfare system. That's part of what was being asked. Certainly they deserve the dignity of not being there. Secondly, we have committed to create an income supplement program in order to assist them, being off the system.

I must add, let's not forget that the eligibility and the definitions have all been expanded in the prior five years, and I think what we really have to look at is who is truly disabled in this province. That's what our challenge is going to be.

Mr Rae: Let me just say that there's no reference in the Common Sense Revolution to redefining "disability." There's no reference in the Common Sense Revolution to cutting the benefits of people who are now receiving disability payments, no reference to that at all. In fact it says, "Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels." So the clear implication of that is that people will be maintained in their current condition.

I'd like to ask the minister: Will he state categorically, is it the intention of the government to redefine "disability," and can the minister confirm that as a result of this redefinition people will be moved out of the income supplement family benefits program back into the welfare system? Is that what you're planning to do?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to confirm again that we have as our priority in this government the seniors and the disabled.

Since the leader of the third party so likes to quote from the Common Sense Revolution, it also says here, "Improved management techniques, stricter eligibility requirements and fraud reduction will save" the taxpayers money.

Now, the point here is that we have a commitment to make sure that those who are truly vulnerable in this province will be protected, and that means the truly disabled.

Mr Rae: The minister hasn't answered my question, which is a very simple question. I asked him very simply this: Are you planning to redefine "disability," yes or no -- it's a very simple question -- and secondly, as a result of that redefinition, will the number of people who are on family benefits go up or will it go down? Which is it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Earlier on, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that we are committed to protecting the system for people who are truly disabled. But we also said that we need a clearer vision in terms of who the disabled really are, and we're reviewing this. I indicated already to the Leader of the Opposition, also again, that we are reviewing it and no decisions have been made at this time.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bob Rae (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health, following the announcements that were made on Friday: A number of us were I think quite surprised at the extent to which the cuts which were announced on Friday included so much of community health. We clearly understood that while there was going to be restructuring, there were not going to be across-the-board cuts which would affect people in the community.

I want to ask the minister if he can explain why so many community services have been cut: long-term care, the delay in the establishment of planned services, the birthing centres, community mental health, home oxygen, to mention just a few. Can you explain why community health has received such a large portion of the cuts allocated in your ministry?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the member for York South for the question. I just want to make very clear that of the administrative savings that have been found in my ministry there are no cuts, I say to the honourable member, to front-line services.

If you'd like to take the oxygen program, for example, which was erroneously reported one day last week in the Star, and there was a correction done on the weekend, you will note that as of some criteria that were being enforced by the previous NDP government, some $8 million was left in that budget unspent. The other $2 million, for a $10-million saving, we expect to save this year as a result of the enforcement of the NDP's criteria.

Mr Rae: Let me just remind the minister that on page 7 of the Common Sense Revolution, in bold print --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You read that more than anything.

Mr Rae: Well, unless members are arguing across the way that the devil made them do it, I think we have to read from this document because it's the only explanation we have for much of what appears to drive the members opposite.

Mr Stockwell: I just said you read that more than anything.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Rae: They worship at the shrine of their Common Sense Revolution, yet they object when I read from it. I don't quite understand. I would think that they'd want me to read from it.

If the member will turn to page 7 of the CSR, as it's now affectionately called, it says, "Health care: We will not cut health care spending." No ifs, ands or buts, it's in bold print. It's pretty straightforward, not too many qualifications there. "It's far too important" is the next phrase. That's in italics; the printers were working overtime. "And frankly, as we all get older, we are going to need it more and more."

1400

We understand that, and that's why I don't understand -- to repeat the point quite simply -- why the strategy of the government is to continue cutting in capital allocation in community health care and cutting in services in community health care. I'd like to ask the minister to explain to me how it is possible for him to say that no front-line services will be affected when the level of cuts to community care is upwards of $50 million this year.

Hon Mr Wilson: I fully explained to the media and to members of this House that there are no cuts to front-line services in health care, and I would ask the honourable member for York South to read on on page 7 in the Common Sense Revolution which says, "Under this plan, health care spending will be guaranteed," and it is. This is the important part, and it's actually in bold, members should know:

"As government, we will be aggressive about rooting out waste, abuse, health card fraud, mismanagement and duplication.

"Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking will be reinvested in health care to improve services to patients. We call this commonsense approach, `patient-based budgeting.'"

I'm very proud of this document. Our government is very proud of this document, and we are living up to our health care commitments to the people of Ontario.

Mr Rae: Perhaps I could just ask the minister this then: He's saying that somehow they've managed to take out $128 million in funding, to which they've now added even more in the announcements that have been made most recently, including community mental health; the chemical addiction program; birthing centres; long-term care, community-based services, $33 million; delay in the establishment of planned community services, $2 million; reduction in the home oxygen program of $10 million, which is close to $50 million; and a further $16.1 million in capital funding that is necessary to move services into the community.

I'd like to ask the minister, how is the community going to be able to absorb the increased demand for services in the community when you've already indicated to all and sundry that hospital budgets are going to be slashed next year and slashed again the year after? You can't slash both in the community and in the institutions at the same time. It can't be done without breaking the promises you've made and the commitments you've made to seniors, the commitments you've made to people who are sick and who need care at home. They either are going to get it at home or they're going to get it in the hospital. Where are they going to get care once we're done with all these cuts?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again I reiterate to the member for York South that at the time we wrote the Common Sense Revolution, our commitment in the Common Sense Revolution was to seal the health care envelope. We've done that. I think the honourable member will want to agree with us that, unlike previous governments who said they were going to save money in a particular envelope and reinvest it later, they didn't come up with the actual savings.

So we're showing the people of Ontario as we go along where we found administrative savings and we're also making reinvestment announcements in priority areas and setting priorities within the health care envelope. That's our commitment. We'll continue to do that.

With respect to the $33 million that the honourable member talks about in community services, that, you should know, is the fact that I put your multiservice agency bureaucratic red-tape plan on hold. So the $33 million is sitting there. We will reinvest that in long-term care in the communities once we bring out our plan to go forward on long-term-care services in this province.

We did the people of Ontario a favour by cancelling your MSA unionization drive, and I'm proud of that decision by this government.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General, but firstly I want to congratulate him on his re-election and appointment to cabinet. We shared the critic responsibilities in the last Parliament, so I know he'll be very sympathetic to the question I have for him today.

Minister, one year ago yesterday Albert Moses was killed in Toronto by a police officer's bullet. Today family members came to Queen's Park to tell the world that neither the special investigations unit nor Toronto police are able to break a gridlock of silence to tell them exactly how or why Albert Moses was killed. The police officer involved refuses to answer questions, in contravention of the Police Services Act, which requires him to answer SIU questions. Of course, like many before him, the officer cites charter rights against self-incrimination. This impasse has been deadlocking many SIU investigations under the existing protocol and will continue to do so under any protocol that you may install. It definitely requires a judicial interpretation.

My question to you is this: Will you seek a court reference to determine to what extent a police officer's obligation to answer questions under the Police Services Act is reduced or extinguished under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Unless you do that, we're going to continue to be plagued by this gridlock and deadlock, this play between police, public and victims.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The special investigations unit has been a source of difficulty in terms of the way it has operated for some time. As a result, there was a change in the director of that body some time -- I believe it was last March. At that time there was a huge backlog in SIU cases that had not yet been investigated. I'm pleased to report to this House that almost every single case that was tied up in that backlog has now been resolved.

Unfortunately, this case has not yet been resolved. I'm hopeful that the SIU director, Dana Venner, who has successfully -- and is only there, I might add, as a temporary director because she doesn't want to stay in the position indefinitely. She took this on as a special task and has virtually cleaned up the list, and I know that she is continuing to pursue this particular matter and attempting to investigate it to the end.

Mr Chiarelli: We certainly would have appreciated hearing what the minister intends for the SIU, which we didn't hear today. However, in the same case there's another very serious issue which arises.

A year ago blood samples were sent to the government Centre of Forensic Sciences, and almost a year later the same Dana Venner you referred to, the acting director, sent a letter to the chief of police in Toronto stating that even after this year it's going to be quite some time before they obtain the results from the Centre of Forensic Sciences here in Ontario.

You also know, Minister, that it took over two years in the Bernardo case to get DNA results back. In addition, we saw only yesterday that the OPP are claiming that in standard blood samples from accident victims it's taking up to or longer than six months to get these very routine samples back.

Minister, I'd like you to tell the people of Ontario whether you feel that justice is being served with the level of service being given by the Centre of Forensic Sciences in the province of Ontario at the present time.

Hon Mr Harnick: I find the question, while important, rather a strange question since it has absolutely no connection with the question that the member initially asked me. What I will tell the member is that that area of the forensic science labs is not an area under the control of the Attorney General. I am not responsible for that. It is an issue that involves the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and I would suggest that the member ask his question to the Solicitor General at the appropriate time.

1410

CHILDREN'S AID SERVICES

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the cutbacks to the children's aid societies across the province. I'm sure the minister is aware that the Halton CAS has laid off four social workers and the rest of the staff have gone on a four-day workweek, which means an additional 20% cutback, that Frontenac CAS has cut back three and a half social workers, that Durham has had layoffs, that Hastings has laid off four and a half social workers and Thunder Bay 10.

Does the minister not recognize that children's aid societies and the social workers have a statutory obligation to fulfil the Child and Family Services Act and that they have a basic obligation in this province to protect the most vulnerable children in this province, children who are physically and sexually abused? What kind of impact statements have you done and what assurance do you have personally that no child will be put at risk and that every one of the sections of the Child and Family Services Act, in terms of visits and responses to complaints, will be met in this province and that no child will be put at risk?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member for the question, because I strongly believe this is an important issue for us all. That's why this government is protecting services for the children most in need. I might add that we are continuing to fund this area by more than $700 million a year. Incidentally, we're also providing funding for up to 70,000 child care spaces to help families with genuine needs.

Mr Cooke: That doesn't answer the question at all. The fact is that children's aid social workers have an obligation, just as police do in this province, to uphold the law. Your party and your government have said there will be no cutbacks in the justice field. I understand and accept that commitment. But what about those who are empowered under the law to protect children who are being physically and sexually abused? What are you doing to protect those children?

There are all sorts of cutbacks, 5% and 6% in cutbacks. Children's aid societies, if you'd bother to pick up the phone and talk to them, will tell you they are not meeting the requirements under the act. There was even a story in the Globe a couple of weeks of ago from the Halton society, saying they are receiving complaints about the response times to calls about abuse.

What are you going to do to make sure that children who are being abused are protected? They are not being now, because of your cutbacks.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We are protecting programs for our core services for the most vulnerable in our society. We're funding more than $2 billion in terms of social programs to help people in need.

We're bringing our spending under control, or else we're not going to have enough in the future to help those who truly need our assistance. Our government believes that there are efficiencies out there, that we must all do more for less. This government is confident that these agencies and community groups will find more efficient and innovative ways to deliver their services. This government is committed to preserving key services for those most in need.

SELF-REGULATION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I understand that your ministry is looking at self-regulation for a number of industries. Travel agents in my constituency have contacted me concerning self-regulation of their industry. Can you please tell me if your ministry has made any decisions in this respect?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The travel sector is one of the many businesses regulated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since our government has come to power, we have discovered that there are many things the private sector can do on its own. One of them is to be involved in the regulation of their own industry.

The travel industry has shown a maturity whereby it is now in a position to step into the shoes of some parts of self-management. We have met with them. We have thrown to them various ideas with regard to self-management. We think it's a way to get government out of their hair, and they agree with us. We're going to work actively with them towards self-regulation of this business.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Ottawa Centre is out of order.

Mrs Ross: As a member of the Ontario Real Estate Association, I'm aware of the long-standing interest that that industry has in self-management. Can you please tell me if your ministry supports that movement?

Hon Mr Sterling: The Ontario Real Estate Association has about 45,000 registrations with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations each year, and it has very, very few complaints against this profession. Therefore, there really is not a need for the government to be involved in it to the extent it is at this time.

The real estate industry has been asking for 20 years to be self-regulating. We have again met with this group and we're working very actively towards self-regulation of this very important industry in the province of Ontario. We believe they can do as good a job as us or even better.

EVELYN DODDS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister confirm in this House today that in recent days his government has appointed the defeated Progressive Conservative candidate in Fort William, Mrs Evelyn Dodds, as a full-time member of the Social Assistance Review Board, which position pays upwards of $68,000 a year?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): What I will confirm is this: that the Social Assistance Review Board is in need of many people with great qualifications who will certainly assist the Ministry of Community and Social Services in its mandate to provide services to the most needy.

Mr Conway: In view of the fact that 18 months ago that same Mrs Dodds, in appearing before a standing committee of this Legislature, stated that it was her view that welfare recipients should lose all of their privacy rights -- she said that in a committee of this Legislature just 18 months ago -- in view of that expressed view from your recently appointed Mrs Dodds to the Social Assistance Review Board, what, if any, assurances can you give this House that the very colourful and often extreme Mrs Dodds will discharge her new responsibilities consistent with the law of the land?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm not prepared at this point in time to comment on what someone has or has not said in the past. What I will indicate is that there are some vacancies currently on the Social Assistance Review Board and this government will endeavour to make sure that people who do fill those vacancies are competent and have the best interests of this province at heart.

1420

LAYOFFS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question today is for the Chair of Management Board. I'd like first to offer congratulations to him on his appointment to this very difficult and challenging portfolio.

Last week, Minister, you announced that you were cutting $772 million from the expenditures of this place in order to reach your targets and of course to meet your tax cut. We know from discussions we've had and announcements that have been made that this is just the beginning, that these 1,400 jobs originally and then 13,000 to 20,000 more to come will affect communities like Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton and Toronto in very many major and important ways.

Will the Chair of Management Board please inform the House what analysis he instructed officials to undertake on the economic loss to these communities before making these cuts? Does the Chair of Management Board have any idea of the economic loss to these communities, and where does he expect these people to find work?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question. Having been a mayor of a municipality for a number of years and an alderman back before that for a number of years, I understand the concern with regard to communities about jobs and employment within those communities.

I would say to the member, though, that the rationale for the reductions we have been pursuing is simply because when we took office in June we were informed by the Ministry of Finance that the deficit for the province of Ontario would be $10.6 billion in 1995-96. It was reported to us at $5.8 billion, member for Sault Ste Marie, by your government; in actual fact it was $10.6 billion. The people of the province of Ontario have told us that this is not sustainable, and we pursued a number of courses of action to reduce that deficit to $8.7 billion.

A number of communities will be impacted, there's no question about it, but I say to you that without those reductions, and carrying on with $10-billion deficits year after year after year -- in five years now we've had $10-billion deficits --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you wrap up your answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: -- the impact on those communities across Ontario in five or 10 years from now will be much more severe.

Mr Martin: That's all very nice and the rhetoric plays well, but we in this House know and the people across Ontario know that this government is bent on an ideology, on an ideology that was tried in the United States, that was tried in Britain, and it didn't work.

As a matter of fact, even your own leader, when he was in opposition, asked our Premier not to throw anybody out of work unless you're prepared to understand that we need private sector jobs and opportunities for them at the same time. Mr Minister, where are the jobs?

Hon David Johnson: What we know has not worked for government in the province of Ontario is the tax-and-spend cycle that we've been caught in, the spending between 1985 and 1990, the deficits between 1990 and 1995. The deficit, the debt of the province of Ontario, the lack of confidence in the economy of the province, is costing jobs. The red tape, Bill 40, are costing jobs in the province of Ontario.

My answer to the member for Sault Ste Marie is that to create the jobs in Ontario, we need to get the financial house of the province in order. We need to eliminate the deficit, and that's what we intend to do. Secondly, we need to remove the red tape. That's what we intend to do by eliminating Bill 40 and other measures. Once we have accomplished that, in this term of government, then the jobs will return and prosperity will return to Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Mr Speaker, let me take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker of this House. I know you will serve this office well. Further, I extend my best wishes to all members on their election last June. I look forward to meeting and working with you all as I serve throughout my term.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I was pleased to hear the minister reaffirm the government's commitment to retain the farm tax rebate program under its current status until a proper review of the provincial tax system is complete. This was a true indication to all of the agricultural community that this government is prepared to deliver its fair share of support to the industry.

However, farmers still face many difficult challenges ahead, so I ask the minister today, given that farmers in all commodities have experienced considerable economic hardship and dislocation over the past decade, can the minister indicate to the farmers of Halton North and all the farmers in Ontario that he will continue to liaise with the farm groups as Agriculture and Food positions itself to take advantage of the future?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Speaker, may I also add my congratulations to you, sir. You have represented Simcoe East very well and I know you will give them reason to be very proud of you in the future.

To my colleague from Halton North, I'm pleased that he put that question forth because we've been sitting here for two weeks and the opposition didn't think agriculture was important enough to ask a question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think you would agree with me, being the distinguished individual that you are and having good judgement, that it is improper to impute motives in this House, and I think the suggestion was that the opposition didn't care about the state of agriculture so we weren't asking questions as a result. I know you would agree with me that that's inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. You have no point of privilege.

Wrap up your answer, please, Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, I simply made a statement of fact.

As the members will know, I had the opportunity of travelling this province and listening to farmers, and yes, farmers are very concerned about the state of their industry. However, we are coming to a situation where a good crop is coming off with a good price this year. The minister will not dare take credit for that, but that is a fact.

I also want to tell you that about a month ago I signed the document that is rebating 75% of the farm tax to our farmers in 1995.

Mr Chudleigh: I am, on behalf of the agricultural community in Halton North, indeed pleased to hear the minister's response.

My supplementary deals with the minister's attempt to increase communication with the rural community through the recent series of discussions in cross-province tours that concluded at the end of September. The goals of these table talks were not only to include rural Ontario in the decision-making process, but also to develop a prosperous vision of rural Ontario with agribusiness and set ministry priorities for the future. I applaud the minister's initiatives to increase communication with the rural community.

Can the minister share some of the priorities outlined by farm and agricultural groups as a result of these meetings?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We listened to about 1,400 people who on very short notice took time to come and attend our table talks and provide us with input, which we are very much listening to. For example, the common threads are: how important the agrifood business is to all of Ontario; the changing global marketplace; and yes, get the government out of their business. Bills like Bill 91 had no business ever being implemented; we are removing Bill 91. We are changing Bill 163, the Planning Act. That is what agriculture wants. They told us, and we're listening and acting.

1430

JENNY LAVOIE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to be addressed to the Minister of Health, but he's off talking to someone. I'll wait until he returns.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Carry on with your question.

Mr Bartolucci: My question regards the recommendations of the coroner's inquest into the death of Jenny Lavoie, and it's addressed to the Minister of Health.

On August 8, 1993, Jenny Lavoie was in a serious motorcycle accident that eventually claimed her life. After waiting 18 months to obtain a coroner's inquest, the family of Jenny Lavoie learned that a series of events led to her untimely death, including a number of confusing transfers, miscommunication between doctors, and procedures bordering on medical malpractice.

To date, no action has been taken with regard to the recommendations of the inquest. On July 20, 1995, I wrote to the minister's office urging him to act on those 10 recommendations. It has been almost three months and I have had no response. More importantly, the family of Jenny has had no response.

How long do the family of Jenny Lavoie and the people of Sudbury have to wait before your government takes action on the recommendations of the coroner's inquest?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm very much aware of the recommendations from the coroner's inquest, and I do apologize to the honourable member for Sudbury. I did write to the district health council last week and very specifically asked that they include implementation, where possible, of those recommendations in the restructuring discussions that are going on in his community. I apologize for not copying you that letter and I'll be sure to do that today.

Mr Bartolucci: That does not answer my question at all. With all due respect, my question is not about processes or political turf wars which are resulting because of the restructuring. I'm astounded at the minister's response.

After five days of hearing, the coroner's inquest clearly pointed to the shortcomings in the hospital system that may have contributed to Jenny's death. The 10 recommendations of the inquest were not made to add fuel to an ongoing turf war, but were made to save lives.

Is the minister now prepared to ask the Lavoie family and the residents of Sudbury to wait even longer to implement the recommendations of the coroner's request? If not, what does he intend to do as the Minister of Health?

Hon Mr Wilson: I made it very clear to all of the parties involved in Sudbury that I'm not interested in any type of turf war, nor am I interested in politics in health care.

My letter was very straightforward. I think it's probably somewhat unprecedented that a Minister of Health would write in such strong terms to a district health council, which is supposed to be an advisory committee to me as minister. I wrote to them very clearly addressing these issues, and I expect and I am certainly hopeful that they will take the coroner's recommendations into consideration.

After all, we have to respect local autonomy. We have to respect a district health council made up of local people; we have to respect your constituents, who at the end of the day will have responsibility to ensure that the improvements to the hospital system are actually implemented at the grass-roots level.

So I will be sure to, by the end of today, make sure you receive a copy of that letter, and we'll work together to make sure the system improves in Sudbury.

PROJECT FIRST STEP

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I want to ask you a question regarding a successful program in Hamilton called Project First Step. I hope the minister would know that this is a program that helps over 65 single moms every year through a 10-week session that assists them in getting off of social assistance and back into the workplace or back into school. The minister will know that there's an 80% success rate, and with a budget of only $140,000 a year, this would seem to be exactly the kind of program the government ought to be supporting rather than eliminating.

Will the minister please tell the House today why you're cutting such a successful program that would appear to do exactly what needs to be done and in fact what you promised to do during the campaign, and that's help people get off social assistance? Will you, Minister, tell us why you're taking this step?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member for his introduction of this particular program, Project First Step. It is true, it's to assist single mothers to enter or re-enter the workforce. I agree wholeheartedly that it is an excellent program.

I guess I might have spoiled your supplemental question here, but my indication right now, today in the House, is that this project will continue to be funded. We will continue to fund this.

Mr Christopherson: It doesn't spoil my supplementary. What's more important is the program that we believe you were spoiling in Hamilton. If that's correct, then of course it goes against all the information that's already out there. But I don't care about that. What I'd like to do then, Minister, is follow up very directly. Are you saying today that you will continue to fund this program without any time frame, that you will continue to support this program in Hamilton to the same amount that they've been receiving previously so they can continue to help women get back into the workplace? Minister, is that the precise commitment you're making today?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There's something I can confirm; there's something I can't confirm. First of all, the difficulty we've had with programs in the past, with any social assistance, is there's been no end dates to these. I'm not saying there is an end date to this. However, the commitment is that we will continue to fund this program and it'll be at the same amount as it has been in the past.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week the minister indicated to the member for Grey-Owen Sound that he would be granting more power to the municipalities through changes to the Planning Act. I would ask the minister today if he would be considering giving further power to the municipalities through a new Municipal Act.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. If there's one message that the municipalities have been giving me in the short time we've been in office, it is that they want a new Municipal Act. It's the intention of this government to get off the backs of the municipalities in the province of Ontario, so I can assure you that we will be bringing in a new Municipal Act.

Mr Jordan: I wonder if the minister would tell this House the approximate date that this new act would come into effect.

Hon Mr Leach: The staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing are working on looking at the act at the present time, seeing what has to be amended and revised, and I can tell the honourable member that we will have the act in this House within 12 months.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. A cornerstone, as we all know, of your campaign promise was that you were going to commit to a 30% reduction in personal income tax. You've now had a chance to look at the books and to get the full state of the finances and the economy for Ontario. I wonder if the Premier today would indicate to the House whether that 30% cut in personal income tax over the next three years continues to be the government's commitment.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the opportunity to respond and I think it's an important thing that we understand it. It's a reflection too of an earlier question that, as the public sector is downsized, as we move to balance the budget -- which I think all parties in this Legislature agree needs to be done -- we need to grow the private sector. We need more jobs, we need an uptake in investment and in growth in jobs in the private sector. Clearly, the private sector today, more so than any other time in our history, has various choices of where it's going to invest, where it's going to create jobs -- other provinces, other states, other countries, other jurisdictions.

Being tax competitive, being regulatory competitive, are key to those. For example, investment firm Wood Gundy says this: "Tax cuts, not just lower interest rates, are now desperately needed to reverse what has been an unprecedented collapse in consumer spending in Canada." A major investment firm -- this is what they are saying. "In the absence of purchasing power gains" -- these are private sector purchasing power gains -- "continued efforts by the Bank of Canada to broaden the expansion in consumer spending are going to prove negligible." So, while lower interest rates are important, while getting the deficit under control is important, clearly what we are seeing is that if we are going to get jobs and growth, we need a rise in consumer confidence. We need people buying houses, buying cars, buying fridges, buying furniture, and they are not going to get that if they feel that it is the goal of government to take every single last nickel out of their pockets, as has been the case for the last 10 years. Therefore, we remain committed to job-creating tax cuts so that consumers in the province of Ontario can begin to lead the recovery in a job creation way.

1440

Mr Phillips: I take it from the answer that the commitment remains.

The second part of it, then, is that you have indicated, Premier, that the finances of the province are far worse than you had thought coming into office, that the economy is weaker than you had thought. You had said during the election campaign that you were going to cut $6 billion from the expenditures. Since then, you have indicated that it's going to be far higher. The reason for the question is simple. You're going to balance the budget. You're going to implement your tax cut. By definition, you're going to have to cut substantially more than you had said during the election campaign.

Will you indicate to the House today the size of that? It's not going to be $6 billion. You, I gather, have said publicly it could be as much as $9 billion. Can you indicate how big the cut is going to have to be and where you anticipate the additional whatever it is -- $3 billion -- in cuts is to come from?

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly we have a problem, and it is more serious than was stated and was out publicly when we put forward our platform, or even when your party put forward the famous balanced budget a year earlier than us, the red book.

It is very difficult to know what growth will be three years from now, four years from now -- growth in the North American economy, interest rates, a number of these areas. We have indicated that $6 billion in reductions are what we believe is necessary to balance our books. I want to say this: We believe that $6 billion is necessary with or without tax cuts. We believe the tax cuts will create more jobs, more taxpayers, more growth and investment in this province, and they will pay huge dividends, not only for more people working but for the treasury of the province of Ontario.

Will it be in excess of $6 billion? We don't know that. I said I have no way of knowing two years, three years, four years, five years down the road. It could be $9 billion if in fact there is a recession, if the North American economy does this. Everybody gives me all the ifs, if all these things happen -- if there is an earthquake, if there is calamity, if there is collapse, if these things happen.

What we do know is this: We believe $6 billion in spending cuts are necessary to balance the budget whether there are tax cuts or not. Secondly, we believe tax cuts are required to give us the jobs that we need and the growth that we need and the prosperity that we need and the change in direction from the disaster of the last decade that everybody is looking for.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for oral questions has expired. We'll revert back now to statements.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HURRICANE RELIEF

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As you know, Mr Speaker, the islands of St Kitts, Nevis, Antigua, Barbuda and other islands in the Caribbean were subjected to the natural fury of Hurricanes Luis and Marilyn. It caused unimaginable destruction, devastating the tiny islands and their residents.

Hospitals were destroyed, schools were flattened and the battering wind and rain decimated an already fragile infrastructure. The storm crippled the power utilities, leaving the electrical system in chaos.

At the request of the Right Honourable Dr Denzel Douglas, Prime Minister of St Kitts and Nevis, and with the assistance of Dr Knolly Hill, an Antiguan living in Toronto, I went down and inspected the damage and provided assistance where it was needed. Special recognition must go to Eli Lilly pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Med-Chem Laboratories of Scarborough for their quick response in the generous donation of medical supplies to aid the sick and injured.

Those of us who would like to donate or assist in the rebuilding may do so by contacting the consul general for Antigua and Barbuda, Ms Madeline Blackman, in Toronto. It is also possible to contact the High Commission of Eastern Caribbean States through the high commissioner.

The prime ministers of both countries have asked me to appeal for any assistance and support that the province may wish to offer. I will also be approaching the Premier, the Honourable Mike Harris, to use his good offices in soliciting support to assist in the restoration effort.

I appeal to all Ontarians to lend assistance in whatever form possible to aid the unfortunate victims of this horrific tragedy.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Before we go to the next statement, I would like to recognize the acting House leader.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I would simply wish to seek the consent of this House to waive the standing order that five members stand for division at 6 o'clock.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it agreed, unanimous consent? Agreed.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to make a statement today regarding the government's decision to end the early childhood education pilot programs and to make junior kindergarten a local option. We believe that this will seriously harm both young children and eventually the community at large.

All of the research and decades of experience of primary school teachers show that early childhood education is good for young people and has positive repercussions for their educational career.

Quality early childhood education actually saves money in the long run: More children stay in school longer, have improved literacy, numeracy and language skills and have less chance of future unemployment, teenage pregnancy or delinquency if they attend early childhood programs.

We know that parents want these programs. Currently 85% of the four-year-olds and 99% of the five-year-olds in Ontario are enrolled in public education kindergartens; almost all half-day.

The proposed pilots funded by the previous government were a sensible, low-cost approach to find out which programs are most effective. Ending the pilot projects and threatening other early childhood education is a serious mistake by this government, and young people and our whole society will pay the price. I urge the government to reconsider this poor decision.

BARRIE COLTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): As the senior member of Simcoe county, I congratulate you on your election as Speaker.

Recently I had the opportunity to drop the first puck to open the inaugural season of the new Barrie Colts hockey team. The Colts are the newest team in the Ontario Hockey League. The Colts and the residents of Barrie eagerly await the completion of the Barrie Molson Centre, a 4,500-seat, state-of-the-art facility that will be the new home to the Colts and many other entertainment events.

The tradition of the Colts has been a winning one. They have won many league and provincial championships. They even won the Memorial Cup, the measure of Canadian junior hockey supremacy, in 1953. The Colts have provided many young men with the opportunity to perfect their hockey skills. It is anticipated that several members of this year's team will be first-round draft picks in the NHL draft.

I would like to wish the management and players of the Barrie Colts much success for the coming season and future seasons. I have no doubt this organization will continue the tradition of success and will become the model for all other Ontario Hockey League franchises. I look forward to celebrating a Memorial Cup victory in the near future, and I encourage all members to come to Barrie and cheer on the Colts.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The government commitment to a 30% personal income tax cut has left municipalities in somewhat of a quandary. This commitment has had the effect of picking the pockets of municipalities, and as a result they are being forced to find new ways of collecting the shortfall in revenues. The solution is quite simple: They are simply going to raise property and business taxes across this province.

However, there is a problem with this. Businesses, especially small businesses, can't afford this. According to Ted Mallett of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "Higher property taxes would be disastrous. They will destroy jobs, income, and create more poverty" and inequities.

The typical business in Ontario is currently paying about $3,190 in taxes for every $100,000 of property value. How much more will be added on to this bill if the government follows through on its irresponsible 30% tax cut?

The Premier of this province knew full well when he made this promise in the Common Sense Revolution that he was simply passing the buck to the local municipalities, perfectly willing to let them bear the burden of trying to raise revenues after this government recklessly shafted the municipalities out of their fair share of income tax revenues.

1450

The government will only deliver on its promises to cut tax by 30% in rhetoric. In reality, both businesses and property owners alike will absorb the shortfall, and as a result, a further stagnation of the economy will ensue.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Premier and the Minister of Labour.

I would like to invite the minister to Kapuskasing and to the Reesor siding, site of the 1963 shooting of three lumber and sawmill workers. At that site, Minister, is a statue; a woodsman and his family have been installed. This statue serves as both a memorial and a reminder of the lumber and sawmill strike a quarter of a century ago, in 1963, in which lives were lost in this violent protest.

This story began and ended on February 11, 1963, when the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co bush workers, having been involved in a lengthy strike, were protesting the mill's buying of lumber from farmers and labourers in the district. The strikers arrived on the scene with the intention of stopping any loading that might take place on that day. The suppliers were aware of the plan and shots were fired in the direction of the union men, killing three and wounding eight others. The strike ended soon after and the statue was erected three years later.

Kapuskasing will never forget that black day in 1963. Those were the bad old days of labour strife, of violence on the picket lines and severe labour and management confrontations.

Over the years progress has been made in labour relations by bringing in legislation to protect workers and bring about a more harmonious relationship in the workplace. Improvements in the workplace health and safety systems did this. Employee wage protection programs did this. Bill 40, placing a ban on replacement workers during a strike, did this.

Minister, your Bill 7 will take us back to the bad old days of labour strife, which workers in this province hoped we'd never see again and workers in Kapuskasing hoped they would never see again.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My statement concerns a celebration that demonstrates the spirit of volunteerism is thriving in the province of Ontario.

The third annual Good Neighbours Week began October 9 to coincide with Thanksgiving and runs to the 15th.

Good Neighbours is a community-based public awareness campaign to make our communities safer, friendlier and more responsive to people in need. It develops and nurtures informal support systems for those who may need help from time to time, especially the frail, vulnerable and isolated.

Launched in 1990, Good Neighbours is a three-way partnership between the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; corporate sponsors, including the Royal Bank and Consumers' Gas; and community volunteers.

In the speech from the throne on September 27, Premier Mike Harris said Ontarians are a generous people working to make their communities better places to live and he directed me to lead a government initiative to support and promote the spirit of volunteerism in the province.

I am proud Keswick, Uxbridge and Stouffville are among the 54 Ontario communities that have adopted the Good Neighbours campaign. Good Neighbours is an example of existing programs I will be promoting where volunteers make a commitment to the less fortunate and to our communities. Volunteerism demonstrates the kind of traditional community values that Good Neighbours represents in the province of Ontario.

DUTY-FREE SHOP

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate the University of Windsor on its second week's anniversary of operating the duty-free shop at the Ambassador Bridge, the second week with a liquor licence. The Ambassador Bridge is the longest international bridge in the world and is the only border crossing in Canada that is privately owned and whose property is interwoven neatly with that of the University of Windsor.

Firstly, I congratulate university president Ron Ianni for his innovation and creativity in battling the never-ending war of decreasing funding to universities. I congratulate the management of the Ambassador Bridge Co, including former Ontario minister Remo Mancini, who struck a contract that guarantees university student jobs at that duty-free shop and guarantees the university much-needed parking facilities and a handsome revenue regardless of sales during the business year. In fact, it's estimated that annual revenues to Ontario's LCBO for liquor sales alone will be $3 million to $4 million.

What's particularly interesting about this public-private partnership is the horrendous amount of red tape and bureaucracy the university had to endure to finally receive approval for its liquor licence.

Yes, the very minister who just the other day in this House expounded the virtues of the government commitment to enhancing small business opportunities went on to stall this licence for three months. Minister Sterling ran political interference with the LCBO, commandeering its board of directors at a provincial cost of $1 million in lost sales.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

Mrs Pupatello: But, best of all, congratulations to the University of Windsor.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, through you I'd like to deliver, through this statement, both orally and a letter to the Minister of Health, Mr Jim Wilson. I'd like to bring him up to date in regard to something that's been going on now for the past number of years regarding the establishment of a native health centre in the community of Timmins.

I think you, Mr Speaker, as well as everybody else in this assembly knows that the native people, the first nations people of this province, when it comes to measuring up the health care services that they have and their general health in regard to the comparison of people who are non-natives, there has been a very big difference over the years. In other words, if you happen to be native living in Ontario, the chances of your health being as good as or equal to those people who are non-native is somewhat lesser.

The reasons for that are many, but I think one of them we understand quite well as being one of culture. When it comes to accessing health care services for the first nations people in this province, often there is a difficulty in doing so because of cultural differences between our white community and non-white community. For that reason, health centres were being established, first of all, under the Liberal government of Mr Peterson, and under the Rae government, with the NDP government, to recognize that we needed to find ways to be able to deliver health care services directly to those people who are most in need through a means appropriate to them.

We are now into a situation in the community of Timmins where the Misiway Eniniwuk Community Health Centre is now on hold because the government is not willing to free up the funds that they need in order to carry on the next part of their project, which is finding them their permanent location.

I would like to deliver the Minister of Health a plea for help so that --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

Mr Bisson: -- he takes the opportunity to meet with the people from Timmins in order to go through --

The Speaker: Next statement.

Mr Bisson: -- and to be able to commit to what this government --

The Speaker: Come on. We've got to make these statements a little shorter.

VETERANS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents from Etobicoke-Rexdale to pay tribute to the 1,086,343 Canadian men and women who served in the Second World War. It has been 50 years since the end of that war.

Canada's contribution to the Second World War has a great historical significance to the way our country is perceived by the nations of the world. Our declaration of war against the Third Reich in September 1939 was initiated in our own Parliament. This marked substantially the first sign of our nation's independence from Britain in the area of foreign affairs.

The Royal Canadian Air Force was responsible for the air combat training of the Allied pilots.

Volunteer enlistment in Canada was the highest of all the Allied nations, with men and women as young as 17 answering Canada's call to arms to preserve the peace.

As the war intensified, our forces spearheaded several Allied assaults with the same pride and courage that has now become traditional in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This year commemorates the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory in Japan days. Let us all pay our respects to the 1.1 million Canadians who fought to preserve our nation's freedom, and to the 42,042 who paid the supreme sacrifice and never made it home.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to say thanks to all the veterans, their families and fallen comrades. Thank you and God bless.

1500

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris Common Sense Revolution campaign document said `not a penny' of health care funding will be touched;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `We will not cut health care spending, it is far too important';

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `There will be no new user fees';

"Whereas the first financial activity of the Harris government has been to actually cut $130 million from the health budget;

"Whereas the Harris government has announced they are actively considering new user fees;

"We, the undersigned, demand a public apology from the Harris government for breaking their election promise on health care and putting our treasured health care system at risk by cutting health spending by $130 million."

I've signed my name to this petition and I support it.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This petition grew out of the demonstration today at the Minister of Health's office at 12 noon. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the PC government is going to open a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are existing facilities that could be expanded to assess and treat the criminally insane; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents, not the business community, not leaders of community organizations, not education and child care providers and not even" -- get this -- "the local members of provincial Parliament for Parkdale and Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the PC government of Ontario and the Minister of Health to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I will sign my name to this document.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT, 1995

Mr Leadston moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

WATERLOO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1995

Mr Leadston moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Waterloo County Board of Education.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1995

Mr Clement moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): First of all, I'll take the opportunity to thank the constituents of my riding for the June 8 election results and for the confidence and the trust that they have put in me to represent them in the provincial Legislature. I certainly will do that to the best of my ability in the next four to five years as a member of the opposition representing the good people of Hamilton East.

I want to pay tribute to the former member, first of all, Bob Mackenzie, who represented the area with dignity and distinction for over 20 years, who certainly was a friend of working people in my riding and certainly was a friend of Hamiltonians. I want to wish Mr Mackenzie the best in his retirement, good health. Certainly his contribution to the House and to the city of Hamilton and to the province I'm sure was well appreciated; certainly a class act and a great gentleman.

I look at the throne speech and I look at the impact it has on my own community. I guess what is really interesting is not what it contains, but what is missing, what it lacks. We have a situation in the community where we've had a cancellation of a major project by the previous government, cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway, the north-south portion that the NDP government stopped after the work already had commenced on it.

At that point, Mike Harris, as leader of the third party in the House, made a commitment that was repeated numerous times throughout the election campaign, that there will be full funding restored for the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Not only has the full funding not been restored for the north-south portion, but what has happened is, as a result of this government's cuts and Ernie Eves's economic statement, $6.5 million was removed from the funding for 1995 for the east-west portion of the expressway.

This is clearly a betrayal of that promise, this is clearly a betrayal of the commitment that the Premier has made to the good people of Hamilton, and I believe it's a betrayal of the Conservative members who have been elected in the Hamilton area, elected with the full expectation that the full funding will not only be restored but at least maintained.

This has not happened. There is no clear commitment that this funding will be reinstated in 1996. What this will cause is a delay, possibly in the project, and a delay in the north-south portion of an expressway that is very much needed for the city of Hamilton, an expressway that we urge this government to move on. Unfortunately, the throne speech chose not to make any reference to this.

We have now been made aware, as of Friday of last week, that funding for the courthouse project has been delayed in Hamilton-Wentworth. There were the renovations for the old post office to become a combined courthouse in the city of Hamilton. The first phase had been completed to a tune of $16 million. The second phase was commenced to start.

This government cut $5.5 million out of that courthouse. It has now jeopardized the future of the project and it has jeopardized phase 2. Along with that are also a number of delays which have occurred in the transfer of regional offices and would have occurred in the administration of regional government as a result of this courthouse being built -- another betrayal, another commitment that had been made that has been broken.

There was no protection to hospitals and health care systems as committed to during the election. If we look at the throne speech, we hear words such as "reinvestment," which is the new word that this government has come up with to talk about cuts. They're no longer cuts, they're now called reinvestments. Hospitals have been hit by that.

In Hamilton, the UN school at McMaster University: Again, I don't recall hearing or seeing any documents during the provincial campaign that said this government would cut its portion of funding, based on a joint federal-provincial share, for the UN school that was to be at McMaster University -- another betrayal, another broken promise.

1510

Protection of seniors and the disabled: Once again, the throne speech stated there would be this protection of seniors and the disabled. As we see in the House today, as we have seen over the last two weeks in this province, seniors and the disabled have been abandoned by this government. Seniors and the disabled had their benefits cut. Now there's a move to basically move 115,000 individuals who are now receiving a disability pension on to the welfare rolls -- another clear betrayal.

This talks to the meanness of the cuts, to the meanness of the Ontario that we're seeing today. We all understand the need for fiscal restraint, we all understand that the deficit has to be brought under control. But what is driving this government's agenda is this unprecedented drive not only to reduce the deficit, not only to balance the budget, but to ensure that we provide this 30% tax cut. The 30% tax cut will benefit the rich in this province, will primarily benefit people who make $80,000, $100,000, $150,000. It is this drive that is creating the type of meanness and the cuts that are in front of us today.

This government has allowed the most vulnerable people in this province to be further victimized. This government doesn't understand how difficult it is for people in this province to work, how difficult it is to find employment, how difficult it is for a single mom with a couple of kids to look after the kids and try to find employment and day care and housing. It does not understand the difficulties that people who are truly in need in Ontario face every single day.

It is this level of meanness and this level of deep, deep cuts without any real understanding of how it impacts real people across Ontario that is going to set chaos for years to come, because you cannot simply throw millions of people into the underclass as you're doing and expect that there will not be a reaction across Ontario and expect that we will not pay the price in years to come. We will pay the price for these cuts. We will pay the price for these benefit reductions. We will pay the price for the fact that you're driving people who are in difficult situations further into the ground and into further economic difficulty and basically ensuring, by your cuts, that millions of children across Ontario are to be stuck in a cycle of welfare dependency because you're taking away from them today, as a result of your massive and brutal cuts, the opportunities they should have.

This has been the largest, most massive attack on the needy in the history of Ontario. My friends across the floor may laugh, because they don't understand what it is like for people to be in pain in Ontario. My riding of Hamilton East has hundreds of steelworkers who have lost their jobs, whose UI is exhausted, who have lost their benefits and are now forced on to welfare rolls. These people are not criminals. They don't need snitch lines set up against them. These people don't need their benefits cut. They are not lazy people who don't want to work; they're hardworking people who, as result of economic conditions, are forced on to the welfare rolls. I'm sure that is reflected in communities right across this province.

I dare any of you to tell the laid-off steelworker in my riding that he or she is lazy and doesn't want to work and you're punishing them by reducing their benefits and taking away opportunities for employment. That is the real face of Ontario today. That is the face of welfare in Ontario today. It is not the stereotypical 18-year-old kid sitting at home drinking beer and watching TV all day, as the Tories like to portray -- a myth from one end of the province to the other.

Before we go off on another round of brutal, massive cuts as have occurred, I ask each member of the government to spend a few days among real people who have been affected by the cuts, to spend a few days among the people who are hurting and talk to them and look at their faces and look at their children's faces. Then look at yourself in the mirror and say: "Are we doing the right thing with these cuts? How can we continue to inflict the type of punishment we are on people today?"

The hurting has got to stop, and the leadership for this has to come from the government, has to come from the Premier. Stop beating up on people who need help. Reach out, give them a hand, not a kick in the head.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The issue I want to raise today in response to the throne speech is that of tax cuts. There's been a lot of comment over the last 18 months and during the campaign that to give a tax break was going to create jobs. I have not yet seen where the 725,000 jobs are going to come from over the next three or four years. If somebody with an income of $30,000 gets a $12 break in their taxes, how many jobs are going to be created by that small amount of money in a tax break? It will probably cost them more in user fees and property taxes and increases of that kind than what they will gain in savings in the long run.

"Your government plans to encourage private sector creation by honouring its pledge to cut provincial tax rates starting with its first budget." All we've heard so far is cutbacks and layoffs and people being thrown out of work, examples of cutbacks that I've talked about in my statements and in a question to the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development and Mines the other day: How are you going to protect the front-line service by cutting in the two ministries a total of $57 million and still give the service needed? Since 1993, I believe a lot of these ministries were cut down to the bare minimum. There is very little cutting that can be done without laying off hundreds or thousands of people.

One of the things I fear is that the good folks out there who are looking for a tax break are just dreaming. Their tax breaks will be eaten up, as I said before, by whatever government is doing in cuts to municipalities. All the municipalities have received letters saying, "By the way, the money you were expecting" -- whether it's a letter to the town of Hearst, whether it's a letter to the town of Cochrane. Where they were expecting $130,000, now they're only going to receive half of that, $65,000. In Cochrane the examples are very similar: Where they were going to get $50,000, now they're only going to receive about $6,700.

What has happened is that the federal government passed on a lot of reduction in transfers to the province, said they were going to do block funding. Now, in turn, we see the Mike Harris government in Ontario passing it on to the municipalities in a 20% cut. They will have to raise this money somewhere or lay off people.

During the campaign, we heard both the Conservative and the Liberal parties campaigning on reductions and tax breaks. Although the Conservative campaign was more extreme than the Liberals', their policies were basically identical: welfare, social assistance, and "We'll give a 5% tax break," although the Conservatives upped it one step further and said, "We'll give a 30% tax break."

From what I understand so far, if you're talking about cutting back $6 billion to $9 billion, and then the transfers from the federal government that are coming is another $3.4 billion, you're talking about large numbers; and in addition to that, to give a 30% tax break and create 725,000 new jobs from the saving you're going to achieve by firing half of the government employees, or at least a quarter -- we've heard different figures: 13,000 in the election campaign, and we heard another 14,500 last Friday, and we hear in different briefings that have been taking place that this number could go a lot higher. The employees working in the liquor stores are very nervous. A lot of people out there are very much concerned about what their future is with this government, and they know it's going to be there for a number of years.

1520

Last week, I talked about the sadness and the fear of eliminating a snowplow and a sanding machine for some of the main highways in northern Ontario. They say, "After the snowstorms are finished we'll clean the main highway and then we'll get around to the secondary highways." That's not what people have been expecting and that's not what people deserve.

Take Smooth Rock Falls, for example. People depend for their livelihood on the fact that the highways will be open and will be maintained, whether it's in summer or winter. They don't expect that the roads will not be maintained for three or four days or a week while they're cleaning up Highway 11 after storms have gone through. This is the message that has gone out, and it's creating a lot of fear and anger throughout northern Ontario.

There is not that much support for what the government is doing. Even if I called all the Conservative supporters from Cochrane North and Cochrane South, and I could probably even go into my good friend Pouliot's riding, we'd have a hard time filling up a medium-sized room. There is no support there for the cuts and the terror being implemented and put on the people of Ontario, especially northern Ontario.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): They get some support.

Mr Len Wood: Yes, but in some of the cases it was a matter of getting their deposit back. The support wasn't quite high enough to be able to win in any of the ridings in northern Ontario, with the exception of the Premier's riding of Nipissing.

As I said, from what I can gather, the cuts and announcements being put out were not laid out in any detail in the throne speech. I don't believe we have heard the full plan by the present Conservative government of what is going to happen to the people of Ontario over the next six months or a year. If you listen, we're getting a little bit here -- on July 21 we got one announcement, that $1.9 billion, and then we got another $500 million last week. All of the cabinet ministers were so proud to say, "You only asked us for $500 million plus $187 million in capital, but we came up with a total of $771 million." I don't think it's something to be proud of.

When I look at the native friendship centres in Cochrane and Moosonee, they've officially received word of the possible cancellation of the native community development worker program, and the Little Beavers program is being cut. What are all these people to do? Both the programs are essential to the native communities. If the youth of the native communities don't have a program to lean on -- well, if you cut 40% out of a program, you might just as well say, "The programs are gone and we'll let these people fend for themselves."

On the tax cut that we hear is going to create jobs, the people in my riding and the people I've talked to throughout the province of Ontario are saying: "It's a dream. Don't expect tax breaks. This is just something they've thrown out there. You're not going to get it. If you get it, it's not going to create jobs."

I've talked to people and I've asked, "In the eventuality that you do get a 30% cut in your taxes, what are you going to do with it?" They said: "I'm going to put it into my retirement, or I'm going to take a trip to Florida. I am not going to go out and hire new employees." I don't know where the Common Sense Revolution book that was put together came up with these figures on job creation. I haven't heard of any people who are going to go out and hire.

If you look at the cuts to child care and social assistance and some of the people on welfare who are disabled, they had a very hard time to feed themselves as it was, and now you end up with a more than 20% cut to them. It puts a burden on the grandparents and the great-grandparents and the neighbours who are going to have to fend for these people.

I'm a father, a proud father, and I'm also a grandfather, and I don't like to see the hardship brought on these children which the Conservative government is so proud of. I mean, every time we talk about the children being vulnerable and being hurt, there are always smiles on the other side. I don't know why, because I don't take any pleasure out of seeing the disabled, the women and the children hurt in this community. We should all be working together to make sure people have a proper roof over their heads, have the proper medical care. Imagine announcing last week that they're cutting off oxygen going into the homes. I mean, you cut off a person's oxygen, they die. Why would the Conservative Party want to cut a program of this kind?

I know thousands of booklets were put out that some call the Common Sense Revolution. I call it completely silly. It doesn't make any common sense. There's no common sense to this at all. It's completely silly what they have brought out.

The throne speech had one paragraph saying they're going to do things differently in northern Ontario, and from what I can gather in talking to the ministries, they don't care about northern Ontario. They're saying: "We only have one member from northern Ontario in the Conservative caucus, and why should we worry about northern Ontario? We'll just let them fend for themselves."

We have a fair-sized caucus from northern Ontario, which I'm proud to be in, and we have an obligation to stand up and get our message across that it's not right to see people go through the pain and suffering they are going through as a result of the Conservative government that is elected now. They made promises they're not going to be able to keep, and if they do keep them they are not going to create the 725,000 jobs they were saying it would. They're not going to be able to protect the vulnerable children, the disabled, the women and other groups out there that need protection.

Bill 7: That's turning the clocks back probably 50 or 55 years, going back to the confrontation and the challenge and the disaster that used to happen. If I'm on the picket line on strike and there are a few hundred people being hired and given a bonus to come in to try to break that strike, paid more than I was before I went on strike, you're encouraging violence on the picket line. As I said in my member's statement, 25 years ago we saw people go at it with guns, and we saw other situations in the Yukon. We saw situations in Niagara and St Catharines, and I can think of other places around the province where legislation like Bill 7 will do nothing but create violence. There's a danger of permanently injuring people in confrontation, and people have been killed on the picket line.

I was very disappointed in the throne speech and I don't believe anything in there is going to make it good for the ordinary working people in Ontario. Sure, there's a promise, the carrot held out at the end of the stick, saying, "If we can find $8 billion, $10 billion or $12 billion from the poor people, well, we'll give you back $4 billion or $5 billion in the form of a 30% tax cut." But in order to do that, the money is being taken away from the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable people in society, and they're hurting.

1530

It sounds to me like they're going to continue in this trend of just announcing a few more cuts here and a few more cuts there -- "In November we'll make a few more announcements; next spring we'll make a few more announcements" -- and in turn they're taking a lot of things away from people that they have expected over the last 50, 55 years. I don't like to see the clocks being turned back 25, 40 or 50 years, and that's what is happening.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your patience in presenting my views today.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's my pleasure to stand in this assembly today and participate in the throne speech debate of the 36th Parliament. I'm proud and honoured that the residents of Etobicoke-Rexdale have chosen me to represent their views and concerns over the next few years. After working so hard before and during the election to win the voters' trust, I, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, intend to work hard to preserve that trust.

Etobicoke-Rexdale is a growing community focused on meeting the challenges of the next century. My riding consists of all of Etobicoke, north of Highway 401. I am proud to have served Etobicoke as a city councillor for two terms.

I have seen the irresponsible policies of the previous NDP government inflict havoc on my community. As a fiscal conservative, I have ensured that council would not raise taxes when this country was going through the worst recession in years. This, combined with the honesty and the simplicity of the Common Sense Revolution, prompted me to pick up the CSR banner. By electing Team Harris candidates in all four Etobicoke ridings and sweeping the city blue, Etobicoke today looks to our team to return pride and prosperity to Ontario.

Etobicoke-Rexdale is rich in its multitude of traditions. The 80,000 people in my riding are family-oriented and community-involved. My riding cares about what happens at Queen's Park, and I will ensure that Queen's Park cares about Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Etobicoke-Rexdale is home to Humber College and Etobicoke General Hospital. Humber College, with over 30,000 students, is ranked as one of the top community colleges in Ontario, featuring dynamic new programs in the areas of flight and aviation, health sciences and technology. Humber College has also initiated a job training centre for the plastics industry that is now self-sufficient. The centre has a partnership with industry and the federal and provincial governments.

Etobicoke General is a full-service hospital delivering quality and professional health care. By understanding the ongoing pressures and realities of health care in the 1990s and meeting these challenges, our hospital sets the standard.

Etobicoke-Rexdale is also home to the Woodbine Racetrack, which will host the Breeder's Cup in 1996.

A leader, Etobicoke is dedicated to technology and economic development. The city of Etobicoke has created a technology development task force that is looking into ways in which the city can enhance economic activity through the use of the Internet and other forms of telecommunications. In the next century, more job creation in the private sector will come from the computer and software industries than any other industry.

At this time, I would like to say how honoured I am to be part of this government and in the company of such dedicated and hardworking colleagues.

I would like to identify the concerns the Etobicoke-Rexdale constituents have, and the satisfaction they have, knowing a Team Harris Conservative government is in power at Queen's Park. My constituents are tired of government overspending, tired of 65 separate tax increases from the previous two governments, tired of criminals receiving more rights than victims, and tired of government pulling them back when they spend years trying to get ahead. Having already risen in this House to defend victims' rights, I would like to reaffirm that we must and we will make a real difference for victims. My constituents have repeatedly asked for the provincial government to put an end to welfare fraud. Our government has introduced a 1-800 number for honest citizens to report fraud anonymously. This measure will save $15 million in the coming year and an estimated $25 million annually thereafter.

My constituents in Etobicoke-Rexdale have asked this government to govern by example, and we began by instituting reductions in our own backyard. We have cancelled the Premier's advisory council, saving $6 million annually, and decreased the cabinet to 18 members from the previous 25. That's unlike Mr Rae, who told Ontario he was decreasing the cabinet when in truth he increased it.

My constituents have asked our government to cut their taxes. Our government will shortly cut taxes in Ontario by 15%, which is the first phase of our government's promised 30% tax cuts. The citizens of Ontario will spend more money on government services than on any other purchase. Team Harris believes they should be spending less and getting more.

My constituents asked Team Harris to close the level 4 virus lab in Etobicoke. Two previous governments did nothing to resolve this issue. The federal government is opening one in Winnipeg; we don't need another one. The Harris government acted swiftly to address the concerns of the very residents who were being asked to live with this lab in their community. The lab is now closed. Our government cares about the health and wellbeing of families in Etobicoke, which is why we acted within the first 60 days. I made a commitment to fight this issue and our government has delivered on my promise.

My constituents are generous individuals who believe firmly in volunteerism. I have volunteers working at my community action office in Etobicoke and at Queen's Park who set aside time to assist their fellow constituents. Our government, unlike the previous NDP government, will encourage volunteerism province-wide through an initiative to support and nurture the spirit of volunteerism in Ontario.

With the leadership of Team Harris, combined with the effort and support of the private sector and volunteers, a nutrition program will be established in Ontario schools to enhance the energy level and academic proficiency of children. The people of Etobicoke-Rexdale are hardworking and they have demanded that we stop giving offenders a free ride. Recently, our government announced a pilot roadwork project for inmates. Inmates in the temporary absence program will beautify a Highway 401 stretch by tree planting, grass cutting and removing of garbage.

The residents of Etobicoke-Rexdale and I support the throne speech and the government as it moves to implement it. In response to the throne speech, I had hoped to hear innovative proposals from the members opposite, rather than carping whines and a lecture on a sink of day-old, dirty, smelly dishwater.

The previous NDP government pursued an agenda detrimental to the future of all Ontarians. Team Harris will ensure that Ontario gets back on track by paying our bills. Reducing the deficit will ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for our children. Team Harris will encourage job creation by fulfilling its campaign promise to cut taxes and regulations on the small businesses that create most of the new jobs in Ontario.

The members opposite have stood in this House and asked, "Where are the jobs?" Well, this is quite the comment coming from the opposition and third party members who have increased taxes and regulations on business continually, the two prime examples of barriers to job creation. Our government will reduce those barriers.

1540

One of the goals we must still achieve is bureaucratic reform. We are stuck in an old method of government services that is both costly and ineffective. Businesses live or die by the level of customer service. Imagine trying to get that into this concept of government. Government must rise to this call. Our government will develop innovative and affordable methods of making the government more efficient. If the solution calls for alternative and more affordable ways to provide services, then it is incumbent on this government to examine these methods in complete detail.

Government has been spending on credit for far too long. If someone spends too much on their credit card, what does the bank do? It confiscates that person's credit card, and this damages their credit. The other two parties don't seem to understand that basic concept. They'd rather follow the easier path: spend too much, let the well run dry, tax the people and spend their money. Our party is chopping the government credit card right in half and we'll live within our means like the typical Ontario household of today has to.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessors Ed Philip and Len Braithwaite for their years of service to the riding.

In conclusion, I am proud to be a believer and practitioner in the Common Sense Revolution and a member of a government with a new vision for this province. Here is a place where businesses, jobs and investment will grow to record heights, where our health care and education systems will be second to none. I want to tell my constituents, here is a real place to build a home again. Let me reiterate I will work hard for my constituents to ensure their confidence in me is well served.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to extend my personal sympathies to the Eves family today on this tragic happening to their son.

I would also like to congratulate all of the members who have been elected and all of the returning members who have been elected as well to the Legislature, to you, Madam Speaker, to the other deputy Speakers, to the Speaker and anyone else who has received any elevated positions.

It was in 1987 to 1990 that I was a member of this House and a member of the government, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve again. I want to thank the people of Ottawa Centre for their confidence in me.

I would like to share a word about my riding. It is an urban riding. It is distinguished by Parliament Hill and, yes, the Prime Minister is a worker in my riding. It is the home of many organizations and many business communities. It includes the experimental farm, which has hundreds of acres in an urban riding, which is quite unusual. The Rideau Canal borders the east and the Ottawa River borders the north.

It is a place where new Canadians who come to Ottawa tend to live. It has tremendous cultural diversity in terms of the Italian community, which is well established, the Chinese community and Lebanese community; more recently, the Vietnamese community, Cambodian, Latin American and Somali. It is also where 18% of the population in my riding are gays and lesbians, and with it many fine organizations fighting for human rights. I'm as proud to represent them as I am any other number of people in my riding. It is a multicultural and bilingual community.

Je suis très fier d'être ici en tant que député d'Ottawa-Centre. La circonscription d'Ottawa-Centre se compose de gens qui viennent de toutes les parties du monde. Ottawa-Centre doit relever bon nombre de défis. L'un des plus importants a trait à la qualité de vie du centre-ville et aux relations entre les résidents et les marchands. Cela est important pour la ville d'Ottawa et pour la région d'Ottawa-Carleton.

The primary concerns of people in my riding are really similar to many communities throughout the province of Ontario: employment, health care, education and of course concerns about the future.

I have one special issue that I would like to point out -- there are many -- but in downtown Ottawa revitalization of the downtown core is vitally important. We have lost population over the last several years. The city must maintain the balance between the commercial and the residential community. This loss of population must stop. The city, the region, the province and the federal government all have an important role to play, and I will do all I can to strengthen the downtown core, which is really so vital not only to the city but to the region.

I was delighted to be asked to serve as the Liberal Party's Education and Training critic. I was disappointed to hear from the Minister of Education and Training recently that there were few priorities from the minister. I shall ask him again that question.

Regardless of the outcome of all of the studies that are now under way, it seems to me that the most important results have to be the quality of learning for our children and our young people in our schools, the quality of resources to teachers in the classroom, the learning tools, the pupil-teacher ratio, the programs inside and outside of the classroom, not just extracurricular activities but the whole learning experience that takes place while our young people are in school.

The Royal Commission on Learning did a wonderful piece of work, and it should be applauded. The government would do well to utilize the wisdom that is in that report.

As the member on the government side for Etobicoke West said the other day in response to another speaker in the House: "It has only been a little over three months. Give us a chance." He's right: It's been about four months. But let's look at what has happened.

The throne speech, it seems to me, was simply a retype on to bond paper of the Common Sense Revolution with a 1-800 number on it. There wasn't anything new in that document. The government has taken some action on what it promised, I grant that, and it's also taken some action on what it did not promise.

As the Liberal Party, we agree with the government goal of balancing the budget, but not on the backs of the poor. The Liberal Party had proposed a 5% tax deduction for people in a variety of ways. We could not see going any further on that 5% and balancing the budget at the same time. It was a workable budget, it was viable and it was undisputed by any newspaper that I was aware of.

What do we have now? There are four areas of concern that I would like to identify that concern me about this government: the heavy-handedness of government; the impact on the most vulnerable; this government is not interested in listening; and the 30% income-tax cut will not be a true saving for taxpayers.

The heavy-handedness of government: The broad sweep of government cuts reminds me of the approach of the large fishing trawlers with their heavy drag nets trawling with their nets for everything that is found in their path, from the ocean floor up to the top of the waters. They keep the big fish and they discard everything else. This government's heavy-handedness is discarding people caught up in the general sweep of cuts. Not only have individuals been hurt, but hundreds of community and voluntary organizations have been cut back, and in many cases their program base will be cut to the point where their doors will close and jobs will be lost. Our community will be weaker because of it.

The impact on the most vulnerable: The Harris government has now developed a new endangered species list, and I'd like to read it. It's not a complete list; this list will grow. But thousands of children in day care and optional junior kindergarten, seniors on social assistance and the drug plan, battered and abused women in need of sheltering, destitute teenage mothers, prisoners with jobs in halfway houses, persons with disabilities in need of transportation to work, many artists, multicultural groups, museums and even TVOntario are on the endangered species list, and it will be added to as time goes on.

1550

Isn't it ironic that this government is preparing a bill of human rights for victims when they are creating so many victims themselves?

This PC government is not interested in listening to all the people. This will be a government by 1-800 numbers: the welfare snitch line; the throne speech itself -- imagine asking the Lieutenant Governor in the middle of a throne speech to read out an 800 number; the Sweeney report on school board amalgamations; the district health council consultations.

I know the government members opposite me will be pleased with the popularity of this government in the recent polls. I will say to the members on the government side, don't get too comfortable with that. The last two governments that had sizeable majorities in the first six months in 1987 and 1990 had rising popularity, and look what happened to them. Listen to the people; it's required day in and day out. The people of Ontario elected a government to administer power, not to act as if it had the power of attorney.

The now famous 30% income tax cut, in my opinion, will not be a true saving. It may be a false tax rebate. First, it will be approximately 12% of income tax, because it's the rate of income tax cut. Just wait until many people discover this fact.

Secondly, speaker after speaker has pointed out the impact on the poor, true, but not the impact on the middle-income earner. I personally will be putting up a chart in my office of a typical family income, the tax rebate, and then I'm going to put underneath it the list of all the new service costs, the user fees, the expenses and the charges that will have to be paid to cover these apparent savings, such as increased local taxes, garbage taxes, college and university fees, day care fees, medical procedures, drugs etc. These are but a small example. There will be more, I'm sure, that we will add to this list.

If it turns out that the income tax cut is offset or even superseded by new user fees, this will be one of the greatest political shell games ever proposed to people during an election time. We shall see.

In conclusion, I want to talk personally to my colleagues on the government side. In pursuit of your economic agenda, remember that there are children, the elderly, the sick, those with disabilities and those who are down on their luck.

In the words of Bernard Shaw, "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: That's the essence of inhumanity."

It seems to me that the measure of good government will not be on the basis of its tough decisions only, but it will be on its sensitivity for those people most in need of understanding, caring and compassion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased, first of all, to be able to say "Madam Speaker" in addressing the Chair and to take this opportunity to congratulate you and the other members of the presiding team in your positions. I know that we have this year the beginning of an interesting process of sharing the Deputy Speaker's chair on a rotating basis and I think that's a very useful way. It is in fact one of the things that I think we can agree on with the members opposite, on how to improve things in this Legislature.

I want to certainly put on the record why I, together with my colleagues on this side, will not be supporting the throne speech, but let me first of all say that I am thankful to be back in this Legislature. I obviously would have preferred to have been sitting on the other side of the room, but I am none the less grateful to the people of Dovercourt who have chosen to send me back to Queen's Park a second time. I will continue to do what I can to earn, on a continuous basis, their trust and their respect and represent their wishes as clearly and as passionately as I can.

I can say, without hesitation and without shyness at all, that certainly in the riding of Dovercourt -- which is a riding in the west end of Toronto which has been home over the years to people from all over the world, people who have come and made and continue to make the city of Toronto, the west end of Toronto and the Dovercourt riding their home -- it has seen fluctuations and changes in the demographics in terms of people from various ethnic groups moving through, but has continued to have large, as it does today, numbers of Italian Canadians, Portuguese Canadians, people from various other ethnocultural groups, various races, and it is a community that I am proud to also call home and to be someone who has lived in the area for many years and continue to represent that area for many years.

I am, therefore, very pleased to be here on behalf of the people of Dovercourt, and to say particularly that at least in the riding of Dovercourt, as I know in many other ridings -- certainly not a majority of ridings but in many other ridings -- the Common Sense Revolution did not make a lot of sense to many people. That is shown by the results of the election, at least in that riding, as I was able to return to Queen's Park with a sizeable proportion of the vote.

I say that not in a boastful way, but simply as a matter of fact, because I think that one of the things that I know many speakers -- and I've had a chance to listen to many of the comments by a number of people on all sides of the House in speaking to the throne speech -- but one of the things that I know that many of us on this side of the House have tried to convey to the members of the government is that while they certainly can and should take comfort in the fact that they are the government, and rejoice in that fact, they ought to also take things with some element of stride.

That is, they ought not to make the mistake, which I believe they are making, that in being elected as the government of Ontario, the people of this province embraced, as they clearly do as members of the government, every single line in the Common Sense Revolution, because the pure reality is, the people did not embrace every basic element that's in the Common Sense Revolution. That is a reality which I think people will forget, and this government will forget, quite frankly at their own peril.

I think that we have seen, and I know that when my leader spoke the other day he spoke about this in a far more passionate way than I ever could or indeed many others ever could, in pointing out how much the members of this government seem to cling to this document as almost their credo -- as their bible, I think it was referred to. That, again, is certainly to be expected to some extent because there were some key elements in the Common Sense Revolution that I and many of the constituents in my riding disagreed with but a majority of the people across the province did in fact support.

But I think they will realize with the passage of time, as we realized and as I think the government before us realized, that politics have changed in this province and sometimes governments are elected because of what they stand for, and other times they get elected because of many other reasons, including because people are unhappy about certain things that happened in terms of the previous government, and including that they believe for that moment that that is the party that represents their feelings and their views.

I think it is incumbent upon all of us on this side of the House to continue to remind members of the government of that essential point, because -- and I have no doubt, in saying that, in also realizing that while some people will quietly pick up on that and will quietly perhaps listen to that message, the government as a whole will not, at least for some time; that they are so bent on proceeding with implementing the basic elements of their Common Sense Revolution that there is no reason that will persuade them, there is no pointing out of the impact of what they are doing that will persuade them otherwise.

They will continue on this road, quite frankly, at least it seems to me, until there is a realization among the public, perhaps as reflected even in the opinion polls, that what this government is doing and the course it has chosen is in fact not healthy for the economy and for the social fabric of this province but in fact is going to cause damage, severe damage, both on the economic front and certainly in terms of dismantling the social fabric that we've built in this province, not just during the time that we in the NDP were the government or even during the time that the Liberals were the government but indeed over decades, including times during which the Conservatives were in power.

1600

What we have in front of us today is not a Conservative government like Conservative governments that we've seen in the past. What we have is a reform-minded government that is bent on simply getting out of governing. I don't have any other way of putting it except that I see what this government is doing and one of its key objectives, as they see it, is to get out of the job of governing.

Now, they will of course talk about it in terms of simplifying government, of making things easier for people to invest, and I think that we could even on this side of the House agree to some extent with some of the things they are doing. I found it interesting, for example, that some of the approaches they are taking are certainly ones that we, as you know, Madam Speaker, as a member of our previous government, in fact began. In fact I think it was you.

I'm thinking now of some of the initiatives the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with a lot of fanfare, stood up and announced the other day. It would have been nice to have heard in that announcement a reference even to the previous government, if not the previous minister, who began in fact, under the Clearing the Path initiative, a process of simplifying the myriad of forms that small businesses have to fill out in order to register, which we did under our government.

We took that away. We said it's more sensible and we can streamline the role of government; it's more sensible for small businesses to be able to file, in effect, through one vehicle and one form, and that's what's happening, and the second stage of that process was to simplify, as the Conservative government is now in the process of doing, it seems, the reporting mechanism for the payment of taxes.

How could any of us -- not only could we not disagree with that, but I think we need to say that that's a good thing, because anything we can do that simplifies life for business, large or small -- in this case largely for small businesses, which we know are the main job creators in this province -- anything that we do along those lines is to be applauded, and that is something that we certainly began.

When we look at the overall drive in terms of the whole financial situation that we're in, I know members opposite like to talk about a fiscal crisis that exists, and they do that -- and I want to come back to this point -- because it quite frankly makes it therefore a lot easier for them to justify the kinds of things they are doing. If you create a crisis mentality or approach, then it seems to them that people will accept any sort of cuts, because what you have to keep saying is: "We have a crisis. We have a problem. We have a huge crisis, and nothing short of just dismantling everything that we are doing is going to resolve that problem."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): They're waking up. You're having an impact. They're waking up.

Mr Silipo: Well, I'm glad that they're waking up and that we're having perhaps a bit of an impact. The reality, at least the reality as we see it -- because of course here we're talking about realities, certainly from the perspective of the speaker or the viewer, and that's the other reality in and of itself. But the reality --

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: Madam Speaker, if people want to interject, I just wish they would do it loudly enough that I can hear them, because I've got lots of time on the clock. So that's fine. I'm not in a hurry.

Interjections.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With the highest of respect, Madam, my distinguished colleague is benefiting all members of the House by his wisdom and he has agreed today to share his experience, and yet --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr Pouliot: I'm somewhat appalled and shocked that a distinguished member, with the government, is constantly interjecting --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr Pouliot: -- contrary to the rules of the House, Madam. Thank you.

Mr Silipo: I was saying --

Mr Gerretsen: Your time's up.

Mr Silipo: No. I tell my colleague over here that he can look up at the clock and that's the time that I have left. So he can settle in and relax.

Let me say this: There is very clearly a distinction and a fundamental disagreement between the premise upon which this new government is functioning and what we believe the reality of things to be.

Yes, there is a fiscal problem in this province. No one disagrees with that. If we did not believe that, we would not, when we were the government, have begun to in effect bring down government spending year after year, to take measures that, quite frankly, historically we have not taken as a party. We did that, in some cases even irritating some of our closest political allies, because we felt that taking steps to reduce government spending, taking steps to be more responsible in the way in which we spent the money that belongs to the people of Ontario, was the correct thing to do as the government and was in fact the responsible thing to do as the government.

But the difference between that approach and what the Conservatives are doing now is that in their crisis mentality, they are just chopping left, right and centre without regard to who they are affecting, who they are hurting and what impact they are going to have. The sheer reality is that, yes, if they continue on this course, certainly they will balance the budget in a few years' time as they have set out. But the question that has to be asked is not so much, will they achieve that promise -- and we'll have to wait and see whether they achieve that promise -- but even assuming they achieve that promise, I think the question we have to ask is, at what cost?

At what cost do we dismantle not just the structures of government, because again there could be probably a fair amount of consensus on the need to restructure the processes of government and the various levels of government, but at what cost in their yearning to get government out of the role of governing, in their yearning to replace the role of government with the role of volunteers? I think we have to ask ourselves, at what cost? Because what they will do in doing that is dismantle the very fabric of Ontario.

I always believe that it's useful to learn from the past. While the past may sometimes not be happy to dwell on or one may not be willing to dwell on it, I think we have to none the less keep that in mind. If we look back to what happened in the election, we have to acknowledge that clearly the Tories managed to convince many people -- not a majority, but certainly under our system enough people that allowed them to come back with a majority of members -- that the ills of this province were, if not mainly, at least in large part due to the actions of the previous government of which I was proud to be a member and, even more narrowly, particularly because of the situation with respect to social assistance, employment equity and, to a lesser extent, labour laws.

But while I think we can acknowledge and should acknowledge that in placing the issues in the election as they did, they managed to strike some chords, what we also have to do is to keep reminding this government that it is not through scapegoating people, it is not through blaming people, that you resolve the problems of this province. It is not by saying it's his fault or his fault or her fault or her fault that you resolve the serious problems we have in this province and the inequities we have in this province.

Maybe what we did as a government in terms of employment equity could have been improved upon. Maybe what we did with respect to the labour laws requires some refining. I don't know. Maybe with respect to the social assistance, we should have moved, as I wish we had moved, a little bit faster in terms of putting in place some of the supports to people who are on social assistance to help them get off social assistance, because what we see now is this government dismantling even those initiatives that we put in place.

But you don't resolve -- and this is the point I continue to come back to -- the difficulties you have as a political force with the previous administration, by simply going way over to the other extreme, and that is what is happening.

1610

Mr Gerretsen: That's right. So you were at the extreme, were you?

Mr Silipo: We were not at the extreme.

One always has to leave room to learn, I think, not just from the present but indeed from the past. I have no shame in saying that in retrospect there maybe were things we could have done differently, could have done better. Who among us who's had the experience of governing would not admit to themselves, if not publicly, that that is the case and, for that matter, not just in the area of governing but indeed in many other things we are involved in as individuals and as people?

But the other fundamental issue that I know will come to haunt this government is that they gave people no idea -- we're only seeing the effects of this now -- of what they had in store. It's too easy for them to be able to say now that they are the government, that having formed the government and looked at the books, they now discover there is a much deeper crisis, as they put it, and therefore they have to cut even deeper than they were going to cut before.

For some time I fear that argument may find some support among the public, if current public opinion polls are any indication. But I say to my friends opposite, public opinion polls change with time, because public opinion changes with time. While I think you should enjoy the moment, I would not take a lot of comfort from where the public opinion polls are today, because those will change, they will change in many ways, before we next go to the electorate.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): We don't govern by polls.

Mr Silipo: I don't know who across the way said this government doesn't govern by polls, but I will be interested in coming back to that point a couple of years from now.

Let's look at what is driving this government. What is driving them, as I mentioned, is the ideological bent that they have to get out, they believe, of the role of governing. They are going far beyond simplifying the relationship between government and the private sector, which we can support. They are going way beyond that to a point that we will not be able to recognize -- because they are, in effect, on the road to getting out of the role of governing.

You cannot expect that through tax cuts, you cannot expect that through the simplification of some of the process of government, you cannot expect that through the 20% across-the-board cuts -- and I think more -- in various government services there will be a structure and a society that will be recognizable a few years from now. I think that is a very fundamental issue.

I know when I look at that and when my constituents look at that -- group after group, individual after individual, who serve people in a variety of ways on the front lines -- they are frightened by where this government is taking this province. I think we should all be quite concerned, if not frightened, by where this government is going.

I say that with all respect to the government's right to govern, because they are the government. I don't question that. But equally I hope that people will accept my right to speak as strongly as I can and as clearly as I can about where this government is going, because I see that as a very fundamental point. This government is on the road to getting out of the role of government and, more important, of dismantling the fabric we've built in this province over a number of years, that sense of caring for each other, that sense of assisting people who are in need, that sense of encouraging people to become more independent, to be able to take care of themselves and their families but to do it in a way that doesn't blame the victim, that doesn't blame people for the circumstances they have fallen into.

It was not that long ago that we would speak about the recession we were in, and we know we've gone through the worst recession in 60 years. I don't hear a lot of discussion about that.

Mr Gerretsen: We're still in it.

Mr Silipo: We still are in it. We are coming out of it slowly. I think the signs are there. I know the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, who is here, would be able to confirm for us that the situation is getting better, albeit slowly. But the reality is that we have gone through a horrendous period, the worst since the Depression of the 1930s.

I think it's a bit naïve, if I may say so, for this government to believe that it is going to come in and just cure all those problems, cure that whole situation, with the approach it is taking.

I found it interesting that when I pushed the minister on the question of job commitment, we didn't get a clear answer, as I would have expected to get, a reaffirmation of the 725,000 new jobs. One can question, what does that mean? Does that mean they are not sure, not willing to say, they don't know? Yet they are proceeding as if they do know and as if their solutions are the only ones that make sense and anything else that comes across does not make sense. While this is something they are choosing to forget now, I hope they will learn -- I think they will -- after time in government that some sense of moderation makes more sense than trying to pretend you've got all the answers in a particular philosophical bent.

I think it's useful if we take a look for a minute at what is basically driving, beyond this philosophical bent, this government's actions. We know they have put themselves out on a limb with respect to some particular promises and commitments they've made.

First and foremost among those has been their commitment to the 30% tax cut, which, as one of the previous speakers pointed out, is really a 12% cut in the actual taxes people pay, but they call it a 30% cut in provincial rates, and if they stick to that promise, that's what it will be.

Let's take a look at what that means. It's the equivalent, according to the numbers of this government, to taking about $4 billion out of government revenues now. Therefore, that money has to be found somewhere: four billion dollars of cuts.

If you want to put $4 billion into context, it's roughly the amount of money that this government spends and that we spent year after year for the last few years on the whole capital budget of the province of Ontario. Just imagine all of the capital infrastructures. The Minister of Transportation is here. His ministry in fact spends a lot of that money. Imagine not spending the $4 billion that we spend year after year, and have for the last few years, on the capital infrastructure of this province. That's what you're talking about.

Of course the assumption they're making is that by putting that money into people's pockets, people will reinvest it into jobs. To some extent they will, but to a large extent they won't, because we can't control and do not want to control what people do with the money they put in their pockets. Some will spend it here in Ontario, others will spend it elsewhere. We know that when you make across-the-board tax reductions like that, the people who benefit the most are not the people who could use that money the most but indeed are the people who are better off.

Again, there is nothing we on this side have against that sense of equity and that sense of providing tax relief to people, but I am puzzled, since this government is so hung up on that tax cut, why not look at other ways of providing that tax relief in a way that does it across the board?

1620

But we fundamentally, at this point, disagree with the whole notion of the tax cuts. If you want to apply common sense, it flies in the face even of the same logic this same government is using. If there is a crisis -- a fiscal crisis, an economic crisis, by their own description -- you don't resolve that fiscal crisis by taking another $4 billion out of government revenues, which may or may not have the impact that you wish it to.

What happens when you follow that tax cut with some of the other commitments in the Common Sense Revolution, a cut across the board in government spending, on average about 20% -- perhaps higher; as time goes on we will see. We know that in the Common Sense Revolution the Conservative government said it would protect some basic services such as law enforcement and other areas that have to do with the safety of this province, and certainly primarily the area of health care.

Mr Len Wood: They said they'd resign if they couldn't.

Mr Silipo: They said they would resign, as my colleague reminds me, if they didn't keep those promises. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for those resignations. But I do know we will not see that particular promise kept to protect certain areas of expenditure, because already in the exchanges we've seen in this Legislature -- the Minister of Health, when he was on this side of the House, was very vehement in wanting to get a clear answer from the Minister of Health of the day. Time after time, as he stands up in answer to question after question about the commitment to health care funding, "Are you going to cut funding to hospitals or not?" it would just take a simple, "No, we're not." But we didn't hear that from the Minister of Health.

We saw, in the last document that was released, a variety of cuts, including cuts in the area of health care, particularly in such areas as long-term care, delaying the expansion of that; a cut of $33 million in the operations of hospitals, although that's claimed to be cash management; and in various other measures that affect direct services to people in the area of health care, where cuts are indeed being made and there's no clear indication yet that those funds are being redirected within the health care budget anywhere else.

In the area of education, an area in which I personally have a great deal of interest, having spent a number of years as a school trustee prior to coming to Queen's Park, I think it's fair to say that on this issue we'll have to just wait and see what exactly is the course of action this government takes. I do hope, because we didn't hear much about it in the throne speech, that despite the comments of the Minister of Education they will maintain the position that was taken by the now Premier when the report of the Royal Commission on Learning came out. That was that either in the area of early childhood education, where clearly this government and this party have for years been against the kind of investment and the kind of nurturing of our young people that we as a party believe is important -- in many other areas, indeed in all other areas, they proclaimed that they were in agreement with the directions.

I hope they are, because we all agree, I think and I hope, on the need to restructure our school system, to continue to improve our school system with a continuing emphasis on what happens in the classroom. But again I fear that the fiscal agenda of this government will make any of those improvements, if not impossible, certainly much more difficult. Even though they continue to claim that any cuts will happen outside of the classroom area, I think we are seeing also that they have no idea where classroom funding stops and outside-of-classroom funding begins, again as admitted by the fact that the Ministry of Education is now in the process once again of resurveying the school boards to get a sense of where that distinction should be drawn.

What I'd like to do is to touch on a couple of other areas. We've heard a lot of discussion, as we should, about the whole issue of people on welfare. I think that beyond the program itself lies a fundamental principle, which is that we do have a responsibility -- and I believe this very strongly -- to protect and to support people who are in need.

We can agree or disagree about the extent to which a system like the social assistance system is being defrauded. I think again we can agree that there is some element of fraud, but I think that we part ways very significantly -- we on this side, at least, in the NDP caucus -- with the actions of the Conservative government in again seeming to put so much of the emphasis on eradicating the fraud that's there, on dealing with a tightening up of the system, rather than putting the emphasis -- and we know that the fraud level in the system, the level of abuse in the system, is not very high.

I'm happy to remind my colleague from Etobicoke-Rexdale that in fact when I was Minister of Community and Social Services we began a case-by-case review -- every single file in the system. I think that by the time we left the government we were certainly, if not three quarters of the way through, at about that point. And what we had found by the time we did the first six months of that was that in fact the actual level of fraud was very little, was only present in a very minuscule number of cases and was not the fundamental problem that we have in the system.

Even though we improved it, and I'm assuming that the present government is continuing those measures, what is frightening is to have the minister of the day come to this House and make as his first public pronouncement in terms of a minister's statement not what he's doing to help people to get them off welfare, what he's doing to have the system changed around so that we are working with people to help them get off welfare, but in fact the establishment of the snitch line.

I think what that says is that where this government is placing its emphasis is in continuing the approach that it took during the election of portraying some things that maybe have a resonance with the public in some way and saying, "That's the problem, and if only we resolve that problem then our fiscal situation is resolved."

I think when the minister of the day, who is supposed to be, among others, but certainly the leading voice at the cabinet table for people who have fallen upon difficult times, largely through no fault of their own -- I think it's really unfortunate if the best that minister can do is to give people advice about how to eat and what to eat.

I know that people are new to this job and sometimes they say things they wish they hadn't said, but I think in this particular case the minister's actions time after time -- the tightening up, as we heard today, of the definition of "disabilities," after this government had gone to great lengths to say that people on disability and people with disabilities and people who are seniors would not be affected by the cuts. When we see those kinds of steps, when we see the emphasis on things like the snitch line, then I think we have to ask ourselves, what is driving this minister, this ministry and this government?

It certainly is not a sense of compassion. It certainly is not a sense of caring for people who have fallen upon difficult times. It certainly does not seem to be a sense that if we work with people, we can support them in getting out of the dependency of social assistance, in becoming more independent, in becoming better able to take care of themselves and their families.

That's not the message that's coming out of this government. What's coming out of this government is a very punitive approach. It is an approach that says, "You're the problem," to people who are on social assistance and that tries to create an impression that if only we resolve that in the way that they are suggesting, somehow all of our other problems will disappear. I think that's wrong and I think that no matter how popular your actions may be today, people will realize over time that in fact your actions are wrong in that respect.

1630

There are many more issues that one could talk about. Certainly, all of the efforts that we are seeing in terms of cuts to child care, in terms of cuts to housing supports for women and children who are victims of abuse, in terms of the cuts to training programs, which have as the objective helping people on social assistance and unemployed people to get back into the workforce, all of those things that this government is cutting one by one, will have the result not only of increasing the disparity between rich and poor in this province but, more significantly or just as significantly, will not resolve the economic problems and will result indeed in a greater fragmentation of this society, in people who now are having a difficult time making ends meet having an even more difficult time.

We know that our society continues to change. I found some interesting reading in terms of looking at a document, called Ontario Beyond Tomorrow, published by the Premier's Council and the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, and I would commend it to people. I know we all received a copy of this. I'd commend it to people for their reading, because it talks about the disparity between rich and poor.

Mr Gerretsen: Was that the last Premier's Council?

Mr Silipo: It's the last Premier's Council, but I remind my colleague that this was a group that was clearly non-partisan, did not hesitate to criticize the government of the day when that government was Liberal, when the government was NDP, and I'm sure would have had some things to say if this government had not shut this group down. Because what we did was bring together business people, people from the world of labour, people from various organizations, and in effect establish a very useful think tank of people who provided in an ongoing way some advice beyond the issues of the day, beyond the immediate crises and issues that we are all as politicians having to deal with.

I think that it's important as you look at this booklet that they point out the discrepancies that have happened over the years between rich and poor. The proportion of Ontario children living in poverty, to cite just one statistic, has risen -- they used a three-year period, from 1987 to 1990 -- and is going to get worse, I would add to that; it's not their words, but I would add to that -- as a result of the actions of this government.

I've spoken for far longer than I had wanted to, but I appreciate having had the opportunity, because it may not come for a while yet again. I've resisted the temptation to say a few things about my Liberal colleagues during this time, but there will be other occasions. I found it a little interesting that people on the Conservative side must be holding to very strict instructions in terms of what they're doing, because time and time again, when we're talking about such things as social assistance cuts and things of that nature, I would have expected to hear someone wanting to remind the Liberal members about the fact that when they complain about the 20% cuts, they would have cut social assistance rates by about 30%, although, to their credit, they did also claim that they would have done that at the same time as they would have introduced other measures, which this government also said it would do, but now of course it has retracted on that.

Let me just say this: I'm glad to have had this chance. I just warn this government that in voting them into office, the people of this province did not in fact endorse every element of their Common Sense Revolution, and they should remember that.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I will try to keep my comments as brief as the previous speaker's.

Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your election or appointment as Speaker of this Assembly and I know you will conduct the business of this Legislature with the dignity and decorum that the people of Ontario have come to expect. I congratulate all members of this House.

I must also express my deep sympathy for the Eves family at this time.

I stand today as the newly elected member for Durham East. I am humbled today for two reasons: First, by the privilege and opportunity of being elected to serve and to speak in this historic place on behalf of the people of Durham East. The second reason I am humbled is because I now know the true meaning of the term "backbencher." If I were any further back, I would be in the antechamber. Seriously, I serve in a long tradition of Progressive Conservatives from Durham East, with Sam Cureatz who was interrupted for a single term by Gord Mills. Gord Mills was an intensely serious man who served his constituents well, despite his true British Labourist views. I assure you I will work as hard to represent Durham East.

I am confident that my involvement since 1980 in municipal government -- two terms as a school trustee, local councillor and regional councillor -- will help me to be effective in contributing to the Harris team. Having worked in management at General Motors for over 30 years will also help me to bring a commonsense, business approach to this government.

I must describe my wonderful riding of Durham East. We think of ourselves as the eastern gateway to the GTA. Most of my riding is in the region of Durham, with the exception of Manvers township with Reeve Terry Staples. I served on the Durham regional council with Garry Herrema as Chair, Mayor Dianne Hamre from the municipality of Clarington, Mayor Howard Hall from the township of Scugog, Mayor Nancy Diamond from Oshawa and Tom Edwards from Whitby.

My riding of Durham East is composed of many smaller communities like Bowmanville -- my home town -- Courtice, Hampton, Mitchell's Corners, Orono, Newcastle, Pontypool, Fleetwood, Blackstock, Port Perry, Victoria Corners -- I could go on. Everett Kerr's bus tour throughout all of Durham East was a highlight during the election campaign.

I represent a very large geographical area with over 84,000 people in a large area which is approximately 50% rural and 50% agricultural. We are the fifth-fastest-growing area in all of Canada. Agriculture is one of the largest industries in Durham East. Apples are the current harvest and I invite each and every member this weekend to attend Applefest, which will be held in Bowmanville on October 14. This successful fall celebration brings together the very best from over our area, rural and urban.

Other successful agribusinesses include cash crops, pork, poultry, lamb, beef and many fruit and vegetable operations, including a very successful hydroponic garden operated by Hank and Lisa Mulders.

Natural resources are an important part of our economy, with significant aggregate industries like St Mary's Cement, located in Bowmanville. Large industries include Ontario Hydro at Darlington, Goodyear Canada, L&L Tool, Bowmanville Foundry and Cargowall.

The General Motors of Canada operation in Oshawa plays a very significant role in our community as the largest single employer. There are many smaller growing industries. Our area serves as a real incubator for the entrepreneur. For example, Miss Paula Lishman, a world-famous knitted fur and fashion designer, operates from Blackstock, Ontario, and exports to Europe and Japan as well as the United States. Ms Lishman was recently recognized by her peers as the businessperson of the year. Ms Lishman literally started her operation in the family garage and now employs over 150 people, many operating from their own homes; a real cottage industry, a real success story.

Courtice is a growth community and has one of the fastest-growing, home-based business areas in Ontario, providing everything from digital design, financial information and consultants; all this and quality of life too, with sailing on Lake Ontario, skiing at Mount Kirby and Bethany, snowmobile trails everywhere, hiking in the Ganaraska and Oak Ridges moraine, and sport fishing in Lake Scugog and the many streams in our area.

1640

Tourism is a whole new opportunity: With fall fairs, we recently hosted the Ontario rodeo finals in Orono; Cullen Gardens and Miniature Village; Bowmanville Zoo, the largest private zoo in Canada; Orono Exotic Cat World; Cadmis trout farm; the automobile museum; the military museum at Oshawa's airport; together with shopping in Port Perry, Bowmanville and Whitby.

Even our Premier has golfed at the Thunderbird Golf and Country Club. It's rumoured he's going to be golfing there with the Prime Minister next year. We have Durham College, which Gary Polonski believes should be a university centre; excellent health care facilities with Oshawa General soon to become a cancer treatment centre; and a flourishing artistic community. This is truly a great place to live, to work and to play.

Like most of you, I spent the past several months greeting people at their doors, in town hall meetings and at all-candidates meetings. People liked our Common Sense message that we're discussing in this throne speech. In fact the people elected me overwhelmingly to work with the Harris team to bring a vision with leadership, hope and prosperity to Queen's Park.

I support life, the family unit and the traditional values that Ontario has always espoused: You cannot spend more than you earn; less government and less bureaucracy and opportunity for business to create real jobs.

We promised to deliver on our promises for safe communities for children and families, a better health care delivery system, an educational system focused on excellence in the classroom and one that is accountable. We also promised to give back the 65 tax increases.

We intend to deliver. In fact all of Durham region delivered the Common Sense message. They elected the five Blue Jays from Durham, and they are proof, with Julia Munro from Durham-York; Janet Ecker from Durham West; Jim Flaherty from Durham Centre; Jerry Ouellette from Oshawa; and myself representing Durham East.

You may be familiar with the old saying, it's often referred to as the Hobbesian axiom of equality, and it goes as follows. It's quite simple, actually. "Seeing something wrong for a long period of time gives it the appearance of being right."

Ontario over the last 10 years has been on the wrong road. Health care costs have doubled. Is it better now? Was that right? Educational costs have doubled. Is it better now? Was that right? The debt has doubled. Is it better now? Was that right? The mandate given to this government by the people of Ontario is to right these wrongs. Our leader, Mike Harris, has promised to deliver on these messages.

The most common concern I hear in Durham East is growth. We are the fifth-fastest growing area in Canada, as I mentioned before. We have accepted and will accept our fair share of growth and inherent challenges. We do need the infrastructure like the 407 east to Oshawa and Courtice to service both the economy and the people. We need GO services ensured to Oshawa and future growth to Bowmanville. We do not want to be part of the GTA.

Yes, there are interregional priorities like transportation and economic development. However, what municipalities have told me is they have a real need for partnership with the province and a friendlier municipal and planning act which will allow the municipalities to decide their planning and service priorities in harmony with agriculture.

Mr Harris and Mr Leach both addressed the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and challenged municipalities like those in Durham East to work towards just these same goals.

In conclusion, I must thank some very, very special people without whom I would not be here today: Mollie and my mother and father, who are no longer alive to support and encourage me; my wife, Peggy, and our five children. My oldest son, Erin, is a second lieutenant in the Canadian Armed Forces presently stationed in Trenton; Rebecca, presently studying and travelling in Australia; Marnie, at the University of Western Ontario; Andrew, a wonderful triathlete in his OAC year at school; and Rochelle, a beautiful and talented child in grade 12. I ran in this election for their futures and the future of all young people and to bring hope back to our collective future.

Henry Downing was the single most important person on my team. I could never thank him enough. Garnet Rickard was instrumental in giving me the supportive coaching, along with June Smith, Walter Beath, Bob Burke, Gary Young, Merril VanCamp, Marie Hubbard and Bill Lover. These and other people taught me the history of Durham East, which I'm proud to serve. I must thank my staff, Louise Jones, Pat Marjerrison and Steve Kay.

I am your humble servant from Durham East, and I thank you for listening.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Before I offer my response to the speech from the throne, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my fellow members on their personal election to this House.

J'aimerais également prendre cette occasion pour saluer et remercier un homme pour qui je n'ai que le plus grand respect, mon prédécesseur, M. Jean Poirier. Jean a représenté Prescott et Russell à l'Assemblée législative pendant 10 ans et demi. Au cours de ses quatre mandats, Jean Poirier a été un député exemplaire qui a toujours tenu à coeur les besoins de ses commettants et commettantes.

Je tiens tout particulièrement à remercier les gens de Prescott et Russell pour l'appui qu'ils m'ont accordé le 8 juin dernier. C'est un honneur et un privilège pour moi de représenter leurs intérêts devant l'Assemblée législative. Je m'assurerai d'être la voix de Prescott et Russell à Queen's Park, et non seulement la voix de Queen's Park dans Prescott et Russell.

D'autre part, j'aimerais saluer et remercier les nombreux bénévoles qui, au cours de la dernière campagne électorale, se sont impliqués dans le processus politique. C'est grâce à leurs efforts et à leur travail acharné si je suis en mesure de vous adresser la parole ici aujourd'hui.

De plus, je tiens à remercier mon épouse Gisèle, mes deux fils, François et Mario, et tous les membres de ma famille immédiate pour leur patience, leurs encouragements et leur appui tout au long de ma carrière en politique.

The riding of Prescott and Russell has many unique features which I would like to share today with the members of this House. It is a riding with a population of over 125,000, the sixth largest in the province in terms of population. It is a riding where nearly 60% of the population speaks both of Canada's two official languages. It is a riding where both the English-speaking and the French-speaking population live together in harmony. It is a riding which, in light of the current Quebec referendum debate, should be held up as a model to the rest of this country.

Eastern Ontario doesn't start in Oshawa only to end in Ottawa. To the east of our nation's capital, running along the Ottawa River, lies this wonderful corner of our province called Prescott and Russell.

La circonscription comprend le canton de Cumberland ainsi que les 18 municipalités des comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, dont la ville de Rockland où j'ai été conseiller municipal pendant 10 ans et maire pendant 15 ans.

Au cours des derniers mois, j'ai eu l'occasion de visiter plusieurs villes et villages de la circonscription et de rencontrer des milliers de commettants et commettantes. De Queenswood Village à Sainte-Anne-de-Prescott et de Marionville à Chute à Blondeau, les gens ont partagé avec moi leurs besoins et leurs attentes envers leur nouveau gouvernement.

Leurs besoins et leurs attentes sont aussi variés que la circonscription ne l'est diverse. La Révolution du bon sens et donc le discours du trône ne répondent pas à leurs besoins ou à leurs attentes.

During the last election and to this day there were and there are no strong endorsements for the Common Sense Revolution in Prescott and Russell. By extension, the speech from the throne was about as well received in my riding as it was by the demonstrators here at Queen's Park last September 27. The people of Prescott and Russell are hurting. The Harris government promised them jobs and promised them a brighter future. Where are the jobs? The people of Prescott and Russell want to know. They will not find jobs in this throne speech and they will not find a brighter future under this government.

1650

Ce discours du trône s'attaque aux plus démunis de notre province. Dans les comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, plus de 25 % de la population ont besoin d'une forme ou d'une autre d'assistance sociale, que ce soit l'assurance-chômage, le soutien familial ou les indemnités pour les travailleurs accidentés. Il y a un réel besoin dans Prescott et Russell. Oui, c'est vrai qu'il y a des gens qui abusent du système, mais les coupures draconiennes de Mike Harris affectent sévèrement les familles monoparentales, les personnes âgées et les handicapés. L'Ontario de Mike Harris punit les pauvres et la classe moyenne.

La formation de nos ressources humaines est la clef première pour donner une lueur d'espoir à nos assistés sociaux. Dans les comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, nous n'avons que 450 places pour la formation de nos adultes, alors que nous retrouvons 1350 inscriptions à des cours divers de formation. L'évolution informatique et technologique que nous connaissons aujourd'hui exige une formation continue de nos employés actuels et de nos employés futurs. La formation dans les domaines de la haute technologie doit absolument devenir une priorité de ce gouvernement. Le campus satellite de la Cité collégiale à Hawkesbury serait en mesure d'offrir cette formation spécialisée pour les francophones de la province.

Au niveau de l'agriculture, Prescott et Russell possède les meilleures terres agricoles de la province, sinon au pays. Nous y retrouvons entre autres 526 producteurs laitiers. Parmi leurs produits, nous comptons le fromage de la fromagerie St-Albert, un fromage de renommée internationale.

L'aviculture et l'élevage du porc et du boeuf y jouent également un rôle d'importance. La culture de grains, dont la fève soya, est un secteur agricole qui pourrait connaître un essor économique si ce gouvernement agissait pour mettre en place une stratégie de mise en marché.

Le domaine de l'agriculture et des affaires ruraux est un domaine qui nécessite également de la formation spécialisée. Dans Prescott et Russell, nous sommes choyés d'avoir le Collège d'Alfred qui offre aux agriculteurs francophones l'opportunité de recevoir cette formation spécialisée dans leur langue maternelle. Nous devons assurer la continuité et l'épanouissement du Collège d'Alfred. Voilà une stratégie visionnaire pour la création d'emplois de demain.

Economic development and job creation are of prime importance to Prescott and Russell, and the key to job creation is the tourism sector, a sector with tremendous potential in my riding. To the north lies the Ottawa River, historically known as Canada's most important waterway. By developing key waterfront areas we can attract tourists to Prescott and Russell and create jobs for the people of Prescott and Russell. If this government is serious about job creation, investment in the tourism sector is a must for both Prescott and Russell and eastern Ontario, a region which serves as a gateway for millions of tourists entering Ontario every year.

The people of Prescott and Russell are frightened by the Conservative agenda and, frankly, so am I. There are cuts to social assistance, cuts to health care, cuts to municipalities. Where and when will the cutting stop?

L'une des coupures les plus ridicules et des plus dangereuses est celle au budget de l'entretien des routes. Matin et soir, j'ai des commettants et des commettantes qui voyagent de Hawkesbury, de Plantagenet, de Rockland, de Cumberland, de St-Isidore, d'Embrun et j'en saute, tous pour se rendre travailler à Ottawa. Que feront-ils cet hiver, puisque les routes 17 et 417 ne seront déblayées que de façon peu fréquente ? Au nom des compressions budgétaires insensées, le premier ministre et son gouvernement mettent en danger la vie de mes commettants et de mes commettantes. C'est un désastre en attente.

I could go on and on about how this government has betrayed the people of Ontario with the speech from the throne, but the bottom line remains: The people of Prescott and Russell cannot and will not endorse the action outlined in this speech from the throne, and nor will I.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): May I take this opportunity at the outset of my remarks to express publicly my condolences to the Eves family in the light of the tragedy that has befallen them.

Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent reappointment. I would like also to join the chorus and congratulate the honourable member for Simcoe East on his election as Speaker of the House. In the many years that he and I have known each other, he's always offered useful advice to me and has shown me the way to be an effective parliamentarian for the people. His most memorable saying used to be, "Some people are for it, some people are agin' it; I'm with the people." I'm not sure, but I think that was a suggestion to always be in touch with one's constituents, and I will heed his words, certainly.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to all my fellow members on both sides of this House, and I commit to work with them to secure a better, more prosperous Ontario.

The people of Ontario made a courageous choice on June 8 and ushered commonsense policies back to this province. Not only am I proud to serve as an MPP in this critical and historic time, I'm even more proud to serve under the able leadership of Mike Harris. He has seen fit to appoint me as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. I can report to the House that Minister Mushinski has been very supportive of me in my new role, and I'm grateful to her for that support.

But as the new MPP for Brampton South, I would like to thank the voters of my riding for their support of me and, through me, of the government and its real-change agenda. I will endeavour over the life of this Parliament to live up to the legitimate demands and expectations of my constituents. They told me that they wanted real change, that the status quo was not working, that government throwing more money at problems had failed, and that they wanted a government which would deliver on its promises. I say to them, we will deliver, we will keep our promises, and our real-change agenda will create new jobs, hope and opportunity both in Brampton South and throughout Ontario.

So permit me, Mr Speaker, to pay tribute to my riding of Brampton South and to the city of Brampton in general. There is no truer microcosm of this great province than my riding and city.

My riding has both urban and rural areas. You can see the diversity everywhere, from the villages of Huttonville and Churchville, small centres of farming and a quality lifestyle, to the busy streets of Brampton proper. Brampton is a city which, on successive weekends, hosted both the Holstein international auction and the Nylons a cappella singing quartet.

In Brampton as well we have seen a spurt of growth and development unparalleled in the area's history. Now, old-time residents can and do mingle with newcomers, many of whom are new to Canada as well, who bring their own rich traditions and heritage. Nothing better personifies the acceptance and promotion of the new Brampton's multicultural reality than Carabram, a famous and successful food and cultural event which occurs every July. This past July, over 60,000 people enjoyed Carabram, and Brampton is a better place for it. I might add that Carabram exists because of individual volunteers and the community involvement that we must continue to nurture, and not one penny of government money goes to support it.

Brampton is where I was married and where my two children, Alexander and Maximillian, were born. My wife, Lynne Golding, who is here in the members' gallery today, grew up in Brampton, and the Golding family has contributed an MPP -- who was, I might add, a Liberal MPP, but I seek to correct the balance there -- a mayor, a fire chief and many successful community leaders in the 120 years that the Goldings have called Brampton home. Brampton is a strong and welcoming community and one in which I will raise my children with pride.

But Brampton is probably best known in recent years for my famous predecessor, the Honourable William G. Davis. As member for Brampton from 1959 until 1985, and as Premier of this province from 1971 until his retirement, Mr Davis showed just how some Brampton common sense could bring unprecedented prosperity and opportunity to Ontario as a whole. It is precisely this Brampton common sense that I hope to bring to this chamber again so that Ontario can once more create the jobs, allow the opportunity and afford the compassion which described its recent past. I have looked to Mr Davis for guidance and advice and he has not let me down. I intend not to let him or his neighbours down in the years ahead.

I would also like to recognize the efforts and work of Mr Davis's successor in Brampton South, my immediate predecessor, Bob Callahan. Mr Callahan has just completed 26 years of involvement as an elected public official and he richly deserves to be recognized for his contribution to Brampton and to Ontario.

Finally, permit me to recognize my stepfather, John T. Clement, who is with us today in the members' gallery. Mr Clement served in this House as the member for Niagara Falls from 1971 until 1975, acting in Mr Davis's cabinet as consumer affairs minister, Solicitor General and Attorney General. To him I owe many lessons about politics. Why, just recently John said to me, "Be humble -- you're not that good." Wise words for a politician to follow, although I do hope in time to exceed his expectations.

I approach the throne speech from the vantage of someone whose professional life took him into many of the countries in central and eastern Europe as they emerged from the scourge of collectivism. I have seen at first hand how the state as the solution, as the alpha and omega of political, social and economic life, in fact creates more misery and individual destruction almost than can be imagined.

I have seen whole cities enveloped by the smog of environmental degradation. I have seen the privations inflicted upon women and children when a system which claims to provide for everyone in fact helps no one except the privileged few. And I have seen the lack of political freedom which stems from a lack of economic freedom and choice and the destruction of the soul which that entails.

It was the leader of the third party who earlier in this session invoked the Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke to warn against the excesses of ideology. I too share his concerns, but would refer him and the members of this House to another quote from Mr Burke which sums up both the reason why I decided to become politically involved and why we on this side of the House must act now, before it is too late. Edmund Burke said: "All that the forces of evil need to succeed are for enough good citizens to do nothing." I, for one, intend to do something.

Ontario was on the wrong track, a track designed to produce a loss of hope and opportunity, and I and my colleagues intend to do something about it. We will act where previous governments have failed to do so and we will act decisively and quickly to get Ontario on the jobs track, the hope track and the opportunity track.

It is now or never. No other jurisdiction will wait on idle as we strive to catch up. The world is home to a globalizing and increasingly competitive marketplace, and either we shall allow individuals the time to find their opportunity and to create wealth and growth for themselves, their families and their communities or we shall surely resign ourselves to the dustbin of history like the collectivist authoritarians whose legacy I encountered in central and eastern Europe.

The throne speech makes clear there is much work before us. The people must make government responsive to them again and government itself must transform to reward personal initiative and risk-taking in the marketplace, to revitalize our education, justice and health care systems and to support the individual and the family in our society.

The throne speech has set the foundations for that vision. By returning power to our citizens, we are putting our province back into the hands of all Ontarians. It is up to every single Ontarian to share the burden in solving our problems. There is indeed an individual responsibility which goes with not looking to government to solve every problem.

Some in our province are threatened by this, and those with a stake in the status quo seek to maintain it, seemingly at all and any costs. But I believe that there is no turning back, and that individual freedom and individual opportunity necessitate individual responsibility as well. This approach will work and will usher in a new dynamism and a flowering of wealth creation and the jobs and productivity which go with it.

Our approach means ridding the statute books of the job-killing labour legislation known as Bill 40 and the demeaning and self-defeating job quotas as found in the employment equity laws. It means reducing the size of government and reducing its regulatory fiat. It also assuredly means lowering the average Ontarian's tax burden, putting an extra $210 per month in the average Bramptonian's pockets so that they can spend it, save it or invest it howsoever they choose. A tax cut is the best job creator in existence, and I am proud to be part of a government which understands this.

In closing, I am both humbled and proud of this moment: humbled by the mandate the voters of Brampton South have given me and proud to be able to carry it out; humbled by the enormity of the challenges which this government faces and proud that it has the courage to proceed.

It was a former Prime Minister of Britain who was famous for stating, "This lady's not for turning." Well, given the task which must be completed to restore the greatness which is so possible in Ontario, this government is not for turning either. We will not blink.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It's a great honour for me to rise in the House today as the newly elected member for the riding of Port Arthur. As a person born and raised in the great city of Thunder Bay, I take pride in calling myself a northerner and I recognize how truly blessed I am to follow in the footsteps of so many fine provincial politicians who have represented our area.

Personally, I am grateful for the support that has enabled me to reach this place of honour -- from the people who put their trust in me on election day, from the hundreds of campaign workers who took time out of their busy lives to help me get here, and most particularly from my family, who gave me the inner strength to seek this high office.

Over the past few months, I've become familiar with the demands and expectations of this new job and can candidly admit that I am somewhat in awe of the responsibility that such a position entails. Part of that responsibility, I believe, is a recognition that as an MPP one needs to represent the interests of all your constituents and the differing needs, hopes and concerns that they express.

This responsibility becomes all the more daunting as the full impact of the Conservative throne speech becomes clear. Now, as a member of the official opposition and as a candidate who campaigned on the basis of a Liberal approach that was extremely critical of a debt load and a deficit that was strangling our economy, I cannot argue that serious fiscal restraint is not needed. Clearly we need to get our fiscal house in order.

However, the approach this new government is taking has ramifications far beyond what most people envisioned when they elected 82 Conservative members across the province. In its quest to meet its commitment of a 30% income tax cut, the Conservatives have set in motion a process that will take away all the gains that such a tax cut would provide while they chop away at the programs, services and economic stimulation that are desperately needed at this time.

At a time when millions in this province live with ever-increasing fear about their ability to cope, let alone survive, amidst the random cuts this government has imposed, and when the government virtually brags about further cuts to come, it's vital that this government come clean as to its end goal. No longer can they justify that their slash-and-burn policy is needed to bring the deficit under control when it has become abundantly clear that they are driven by a compelling political need to fulfil an irresponsible campaign promise that many Ontarians now, and most undoubtedly will in the not-so-distant future, ask them to forgo.

1710

The question now becomes, what price is this government prepared to pay to meet its ill-fated goal? Certainly they seem prepared to put an already precarious health care system in extreme jeopardy at a time when our health care needs continue to expand as our population ages. In fact, their promise not to touch the health care budget has already been broken.

Certainly they don't even try to hide the fact that our education system, once a great source of pride to everyone in this province, will be massively underfunded in the next few years, leaving our elementary and secondary school systems scrambling to stay afloat at a time when stability and direction are desperately needed and as higher education becomes an unattainable goal for most of the population.

What can one say about the government's deep and hurtful cuts to the social programs in the province, on the one hand piously talking about massive job creation while they strip away the support programs that allow people to rebuild their lives, to seek gainful employment and to look after their families in a reasonably dignified manner?

As a northerner and therefore someone familiar with the needs of the north, I find it astonishing and somewhat frightening that this government or any government could sanction cuts to services that are vital to the lives and safety of our citizens. Does this government's relentless cost-cutting zeal justify a decision to downgrade winter road maintenance in a part of the province that absolutely needs safe passage on already dangerous roads and highways? Is this government willing to risk the lives of northerners as part of that cost-cutting exercise? I can only implore the government to use some common sense on this issue.

I come from a part of the province that respects the role government plays in our lives. The people in the Port Arthur riding, including the communities of Murillo, Kakabeka Falls, Kaministikwia, Lappe, the township of Shuniah, have worked hard and long to play a responsible role in our area. They accept this responsibility as part of a partnership with the senior levels of government, regardless of party stripe, that have represented them over the years.

Today, I call on this government to uphold its part of the bargain, to recognize that the people in the Port Arthur riding and indeed throughout the north and throughout the province understand that changes must be made in the way government does business, that we need to tighten our belts and get on with the job, but this must not happen at the loss of lives and shattered dreams.

Ultimately, it comes down to what role the government should play in our lives, and like so many other institutions, the government needs the support of the people in order to reach its goals. Today, I say to the members of the government sitting opposite us, do not make the mistake of forging ahead with decisions that hurt millions of people in this province for the sake of ideology or a desire to keep a campaign promise that no longer makes any sense.

In order to maintain the trust of the people we represent, we must all be part of a difficult balancing act, and this government needs to understand that. So today I call on the government to temper decisiveness with compassion, to balance the need to eliminate our deficit with the need to retain hope in our society and to remember that not all decisions can be made in the isolation of a boardroom where number-crunching is the goal.

I ask this government to listen to all the people and not arrogantly assume that a tough fiscal decision is always the right fiscal decision. Look at the people affected by these decisions in order to see that a shortsighted reduction in spending can sometimes lead to a far greater cost in the future.

The future of this province is truly in our hands. Never let it be said that we did not remember that this province is made up of people of differing needs and aspirations and that our responsibility and that of this new government is to govern and make decisions based on our hearts as well as our minds.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): As I rise to address this House for the first time, I have the honour of extending to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and through you to the Speaker, on behalf of the people of High Park-Swansea, our best wishes as each of you assumes your new responsibilities.

We join with the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, and his wife in this time of grieving the loss of their son, Justin. Our prayers are with the family and friends at this time.

For this 36th Parliament, it is my honour to represent the people of High Park-Swansea. I hope I shall be able to do so with the same dedication that has been demonstrated by my predecessors, many of whom are still well remembered by members of all parties in this House. I reflect particularly upon the contribution of the Ziembas, both Ed and Elaine; David Fleet; and especially Yuri Shymko, Alfred Cowling and even Premier George Drew.

Having served the people of High Park-Swansea for the past number of years as the senior alderman for ward 1 and then as the first directly elected Metropolitan councillor for Toronto-High Park, I hope to continue the high standards of public service set by each of my predecessors. The people of our community deserve and expect no less.

To my colleagues in this House, I extend my personal congratulations for electoral success. Many of us will differ in opinion and even in fundamental philosophy, but I hope we will enter and exit every debate confident that each of us has the best interests of our constituents and province at heart.

High Park-Swansea nestles at the mouth of the Humber River, at the westernmost extremity of the city of Toronto. I was raised in the riding, attended Keele Street public school and Humberside Collegiate and take great pride in the family values that are the hallmark of our community.

We are equally divided between homeowners and tenants, and like most of the Metropolitan area, High Park-Swansea represents the multicultural mix the United Nations has lauded as the most diverse in the world.

We are home to one of the largest urban parks in Toronto, and High Park-Swansea is home to Canada's first business improvement area, Bloor West Village, founded 25 years ago.

Although we enjoy a fine waterfront visually, pollution prevents public swimming every summer. It is our hope this government will now take speedy action the former government was reluctant to take to approve the western storm tunnel project that has received endorsement from both city and Metro councils, as well as approval of the waterfront regeneration trust and even the provincial Ministry of Environment and Energy. That action will do much to improve the western beaches, just as action a few years ago brought relief for the eastern beaches. Since beaches are a natural resource not only for the city but for the province, we can only implore the Minister of Environment to give this matter her highest priority.

High Park-Swansea is home to people who are generous with their time and talent. It is without a doubt a community where volunteerism has managed to survive and even thrive in spite of government.

High Park-Swansea is the home of the High Park Braves, the 1995 Canadian Little League champions.

High Park-Swansea is home to some of the most active youth and seniors' programs in the city.

Our places of worship and schools are filled every day and evening with all manner of programs, most of them cost-recoverable and very few looking for government subsidy.

Our riding also reflects a demographic worth special note: More seniors live in High Park-Swansea than is the average for city wards. For that reason, we view with some concern the report recently issued by the hospital restructuring committee for the district health council that recommends closure of Runnymede chronic care hospital. In our submission to the district health council to be offered later this month, we will be offering an alternative that we hope will give new life to Runnymede and achieve the cost-efficiencies the Minister of Health needs in order to reallocate his spending priorities.

On a more general note, while our current system of urban government in Metro Toronto has served us well, most residents would agree that they are not only overtaxed but also overgoverned. There's no doubt we need to look for more efficient ways of governing, need to develop more equitable property tax systems and cost-effective ways to implement interregional coordination of services.

The sorting out of local government along with the aggressive encouragement of teleport development will not be easy, but it is essential if one wishes to jump to the forefront in the global economy, one that most certainly will be dominated by strong cities based within cohesive regions. This is an issue I know to be of particular interest to the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

1720

We've all just recently emerged from a most vigorous provincial campaign. The people of this province were offered clear alternatives, and certainly none more forthrightly stated than the program of renewal offered Ontarians by Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party. Three parties laid their policies before the people and the people of this province made a choice that was crystal clear. The speech from the throne embodied the platform the people of this province considered and overwhelmingly endorsed.

Let's be very clear about this point because it's fundamental for this debate. The people of Ontario have made a decision. It was a clear decision, and each of us has been sent here to get on with the job of doing what the people of Ontario have told us to do. How each policy is to be implemented is open to discussion, and the appropriate venue for that debate is in this House, but whether a policy should be implemented or not has already been decided by the people and it's our task to get on with the job of governing in their name and for their benefit as quickly as possible.

The NDP and Liberals might not agree with the decision of the people, but they must respect it and carry it out, and special interest groups also need to heed the decision of the people. In general elections it's not the best two out of three; it's not my way or the highway. It's the people's way, and in this general election they have made their position very clear.

They have told Premier Harris and this government that they expect every action to be taken to stimulate the economy. They want real job creation. They want job-killing labour legislation to be rescinded. They want jobs for our college and university graduates. They want equal employment opportunities for men as well as women and they want fair and equal employment policies in every workplace. They want government to begin to treat tax dollars with respect, to spend selectively and to make tough choices, like every householder is forced to do.

They demand that the tax burden be lightened. They expect bureaucrats as well as politicians to be held accountable. They want government downsized. They want honest, open, accessible government and no pandering to special interest groups, and they want all programs to be re-evaluated while protecting spending envelopes for health care, classroom education and law enforcement. In short, the people want more jobs, lower taxes and less government spending, and they want the enormous government debt brought under control.

For five years the Liberals thought they could spend, spend, spend and eventually repay easily with devalued dollars. So in spite of the most affluent times in recent history, our provincial debt mushroomed out of control. During the next five years the NDP government fed the mushroom in the simplistic, mistaken belief that you might be able to spend your way out of a deficit position. Ten years ago this province was virtually debt-free. Now it staggers under a debt load of $100 billion with an annual service charge of close to $9 billion, which works out to more than $1 million every hour of every day of every week just to pay the bank its interest on our provincial debt. What a mess.

We've given our children a debt of $100 billion to pay off and we still expect them to earn sufficient to keep the old age pension plan viable. No wonder young people today ask with measured anger why the generation before them, who lived through some of the most affluent times in history, has left them with such a dark legacy of debt to repay. Because of well-meaning but unaffordable policies of the past decade, everyone now is forced to face some short-term pain in order to get long-term gain. It will, however, be my concern that the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and those truly in genuine need be spared as much as possible from the full effect of the tough medicine every one of us will have to taste, and I mean everyone, including members of this House.

The way ahead is clearly outlined in the speech from the throne. It's a speech filled with common sense, the common sense of the people of Ontario. That's its real strength, and it deserves the complete support of this House. I'm proud to give my support to our Premier and his cabinet as they struggle to restore hope and opportunity for the people of Ontario.

It will be a bumpy ride, as some members from the opposition and third party have promised, but it's a ride well worth taking if we care for Ontario, if we care for Canada and if we truly care for the future of our people.

On behalf of the people of High Park-Swansea, I am honoured to lend my full support to the speech from the throne and for the government that has been given a very clear mandate to carry it out.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It's my privilege and pleasure to rise today for the first time in this new session of Parliament, and I want to begin by thanking my constituents, the people of Ottawa South, for once again placing their confidence in me. I pledge myself once again to do my utmost to represent their interests here in our deliberations at Queen's Park.

I want to take a moment to thank all of the people in Ottawa South who voted for me and to thank, on behalf of my wife and children, all those who voted against me. I have not lost my sense of the tremendous privilege and honour that has been bestowed upon me as a result of being re-elected to this Legislature.

So now we have a new government, a Conservative government, and I offer my sincere and heartfelt congratulations to government members and extend to them my best wishes as they grapple with the not inconsiderable challenges of the day.

There's an important question that I think we must at the outset of this Parliament try to answer, and that quite simply is this: What did Ontario voters vote for on June 8 of this year?

Now, many say that those who voted for the Conservatives on June 8 are hard-hearted, that they're mean-spirited, that they're angry, that they were lashing out at what they saw as the dead weight in society, and especially those on welfare. This theory of course is especially appealing to Liberals and NDP, because by logical extension it means that all kind-hearted voters and all those motivated by the charitable spirit must have voted for us. And if only this were so. If only any one party here had a monopoly on good ideas or social consciousness.

I don't buy this, and neither do the people of this province. Having said that, however, I do believe that Liberals have a few more good ideas than the others and that, in the fullness of time, this will be well accepted.

I don't believe Ontario voted in the Mike Harris government because they were informed by mean spirits. I believe we have a Conservative government today because what Ontario wanted was significant change and because the Conservative Party held itself out as an agent of such change.

And now I want to raise the only real question before this Legislature today, the question which members will revisit with each new element of public policy introduced by this government over the next four years, and that question is this: What kind of change do Ontarians want? After all, not all change is the same. There's good change and there's bad change. There's change that will help Ontario and change that will hurt it, change that will improve our quality of life and change that will cause it harm.

I think it's fairly obvious that for this government significant change means, in large part, program cuts, especially cuts to social services, including cuts to welfare payments and cuts to women's and children's support programs. I have serious misgivings about the size and targets of these cuts, but I want to focus for a moment on the cuts targeting our children.

I am not at all certain, I am not all convinced, that when Ontarians voted for change they meant we should be cutting our already skimpy budgets for programs geared to the support of our children. I don't believe Ontarians voted to reduce our children's aid society budgets and our budgets for child abuse treatment and prevention programs. I don't think Ontarians voted for their government to cut back on children's mental health services or budgets for autistic children services. And I cannot accept that voters in Ottawa, for instance, even those who voted Conservative, voted for cuts to our Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa-Carleton, cuts to our Ottawa Youth Services Bureau and cuts to our Children at Risk program.

1730

Of course, in one sense cuts targeting kids are easy to make. You see, the damnedest thing about kids is they just can't get their act together to oppose these things. They don't organize themselves, they don't picket, they don't show up on the lawn outside here to protest and demonstrate, and of course they don't even bother to vote. I mean, is it anybody's fault but their own that kids are the subject of these cuts?

On top of their program cuts, why shouldn't the half a million kids on welfare share in the experience of a 22% cut to their families' welfare? If this means less food, no new clothes and fewer toys still, too damn bad. If welfare cuts mean, as studies have revealed, that parents with less money are under greater stress, which leads in turn to more child abuse, well, so be it.

Kids should have seen the impact of these cuts coming. They should have prepared for them.

I want members of this House to understand the seriousness of the situation for our children. I'm going to do that by drawing their attention to an important barometer of how our children are faring, and that's the teenage suicide rate. The rate of suicide for Canadian teens is alarmingly high when we compare it with other industrialized countries, including the United States. Our young people in this country, which has been voted two years running as offering the best quality of life for its citizens, our young people here kill themselves at twice the rate of Britain and Japan, and they kill themselves at five times the rate that they do in Italy.

This unfolding tragedy is especially pronounced among our teenage boys. For our teenage boys, their suicide rate has quadrupled since 1960, to 20 per 100,000 or one in every 5,000 boys. I don't have the Ontario stats, but I don't see any reason to believe that Ontario deviates significantly from the Canadian statistics.

It seems to me that a society's teen suicide rate is a good indicator of how well it is meeting the needs of its young. Happy-go-lucky kids whose primary needs are being met, kids who believe their future holds promise don't kill themselves. However, unhappy kids, kids deprived of hope, kids with serious problems who are not getting help, these kids do sometimes, unfortunately and tragically, end their own lives.

These cuts to kids' programs and kids' welfare represent bad change, they represent harmful change, they represent the kind of change which I don't believe Ontarians voted for or want.

Now, there's little doubt that in the short term cuts to kids' programs are going to produce some savings. But these short-term savings will be greatly outweighed ultimately by the long-term costs. It's been estimated that every dollar spent on needy children today saves $7 tomorrow; and if you put those kinds of cuts into perspective, you've got to ask yourself why it is that we had to make cuts to those programs, to that group which has no formal representation, which does not organize itself into lobby groups.

Why have we cut children's programs when we've been able to find money to help our snowbirds cover medical expenses in the south? Why have we cut our children's programs if we could forgo the income generated by speeders on our highways when we killed photo-radar?

I want to offer a suggestion to government members, who I know are genuinely struggling to make only good cuts, cuts helpful to Ontarians, and that suggestion is this: Attaining your objective will be easier if you stop believing your accountability lies only to taxpayers. Your accountability, like that for all of us here, is to all Ontarians, including those who happen to be taxpayers.

Furthermore, I don't believe that taxpayers are purely one-dimensional, or want to be seen as such. The fact that they pay taxes is not their only or even their defining characteristic. You and I, we may be taxpayers but we do not measure everything government does solely in terms of how it affects the bottom line. If that were the case, taxpayers in this province would simply demand that government abandon all pretence of trying to be anything really more than the administrator of barebones services and programs.

I believe the taxpayers of this province expect this government, like all our governments in recent history, to take measures to ensure that those who are least able to fend for themselves receive help. Taxpayers expect this government to have a heart and to help care for our children, our sick, our elderly and our disabled. Taxpayers also expect this government to protect and preserve our natural environment for this generation and the generations yet to come. I saw nothing whatsoever in the results of June 8, 1995, that would lead me to conclude otherwise, and neither should the Mike Harris government.

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): It is a privilege to rise in the Legislature today to deliver my first address in support of the speech from the throne, but before I start I would like to add my sympathy and prayers for the Eves family, as everyone else has done today. It is a tragedy.

I also have the dubious honour of speaking almost last on behalf of the government. Therefore, with a caucus that is this talented, most of the good lines have been used, so I will attempt to carry on.

I am honoured to have been elected to serve the riding of Durham West as a member of the Mike Harris government. While our riding has been ably represented by my predecessors, Jim Wiseman from the NDP and Norah Stoner from the Liberals, it is certainly my pleasure to be the first Progressive Conservative member to represent Durham West since George Ashe, who served with distinction from 1977 to 1987.

I would also like to congratulate all the members who were elected to this assembly. I look forward to working with you all and wish you all the best in your efforts to represent your constituents.

May I also congratulate the member for Simcoe East on his election to the Speaker's chair. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that our new Speaker is well-suited to his role and will capably preside over the proceedings of this assembly.

I would also like to mention the close working relationship that has developed among the PC members representing Durham region. As my colleague from Durham East indicated, as all of our first names begin with J, the communities have taken to calling us the Durham Jays, or to be more partisan, the Durham Blue Jays. For better or worse, we appear to be labelled for the duration. However, it has certainly been a privilege to work with such a team of talented and committed individuals. Jim Flaherty, Julia Munro, John O'Toole and Jerry Ouellette and I are dedicated to working for the betterment of Durham region.

Durham region, and more specifically my riding, Durham West, is largely composed of hardworking young families. They came to the communities of Ajax and Pickering to buy a house, to raise their kids and to make a better life for themselves. But they had begun to see government not as a partner in that enterprise but as an obstacle. Their increasing tax burden has been taking away the rewards of their labour and the government's increasing debt is mortgaging their children's future.

Our government's agenda, the Common Sense Revolution, is about restoring that partnership with the majority of hardworking Ontarians. It is a partnership of prosperity and growth, a partnership that promises hope for our future and the future of this great province.

It began five years ago when Mike Harris and the PC caucus went to Ontarians and asked them what was wrong with government and how to fix it. Their answers created the Common Sense Revolution, one of the broadest grass-roots policy initiatives ever seen in Ontario. We have continued to build this partnership with a throne speech that is consistent with this agenda.

The day we released our speech, a casual reader of the media may be forgiven if he or she thought that half the province was on the front lawn of Queen's Park objecting to our direction. If I could leave the House with two messages, they would be this: First, the majority of people in my riding voted for this agenda and they have been vocal in their support of it ever since; secondly, this government is not going to blink.

1740

We ran on this agenda, we spelled it out clearly before and during the election, we were elected to implement this agenda and we will do it; make no mistake about it. Gone are the days of governance by interest group. Instead, we will govern for the majority of Ontarians, who want job creation, a balanced budget and tax relief. We will do this by dealing with our own spending problem now. By doing so, we are preserving our economy and our province for tomorrow.

One of our major changes will be welfare reform. This government believes that the best form of social assistance is a job. When a person has a job, he or she is self-reliant, contributes to the economy, has a sense of self-worth and has potential for the future. Through workfare and learnfare we will break the cycle of dependency by investing in Ontario's most important resources, its human resources. I was honoured to be chosen as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services and I look forward to participating in making these changes and reforms happen.

Our government has been subjected to a daily barrage of criticism from across the House about the changes we are making in this area. I can appreciate their concern, but we need also to think about those hardworking Ontarians who are struggling every day to provide for their families without a dollar of government assistance. We have a responsibility to those people as well, and we are fulfilling that obligation by putting our own financial house in order to encourage growth and job creation.

As the MPP for Durham West, I have been given the privilege of representing a riding that not only endorsed our government's agenda but is actively working to further our objectives. For example, the Durham Region District Health Council, in cooperation with the Durham hospital council, put forward a plan this year that will restructure and rationalize hospital services in our area.

Faced with growing population pressures and limited financial resources, the DHC and the hospital community recognized the need to work together to develop a regional health model that would guarantee high-quality care, accessibility, cost-effectiveness and equity. I commend all the committee members for a difficult job well done, and I thank our Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, for his guidance and for adopting the recommendations of this group.

Efforts to make the best use of taxpayers' money are common in my riding. The Ajax-Pickering hospital, in an effort to cut costs and save jobs, implemented a program called MASH, making all savings happen. By turning to their employees and asking them to recommend cost savings, the hospital has been able to successfully forestall layoffs and make their operations more effective. It is a model that I hope many other hospitals in this province would follow.

Such efforts are not limited to the health care community. Last year the town of Ajax implemented the STARS program, saving the town of Ajax real dollars. We like acronyms out there in our region. This was another employee-driven initiative that gave everyone the opportunity to reduce costs without cutting staff or services and without taking days off. With every employee as a partner, buying into the principle of doing better with less, their ideas generated over $590,000 in annual savings.

The STARS program exemplifies the kind of cooperation needed from all regions, municipalities and agencies in Ontario. It worked in Ajax, and I believe it can serve as a pilot model for cost cutting throughout the province. In fact the STARS program has made celebrities out of those who made a difference and they will be featured by Eric Malling on W5 later in November. I'd like to congratulate the town of Ajax for this success.

I would be remiss if I did not also commend the town of Pickering for its skill at running a debt-free operation with zero budget increases and zero tax increases for three straight years, an excellent example for all of us to follow.

But reducing the cost of government and ensuring that our tax dollars are used most effectively is only part of the equation. Our government must also be prepared to allocate its resources to those areas and individuals most in need. Durham region is a case in point. We face an increasing disparity between a growing population and government funding levels. Between 1986 and 1991 our population rose by 25%; by 2006 it is projected to grow another 40%.

This growth is occurring at a time when all governments are faced with spending restraints. This has led to funding inequities in some services. For example, hospital funding per person in Durham region is 40% lower than the provincial average and 60% lower than in Metro Toronto, yet we have one of the highest population growth rates. The situation is similar for children's services, where funding in Durham region is $187 per child while in Metro Toronto it is $427.

I look forward to working with our government to address these inequities, but first we will put our own financial house in order. Not for this government the practice of the last 10 years, where governments across the way attempted to solve problems by throwing money we didn't have at the problem.

Before closing, there is one final issue I would like to raise, and while it is not strictly related to spending restraints, it does indicate a fundamental principle of this government. We are serious about letting those closest to the people determine the kind of development that will take place in their communities. This trust in local government was demonstrated when Premier Mike Harris dismantled the NDP's bureaucratic monolith, the Interim Waste Authority. Municipalities were given back the right to manage waste, and Durham West is no longer bound by an ideological decree that would have forced us to accept a superlandfill site.

As we continue to empower municipalities, I look forward to working with the mayor of Pickering, Wayne Arthurs; the mayor of Ajax, Jim Witty; and the Durham regional chairman, Gary Herrema.

There are many difficult decisions needed to get Ontario back on track, and this government is prepared to make them. We are also prepared to continue to build partnerships with the hardworking, taxpaying, law-abiding Ontarians who expect us to live up to our commitment -- they demand that we live up to our commitment -- of prosperity through less government, job-creating tax relief and real welfare reform. It is a privilege and an honour to be part of it.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): First, Mr Speaker, I would like to offer my deepest sympathy to the Ernie Eves family. Ernie is a very good friend of mine.

It gives me great pleasure to address the speech from the throne, not the budget. Too bad. We were expecting a budget, but I guess we will have to wait another five or six months.

I've listened very carefully to the speeches that were made today and for the last week, members saying how proud they are of their riding. I am proud of representing Ottawa East, but the problem with being a member -- not a Liberal member but an elected member -- from the Ottawa-Carleton area is that people have a tendency to refer to us as fat cats. Today I want to take this opportunity to talk about people, the have-nots, of my riding because, as I said, we are no longer fat cats. For so many years we had to depend on the federal government to provide us with jobs, but times have changed. People are looking for jobs, and the welfare cases in Ottawa-Carleton have increased tremendously over the last five or 10 years.

1750

I would like to tell you that my people are hardworking people, but there are no jobs; there are no jobs out there. I feel sorry for these people because they have very little education. I happen to represent the lowest earners in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and when you look at the welfare cases in the Ottawa-Carleton area you're looking at 111,000 cases of welfare, and 40% of those cases are children. As the member for Ottawa South mentioned, how can children defend themselves in this House? Then 29% are single; 32% are unemployable; 17% long-term-disabled; 11% working poor, and listen to this one: 10% highly skilled people. As I said, fat cats no longer.

I think it's very unfortunate that in the last couple of weeks I've had to listen to ministers making announcements and making my people suffer, because they will suffer. It doesn't matter what the government intends to do, they will be suffering for years to come. I realize that the government is trying to do something, but last week was the most gruesome and the most despicable week I have spent in this House in the last 10 years. Not one good announcement was made.

The very first one was a cutback in the welfare cheques by 22%, and a couple of days after we all read in the newspapers that after doing some research, maybe a 15% or 16% cut would have met the obligations of the government. So where will this extra 5% or 6% go? We all know where: to pay for that promise that your government will decrease provincial income tax by 30%. So you are feeding off the poor people, that's what you're doing.

I would like to address three very special cases. The first one is the battered women's shelters that were knocked off, or will be, as of January 1.

In my riding, j'ai une maison qui s'appelle la Maison d'Amitié, un nom très propice pour la simple raison que c'est une maison où les femmes violentées peuvent rencontrer des amis. C'est la seule maison francophone, et on parle de fermer cette maison dès le 1er janvier. Alors, la question que je pose au gouvernement, que je pose au premier ministre, c'est : à quel endroit ces femmes violentées, ces enfants violentés, peuvent-ils trouver plus de sécurité ?

Pourtant, dans le discours du trône nous avons parlé de communautés sécuritaires, nous avons parlé de créer des emplois. Mais par contre, aucune annonce n'a été faite jusqu'à maintenant pour la création d'emplois. On parle d'abolir des programmes. Alors, les maisons d'hébergement fermées dans mon comté vont contribuer au sort du gouvernement pour les deux prochaines années.

Pourtant, on a fait des promesses que nous étions pour trouver des solutions, des alternatives. J'ai entendu la ministre déléguée à la Condition féminine dire en Chambre que «nous allons trouver des programmes». "We will find other alternative programs." I'm asking the minister to stand in this House now or Monday and tell us what the alternatives are for these children and mothers. Je crois que cette atrocité a été faite pour épargner très peu de sous, de $5 millions à $7 millions.

I have another house in my riding, called Harmony House. I feel sorry not only for the residents of Harmony House but for the people who have worked so diligently for the last 23 years to make this home a real harmony house. These people have a very small budget of $240,000 a year -- 80%, mind you, is from Comsoc, social services -- and they provide services for 17 families. I'm talking about mothers and children. It's a block of 17 apartments, and they also do counselling for 70 former residents, and this will be gone by January 1. Why cut and save?

Interjection: The minister said it wouldn't be long.

Mr Grandmaître: That's right. The minister said, "No, don't worry, we'll replace it with something else." We're still waiting. What are the alternative programs? We haven't heard from the minister, and we're all anxious to hear from the minister. But I realize that you have to save in order to pay the rich. You have to save in order to meet your 30% commitment, 30% reduction. I feel sorry for these people and also for the people of Ontario.

Mr Harris and his government at the present time are a very popular government, but I want to remind you, when you go to bed this evening, read all your paper clippings, maybe read them every night, because it's not going to last. That's a warning; I've been there. I remember when we were at 50% and 52% and 53%, and you are close to that percentage right now. I want to remind you to save those clippings because they're not going to last too long.

I'm warning you now, because two years from now a lot of you will stand in this House and say, "I didn't think it was that severe." I think you don't recognize what you're really doing in this province, what you're doing to families, what you're doing to mothers and children. I don't think it's going to work.

Mr Hastings: But you did that with the province before.

Mr Grandmaître: My friend is heckling, but at the same time I think we tried to respond to the needs of our mothers and children, and this is not the way that this government will succeed.

There's only 50 seconds left. I know there's a referendum in the province of Quebec and I want to offer my services to the Premier, to his government, that if I'm needed to fight for a No vote, je suis prêt, je suis disponible, je suis un fier Franco-Ontarien, un Canadien.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): First of all, Mr Speaker, I'd like to, on behalf of my family and the residents of Hamilton Mountain, offer our sincere condolences to the Eves family.

I would also like to offer you, sir, our congratulations on your newly appointed position, and I'm sure you will serve this Legislature with fairness, equality and integrity.

I'd also like to congratulate all my colleagues on both sides of the House on their respective elections and re-elections. As well, sincere thanks go out to all the people who are responsible --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Hamilton Mountain, the time is up. We'd ask you to do this at another time, if that would be appropriate.

Mr Pettit: Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: That might be a lesson for this House.

On Thursday, September 28, 1995, Ms Fisher moved, seconded by Mr Maves, that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

"To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a Member of the Order of Canada, Knight in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, doctor of laws, bachelor of laws, bachelor of arts, Honorary Colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, Honorary Colonel of 429 Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Honorary Captain of the Fifth Canadian Maritime Operations Group at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us."

On Monday, October 2, 1995, Mrs McLeod moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following thereto:

"That this House profoundly regrets that the new government has put forward an agenda that is a breach of trust for Ontarians who were promised jobs and a brighter future and that therefore this House condemns the government:

"1. For its litany of broken campaign promises.

"2. For its failure to reaffirm its plan to see the creation of 725,000 jobs.

"3. For its failure to reaffirm its commitment not to cut health care funding.

"4. For proceeding hastily to cut welfare benefits while the promise to help people get off welfare and into the workforce goes unfulfilled.

"5. For its failure to put forward a constructive agenda and for instead practising the politics of punishment and intolerance.

"6. For its overwhelming and clear commitment to put Ontario on a path toward higher unemployment, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, a health care system faced with cutbacks and threatened with user fees, reduced access to education and policies that benefit the wealthy most at the expense of the most vulnerable in society."

On Tuesday, October, 3, 1995, Mr Rae moved that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following thereto:

"That this House further regrets that the speech from the throne shows that this government has chosen to attack the vulnerable and abandon basic services that the people of Ontario depend on, and condemns the government for:

"Creating a fiscal crisis in Ontario by promising an irresponsible 30% tax cut for the wealthy, then implementing cuts of somewhere between $6 billion to $9 billion in basic services for people in order to pay for these tax breaks;

"Failing to put the basic human needs of the people of Ontario ahead of irresponsible tax giveaways;

"Failing to honour its commitment to protect the most vulnerable among us, and instead imposing massive cuts to social assistance that hurt children, seniors and those with disabilities;

"Abandoning the basic protections for working people by cutting health and safety employment standards and wage protection as well as freezing the minimum wage;

"Breaking its promise to protect health care by cutting $132 million from the health care budget including cost-saving initiatives such as birthing centres and the photo health card and by threatening Ontario's seniors with user fees on the Ontario drug benefit plan;

"Giving up on the 500,000 men and women looking for work by slashing job training, including a special program to give 66,000 young people their first job and day care funding to let single parents find work, and offering no help or hope in place of these programs."

The first question to be decided is Mr Rae's amendment to the amendment to the motion.

All those in favour of Mr Rae's amendment to the amendment to the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

By previous agreement of the House, the division on this question will take place Monday next.

The time being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1805.