role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 2, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

M. Grandmaître : Je lève mon chapeau aujourd'hui aux organisateurs de la Campagne des rubans blancs qui a lieu cette semaine. Le ruban blanc est le symbole de l'appel des organisateurs à tous les hommes pour qu'ils déposent les armes de la guerre contre les femmes, nos soeurs.

Il est en effet effrayant qu'il ait fallu attendre que le massacre à l'École Polytechnique se produise pour que les hommes prennent conscience d'un événement qui peut se passer à tous les jours chez les femmes. Ces événements incluent le viol au foyer ou lors d'une sortie, des coups que les femmes reçoivent sans pouvoir se défendre, du harcèlement sexuel au travail ou à la maison, des agressions sexuelles contre les enfants et des menaces qui peuvent finir par des meurtres.

Les femmes ne peuvent plus se sentir en confiance lorsqu'elles sortent le soir, et maintenant elles ont peur de se promener toutes seules pendant la journée après ce qui s'est passé au Collège Humber en fin de semaine.

Il est important que les hommes sachent qu'ils sont

partie intégrante du problème et de la solution. Je les incite à porter un ruban blanc, d'attacher un ruban blanc à leur maison ou dans leur lieu de travail. Je les invite aussi à lire la déclaration des organisateurs et de participer à cette campagne dont le slogan est «Rompons notre silence d'hommes pour mettre fin à la violence faite aux femmes.»

J'espère que je n'aurai pas à faire d'autres déclarations comme celle-ci au cours des années à venir.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Carr: I have an open letter to the NDP government from the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. It starts out:

"When is enough enough?

"The NDP government is planning a major overhaul of Ontario labour and employment laws. It has been said that many of these laws must be changed to level the playing field between management and labour. The NDP government says these drastic changes are an integral part of the government's vision of a partnership....

"Ontario already has North America's most comprehensive labour and employment laws. We urge this government to review the chart below which compares only a few of the proposed amendments, and some existing conditions, with some of the other industrial provinces of Canada and selected American states which are presently attracting Ontario business. A review of the chart leads to one inescapable conclusion -- Ontario does not need an overhaul of these laws. Existing businesses cannot afford additional costs and restrictions....

"The people of Ontario will most benefit by efforts by the government to invite and retain employer investment in Ontario.... Let's avoid giving prospective investors one more reason not to invest in Ontario.

"Please -- enough is enough!"

It is signed by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, ACS Plus, Bailey Canada, Ball Packaging, Bonar Inc and all the other members of the Burlington Chamber of Commerce.

VICTIMS SERVICES OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr Morrow: I am pleased to help announce the opening of Victims Services of Hamilton-Wentworth. It was on May 1, 1990, that the member for Hamilton West asked the former government to fund the program. I am happy to announce that my government has recognized this need and funded this group.

This venture, funded jointly by the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the Solicitor General, along with the co-operation of the regional police department, breaks new ground in services for victims of crime. The office of this program is located at the headquarters of the police department at 155 King William Street.

The community board brought together lawyers, workers in transition homes, information counsellors, community developers and concerned citizens to make the original submission.

With the recent hiring of a project supervisor and support staff, a process and manual will be developed to recruit and train volunteers to work with victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or traffic accidents. They will also set up a protocol for agency referral to help people in these circumstances. It is hoped that in 1992, after the framework is completed, a 24-hour service for victims will be funded.

During this commemorative week of the Montreal massacre, I am glad that my government is using local solutions to help women who have been victims of violence.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr McGuinty: This week marks the second commemoration of the Montreal massacre. This tragic event reminds us all of the violence directed against many women in our society. The official opposition shares in the pain felt by women who have faced violence as well as the pain felt by those left behind, especially by their families.

Today we would like to join with the men and women of Canada in extending our commitment to all those women and children who have faced violence and to those who might face it in the future. We are committed to working with all Canadians to ensure the safety of women in this province.

Nearly two years ago 14 women students in Montreal met a violent death on a quiet December evening. This horrible act of violence and anything remotely similar to it must never be allowed to recur in our society, because in a just society one act of violence against even one woman is one too many.

The Montreal massacre emphasizes in a terrible way how crucial it is that violence against women be stopped. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers go out to the families and friends of these young women whose lives were filled with great promise.

Regardless of our political views, I feel certain that all members of this House will agree that violence against women must cease immediately. We challenge the government of our province to work with us, with women and with the many good men who oppose such violence to educate the public as to its role in bringing about an end to it.

Much of this needs to occur in the form of public education and we, the official opposition, are committed to doing whatever we can to help others understand that they must not only speak up against such crimes against women but encourage others to speak up as well.

GOLDEN HAWKS FOOTBALL TEAM

Mrs Witmer: I rise today to congratulate coach Rich Newbrough and the Wilfrid Laurier University Golden Hawks football team. On Saturday, Laurier defeated Mount Allison University 25-18 to capture the Vanier Cup, symbolic of supremacy in Canadian intercollegiate football.

This was a particularly rewarding victory for Wilfrid Laurier University, a small school of about 5,000 students in my riding of Waterloo North. The team commenced its journey to the Canadian championship by defeating its long-time rival, the University of Western Ontario Mustangs, at the Ontario final played in London. One week later, Laurier came back from a huge half-time deficit to defeat Queen's University and gain a well-deserved spot at the Canadian final. In Saturday's Vanier Cup victory, Laurier running back Andy Cecchini closed out a remarkable career by scoring three touchdowns and earning selection as the game's most valuable player.

On behalf of all Laurier alumni and all residents of Kitchener-Waterloo, I would like to congratulate the Laurier Golden Hawks on a thrilling season. Your accomplishments have been a great source of pride for your school and our community and I wish you continued best wishes in your future endeavours, both on and off the football field.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 200

Mr Hayes: On the weekend I attended the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 200, along with my colleagues the member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I stand in the House today in recognition of this landmark.

I joined that local in 1964, long after the founders of the movement achieved great human and civil rights victories through courageous and often selfless determination. Born, as all unions are, out of often unfair and undemocratic treatment in the workplace, Local 200 was one of many unions that won victories such as gender employment equity, job security, seniority and hospitalization benefits, pension plan and health and safety regulations. To reach these goals many men and women risked not only their jobs but also the mental and physical health of themselves and their families.

Unions, especially Local 200, have toiled for much more than just the membership. As a long-time community activist, Local 200 has been a driving force behind the United Way fund-raising, supporting and developing housing and fighting poverty and assisting the unemployed.

I am very proud to be a member of CAW Local 200, because it was through my involvement with Local 200 that I learned the true meaning of social justice. I now would like to publicly congratulate CAW Local 200 on its 50 years of dedicated service to workers and the community of Essex county and the city of Windsor.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Offer: Today I would like to commend the men of the white ribbon campaign and those who join them to stand up and publicly denounce the violence that occurs in society against women. Today we would like to join with all Canadians to work towards a society where violence against women is not tolerated and is dealt with in such a manner that the victim has the necessary support to recover not just physically but mentally.

We invite Canadians to work together by speaking out when violence against women is seen, by encouraging those living in violence to speak up and seek support and refuge elsewhere and by making it clear among colleagues and friends that this simply cannot be permitted or tolerated in our society.

The white ribbon campaign was so accurate when it titled this year's campaign Breaking Men's Silence To End Men's Violence. Those who are in violent situations are often made to feel that by speaking out they would be the offenders. In many cases women lack the necessary emotional and financial support to speak up against their circumstances. In other cases, those who do speak up but lack sufficient support are often victimized once again.

The willingness to speak out must not be from women only. It must not occur only in isolated groups. Men and women of all nationalities must join together and speak out so that women feel safe once again.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr Jackson: I rise today to mark a momentous occasion in the lives of all Ukrainian Canadians and all Ukrainians worldwide. On Sunday, December 1, the people of Ukraine voted unanimously in favour of independence from the Soviet Union. Many polls reported that as many as 80% to 90% of voters supported independence. What is also most significant is that the Russian and other minorities in Ukraine likewise voted in favour of independence.

Ukraine now becomes the fifth-largest country in Europe, with extensive industrial and agricultural resources at its disposal to re-establish firm links with the West which it once enjoyed as the breadbasket of Europe. As a member of the United Nations, Ukraine has been and will continue to be a great pioneer in the promotion of international understanding and co-operation. Ukraine will continue, for example, to remain solidly behind the removal of the UN resolution which equates Zionism with racism.

As someone whose Ukrainian ancestors arrived in this country almost 100 years ago, I join with members of our Ukrainian community in celebrating this great and long-awaited occasion. I now join with the free Ukrainian government in calling on all nations, and our Canadian government especially, to recognize Ukraine's independence as a fact and as the expressed will of the Ukrainian people.

To the members of the Ukrainian Canadian community I say congratulations, and to the citizens of Ukraine I say [Remarks in Ukrainian].

SUSAN CHIN

Mr Malkowski: I attended the class of 1991 graduation event at Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute in York East riding on November 22, 1991. Susan Chin, a young deaf student, received four awards: outstanding leadership, academic letter, outstanding achievement and the Loyal Order of Solomon, which I was very proud to present to her on that evening. Susan is an extraordinary example of educational achievement and leadership.

Susan is currently a student at the University of Guelph, studying environmental engineering. This university is an excellent environment for education and employment equity. To show its commitment to equality, the university this year addressed the importance of equal access to education at its third Abella Lecture. I am sure we all wish Susan the best of luck in the future.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to speak about the white ribbon campaign at this time.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to say a few words today about violence against women in our society. As you may have noticed, my male colleagues in the House today are wearing white ribbons and will continue to wear them until Friday, December 6, the second anniversary of the Montreal massacre.

These ribbons symbolize our desire, as men, to lay down our arms against women, be they our partners, our sisters, our daughters, our mothers, our colleagues or simply our friends. For too long our community has ignored crimes such as rape, battering and sexual harassment. Each day women are the victims of savage, brutal and often unspeakable acts, and the sad truth is that most violence against women is committed by men they know.

An equally insidious side to abuse against women is a more subtle one. Through comments and gestures women are made to feel inferior, vulnerable and harassed, ending up psychologically and emotionally battered. Members may ask themselves what kind of men would do such things. It is men of every social background, every colour, every age and every interest. It is men on the factory floor and men in executive offices. Simply put, it is all of us.

Today is not the first time this government or this House has called attention to the appalling way men often treat women. When launching Wife Assault Prevention Month in November, the minister responsible for women's issues told this Legislature, "Just as no man has the right to assault a woman, no one" -- and that includes men -- "has the right to ignore the reality of assault." One of the campaign's TV ads shows a man confronting his wife-beating friend at a backyard barbecue. Confronted by his friend, the wife beater falls silent. He knows that what he did was wrong, but hearing it from a friend is what makes the appalling effect of his violence clear to him.

It is horrific to contemplate that one in four women will be battered in her lifetime. What that means is that each of us, whether we are aware of it or not, knows women who have been physically battered, psychologically abused or sexually assaulted, and we have been silent. We can no longer remain silent while women are made to feel inferior, vulnerable and harassed through comments and gestures made by male colleagues at work. We can no longer remain silent while women are being assaulted by their partners in their own homes.

We can no longer remain silent while women are sexually assaulted as they walk to and from work or school. We can no longer remain silent while women are being killed.

Because men are central to the problem, men can be central to the solution. Every one of us is chiefly affected by the people we know and the events we personally experience. So I ask my male colleagues in this House, you in the public and press galleries and you watching at home, to make a commitment right now to the women in your lives. In a show of support and concern, start speaking out about the indefensible problem of abuse and violence against women. Only by speaking out can we change a culture where the women we love are imprisoned by a cycle of violence. This week we can start speaking out to our friends, our colleagues and our relatives.

This Friday, on the second anniversary of the Montreal massacre, members of the government will find a forum to talk in their communities and members of this Legislature will find a forum to talk in their communities. Between 4 and 5 pm we will be distributing materials, white ribbons, and the message that it is not okay to threaten, intimidate and batter women. We invite all members of this House to take part. Indeed, we ask everyone to stop, pause, contemplate and start talking about how to end violence against women. It is a very important start, but our efforts must continue every day of the year.

When we see someone behaving inappropriately, whether that means making sexist jokes or making degrading advances, challenge him; ask him to stop and think about what he is doing. I urge every man listening to seriously consider speaking out. I would like to commend the organizers of the white ribbon campaign for speaking out. I know what choice many of us have made. That is why we are wearing white ribbons.

Mr Phillips: In joining our party in support of the campaign, I think there are some things in life that one rages against and says, "I wish I could do something about it." I think the minister's statement today and the campaign show us a road to do something about it. All of us -- I have a wife and a 27-year-old daughter -- do rage against this. I was struck by a comment I think Edmund Burke made, that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for enough good people to do nothing. I would like to think that Ontario is filled with good people who will not do nothing, but who will do something.

In just the last couple of days I was struck by three or four things that indicate the things we can do. The minister mentioned the commercial, which I thought was quite effective, that shows an individual speaking out and doing something about it. I was struck by that commercial.

Yesterday I had the chance to be with some people in the Greek community the Premier would be familiar with: Bishop Sotirios and someone called Lucy Gregoriades. The two of them spearheaded a program on wife assault in the Greek community. It had the full support of the bishop and of the church and of the community, and there is an example of a community that is doing something about it.

I think it was one of the labour leaders who just a few days ago said: "Several years ago I would sit and listen to sexist jokes and do nothing. Then I removed myself when I heard them and now I speak out against them."

Those are three examples for all of us of how we as individuals, as we rage against this, can do something and take at least some measures to attack this most significant problem.

On the other levels, I would encourage the government to continue to apply the full weight of the law to correct it. There are certain things we as individuals can do, and certainly all of us will attack it, I hope, to the best of our ability. We will be supportive of the government as it moves in a legal sense to tackle it. I would hope that as the time goes by in this Legislature, the need will decrease over time. We have a long way to go. We in this party fully support the campaign that is being launched today and have many examples of things we as individuals can do to tackle it.

As I say, we will support the government as it takes collective action on behalf of the people of Ontario to eradicate a blight on our society.

Mr Jackson: I am also very pleased to be able to stand in the House this afternoon in support of the white ribbon campaign. It is a conscious effort by men to begin combating the violence perpetrated against women by members of their own gender.

The need for men to join with women in this battle has never been more compelling than it is today. Today we recall the horror of the Montreal mass murder that claimed the lives of 14 women, and today we also recall the tragically short life of Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy of Burlington and countless other women who have died tragically at the hands of men.

Violence against women is unlike any other crime that exists in our society today. Unlike other forms of violence, violence against women is rooted in the values and assumptions of a society which is controlled by men who have tipped the scales of power between the genders in their favour. The psychology of male domination views women as objects, as male property and as extensions of men. Those of us who have been to the altar to be married know of the offensive connotation, the possessiveness of being referred to as "husband and wife" or "man and wife," denoting possession.

Male socialization therefore has traditionally reinforced this attitude and has even been used as a basis for affirming a form of male identity. Pornography, along with other sanctioned means by which women are continually denigrated, promotes this form of male socialization as a legitimate enterprise behind the subtle cover of freedom from censorship.

The symbol of the white ribbon also runs the risk, however, of being overly simplified at best and problematic at worst. The wearing of a white ribbon does not even begin to address the problem of male-dominated values and of our institutions in society if it is left simply at this symbolic level. Many women wonder how far men are actually able or willing to separate themselves from their privileged position of domination in society in order to begin to address the suffering experienced by them at the hands of men who tend all too frequently to see acts of violence against the females as individual acts, unconnected to wider society values and of their gender role conditioning.

Women have a role in helping men understand how their positions of power and domination over women are a source of oppression for both genders. Men must begin to see what they lose as human beings in their relationships to themselves and to women as a result of their possessive and abusive attitudes towards women before they can start to assist with the reorientation of their own sense of self.

Towards this end, we must begin to practically realize a goal of our educational system which I was pleased to put forward during the deliberations of the select committee on education -- I placed this 14th goal of education in Ontario in the name of my daughter Amy -- and that is to develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society. Today I remind the Minister of Education that it has been on the books for two whole years now, and we are hopeful that curriculum changes are coming immediately to address this issue.

The white ribbon is also a call to men to lay down their arms, which they continue to use against women. These arms include not only guns and other physical means of inflicting harm, but also the weapons of officially sanctioned attitudes of male domination buried in our laws and in the men in our legal system who deliver uneven justice to abused women simply because they are women, including the attitudes of any government which is afraid of taking decisive action against hard-core pornography, or to hear the cries of battered women seeking access to basic shelter and support.

The very fact that men are beginning to take a collective responsibility for their gender and for violence against women is a positive step in the right direction.

It is now time to move from ribbons to legislation and from legislation to program implementation, to practically begin addressing violence against women and its root causes in our society. The fact that Ontario is the only province in Canada without a crime victims' bill of rights sends just one more message that the rights of men who are the perpetrators of violence against women enjoy greater protection in our courts than those of the women victims.

For the truly sobering reality of violence against women is that it is the only form of violence which has more subtle societal sanction in its favour than against it. We, as legislators, therefore have a greater responsibility than most to move quickly and decisively to ensure a speedy resolution to this societal crisis.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would like to report to the House today on the two-part strategy I have outlined to the child care provider community over the past few days.

First, I am pleased to be able to tell this House that staff in non-profit child care services across the province will receive, within the next few weeks, up to $2,000 each in wage enhancements, which were announced last January. The child care wage enhancements will affect all staff, including child care workers, office staff, cooks, drivers, cleaning personnel and others employed by non-profit child care services. These enhancements will be paid from the $30-million fund announced by my predecessor. The payments I am announcing today will be prorated and retroactive to January 1, 1991.

Second, this government is allocating up to $75 million for a variety of initiatives in the child care service sector. These are designed to facilitate the conversion of for-profit child care operations to non-profit services and to strengthen the non-profit sector. Because of difficult financial times and because our child care system is under increasing stress, this money will be allocated in a strategic way over the next five years so that the needs of families for high-quality licensed care can be met effectively by the non-profit sector.

The estimated expenditures will include $16 million for non-profit organizations to allow them to purchase toys and equipment from for-profit child care services wishing to convert to non-profit; $31 million to staff of child care services that have converted to non-profit so that they receive the benefit of full direct operating grants and the $2,000 salary enhancement once the conversion process is complete; $10 million for replacement of for-profit services which may close as opposed to converting; $10.8 million to assist non-profit services currently in financial difficulty because of declining enrolments, attributable partly to the recession and partly to our current distribution of subsidized spaces.

The remaining money will be available for such things as legal fees for the incorporation of new non-profit organizations and assistance to new non-profit boards of directors.

The funding I have announced reflects this government's determination to focus government spending on non-profit child care services. This government has a long-standing conviction that taxpayers' dollars are best spent in the non-profit child care sector. We will continue to work towards pay equity solutions for all low-wage women workers but will honour our commitment to accelerate the wage redress for staff in the non-profit child care sector.

Our intention with the conversion strategy is to provide provincial assistance to facilitate the conversion of up to half of all existing for-profit child care operations in the province to non-profit over the next five years. Our funding will be carefully targeted to ensure that conversion occurs most expeditiously where no non-profit spaces are available. Once conversion is achieved, the new non-profit organization will be eligible for enhanced government funding through wage adjustment and the full direct operating grants.

The ministry will continue to license for-profit child care centres where they meet licensing requirements. Those centres, however, should base their funding and their business plans on non-reliance on government funding. For-profit centres which currently receive direct operating grants will continue to do so. Those for-profit centres currently having subsidy contracts with municipalities will continue to be eligible for subsidy payments. After January 1, 1992, however, we will ask municipalities to agree that any new fee subsidies be directed to non-profit child care programs unless the municipality is able to show the ministry that non-profit child care is unavailable.

As well, the ministry, in consultation with the for-profit sector, will develop mechanisms to ensure that financial and program information is accessible to parents whose children are served by those providers. In this way we will address the persistent problem of accountability to consumers in the service sector where those served are highly vulnerable children.

The government recognizes the considerable contribution the for-profit child care sector has made and continues to make in this province. Prior to 1981, when this ministry began funding new non-profit child care services to help with startup costs, most non-profit services were municipal or charitable organizations. Historically, for-profit organizations filled a vacuum in the absence of government funding and policy. Even today in some communities, for-profit child care services are the only services available.

For-profit child care providers have made a substantial investment in time, effort, dollars and care for the children in their charge. We understand their concerns and we will make every effort to take these issues into account in our deliberations with for-profit services wishing to convert.

RESPONSES

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Ms Poole: Obviously the minister's announcement today does not come as a surprise. I too can read the newspapers. I also remember when the previous minister made the same announcement about the $30 million 10 months ago. That $30 million to improve child care workers' salaries is long overdue.

We must all acknowledge that child care workers are terribly underpaid, but if we agree that our children deserve quality child care, then surely we must also agree that their care givers deserve a salary that compensates them fairly and recognizes the important contribution they make. That is why the Liberal government targeted $60 million to enhancing child care workers' salaries in both the non-profit and commercial sectors.

Perhaps we should put this more in perspective. If you look at our highest-paid professionals, our physicians, our doctors, they received $484 million from this government. The average doctor in Ontario is making $125,000 and the average increase was $12,000. I do not begrudge the doctors anything, but I wonder where this government's priorities are, because it gives $30 million to child care workers, who are the lowest-paid professionals in the province, earning an average of $19,000. That $2,000 they will be getting is not an average. The highest amount they will be getting is $2,000.

While I am pleased the minister was finally able to extract this money from the clutches of the Treasurer, I am dismayed by the cynicism and arrogance that has been displayed. First of all, the government stalled for 10 months after announcing last January that it would provide this money for child care workers. The workers waited and waited, and until now they have not seen a dime. Then on the eve of the annual lobby for the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, the minister came through. What a surprise.

I can tell members that the reaction the NDP caucus received in the coalition's lobby this morning would have been far different had that announcement not been made. I also doubt that the Premier and 11 cabinet ministers would have shown up at the coalition's lobby had that announcement not been made. At the same time, the poor Minister of Community and Social Services was left to fend for herself at the lobby with the private child care operators. The Premier and the cabinet ministers did not want to show up for that one.

That leads me to my second point. The minister has also announced that the NDP government will be spending $75 million to convert commercial child care centres to non-profit. What the minister and this government have done is to declare war on the private day care sector. Just as this government's rigid ideology has thrown the housing sector into chaos, just as it has threatened to eliminate the private sector involvement in auto insurance, this NDP government has now set out to destroy the jobs of 6,500 workers in the commercial child care sector. The worst part of this particular war is that it is being waged on the backs of children.

The real problem with this announcement is that it totals $105 million, yet it will not put one more child into the child care system; it will not help one parent get back into the workforce; it will not create one subsidized space and it will not create one job. Not only will it not create one job; it has the effect of losing 6,500 jobs.

What about the NDP's much-vaunted desire to consult before making major changes? There was no consultation. In fact, the minister did not even have the grace to let the private sector know it was out of business in Ontario before she made the announcement. They found out because the media came to them and asked them what was happening. The minister admitted today that to include the private providers would have been a pretence. She had no intention of compromising. She had made up her mind and did not want to be bothered with the facts.

What this government has to realize is that child care providers, parents and children across this province are not content with piecemeal solutions and offerings. We want a long-term strategic approach so that our child care sector will not be thrown into chaos.

Mr Jackson: Words cannot express how angry we are at this declared war the government has undertaken with the private child care sector, its workers and the children who benefit from its services.

I am pleased that the Premier and Treasurer are here in the House today, because I want them to realize one important element of this: Not one job is going to be created with this injection of almost $100 million that the government is now committing; not one more child will gain access to a day care centre in this province with that expenditure. In these economic times, one would clearly have expected that this government's priority would be to improve access for children and their families who do not have access to these day care spaces.

When he campaigned in the last election, the Premier said he was going to bring in pay equity for all day care workers in this province. When the Premier campaigned, he promised 10,000 subsidized day care spaces per year. Last year he announced, "We've changed our minds." He did not lie about it; he simply changed his mind. He said, "We're now only going to pay day care workers in non-profit centres."

This government decided it was going to discriminate against these 6,500 women in this province, and then the Premier said, "By the way, we've got only enough funding for 5,000 day care spaces instead of 10,000." Here we are a year later. He did not give the money to the day care workers in the last year, as was promised, and I understand the 5,000 subsidized spaces are something in the order of 3,100 or 3,400 spaces because municipalities are not taking up the program. Where is the sense of real commitment to day care in this province?

Now we have a Premier who tells us he is going to spend $30 million to pay for back salaries for a year. I want him to know there are dozens of day care centres in the non-profit sector alone which have gone bankrupt and gone under and collapsed in the last year. There are hundreds of workers in welfare lines or on unemployment insurance who will not get the benefit of this payment. Why? Because this government played politics with those women workers. This government said they were expendable in its campaign to drive the private sector out of social services. That is what this government has achieved with this money.

A year ago the Minister of Community and Social Services said they were going to develop a fund to help convert the private sector into non-profit. She did not lie. She actually believed the Treasurer was going to give her the money. When we asked, we found out there is no money. How can we believe that today's announcement is any different from what the minister said at the time of the election, what she said a year ago to day care operators and parents in this province or what she said during estimates of her own ministry, that she in fact was going to help? She has not; this ministry cannot.

Earlier last week I indicated there were Orders and Notices questions that have been sitting there for seven months, basic questions about which centres are closing, private and non-profit, and the sizes of their deficits. Do members know what this government says? "We don't keep these statistics." Yet we are led to believe the Treasurer is going to spend $10.8 million to help out of their morass the non-profit centres that are going bankrupt. This government cannot even tell us how many are in trouble and how deeply they are in trouble, yet it is going to throw that kind of money at it.

This government has no accountability, no sense of understanding about how these day care centres are trying to survive.

In the last year, this government has spent millions of dollars in Hamilton to build seven new day care centres, yet 12 day care programs collapsed in Hamilton in the last year. How can this government abuse taxpayers' dollars in such a cavalier fashion? These centres are sitting there today half empty, and all that money was spent allegedly in the best interests of the taxpayer.

The truth is this government is throwing millions of dollars down the drain. Not one job will be created with this announcement. Not one child will gain access. This is an expensive, made-in-Cuba day care policy, and this government shall be held accountable for driving 6,500 workers out of the marketplace and for driving 600 predominantly female owners of businesses out of business in this province. The minister should be ashamed of her announcement in this House. It is nothing for her to be proud of.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. The Treasurer is bothering the Premier at this time, but I am going to try to ask a question of the Premier.

I would like to refer to the secret NDP memo which was leaked last week in the name of the chief government whip, the one that had to do with the Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee, which I call the political consultation committee, the one, as members will recall, that talks about how the government could increase its profile using taxpayers' money.

It says in the document that on December 3 this is going to the NDP caucus. This committee, which was to maximize the government's profile, was to establish a new base or a broader base in Ontario and it was for mailing out documents, keeping lists and using names creatively. It was all to be based on the budget committee approach of last summer, which is very interesting. When caught in the act, the Premier fired Jill Marzetti, who is the NDP secretary, from this particular committee.

I ask the Premier, now that he has had the weekend to reflect upon this -- he has had a week in fact to reflect upon this -- will he either discontinue this committee completely, or will he at the very least replace the NDP political operatives on the committee with public servants who can carry out an appropriate, non-partisan consultation with the people of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The government is going to continue to try to consult with as many people as it can across the province. We are going to do this in a fair way. Of course, there will be people who are on ministers' staffs who are involved in this, as there will be people who are public servants. It is only natural that this take place in the life of a government.

Mr Bradley: Also last week in this House we talked about polls. One would not have expected this action with this committee on the part of the government from what we heard in the election campaign and certainly in all the years in opposition. Nor would we have expected this government to be spending money on public opinion polls, mainly because the Premier, when he was opposition leader, indicated that he was opposed to governing by public opinion polls. He had all the answers then and he had all of the policies that were necessary for Ontario.

Again, having reflected over the past weekend about this issue, is the Premier either prepared to go back to the policy he enunciated in the opposition of not conducting public opinion polls with taxpayers' money and then keeping the information for himself and the NDP caucus or, at the very least, if he is determined that he is going to abandon that particular policy, prepared to table immediately today the results of those public opinion polls so that all the people in the Legislature and all the people of Ontario who paid for them can see the results?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the policy and practice of the government are clear. When the material is ready, it will be tabled in the House in the ordinary course of events.

Mr Bradley: My final supplementary deals again with the policy that one would have expected. I know many of the NDP members who are sitting in the House today ran on a policy of openness and allowing expression of opinion among government members of the Legislature.

When the member for Lincoln exercised his right to vote against a bill which in fact was bad for his constituents from his point of view, and when the member for Welland-Thorold expressed a viewpoint in the standing committee on administration of justice which was contrary to the line put out by the Premier's office on Sunday shopping, both of them were turfed from the committee, one as the Chairman, with a loss of over $9,000 in pay, the other as a member of the committee.

Again, upon reflection, is the Premier now prepared to reinstate these individuals -- they have been in the penalty box long enough -- and demonstrate to the people of Ontario that the Premier's office is not going to use a sledgehammer on all government members who dare to dissent from him and his group in Toronto?

Hon Mr Rae: I am delighted to respond to the question by saying to the Leader of the Opposition that he knows our House leader has made a proposal to the other House leaders, with respect to intensive work we want to see carried on over the next few months with respect to parliamentary reform, which will deal with a number of issues he has touched on today.

Mr Bradley: The only thing that has to be reformed is the attitude of the Premier to this particular issue.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bradley: Now that the Premier has recovered from the jet lag from his trip to Europe that obviously plagued him last week, from the answers he gave in the House, I would like to ask a neo-isolationist question. I am a neo-isolationist -- I plead guilty to that -- because I am someone who is more concerned about London, Paris and Oxford, Ontario, than I am about those same communities in Europe.

The province received more bad economic news on the weekend. Statistics Canada said that the national economy shrank in September for the second month in a row. Canadian consumers spent only 0.2% more in the third quarter than in the second. If things are that bad across Canada, we can be sure they are that bad in Ontario.

In this province, October business bankruptcies were up 36%. Dylex, one of the province's largest retailers, decided to close its Town and Country women's stores across Canada, including 23 in Ontario. IBM -- you will be interested in this because you are from Toronto, Mr Speaker -- announced the elimination of 2,000 Canadian jobs, 80% of them in Toronto.

While Ontario taxpayers watch credit agencies threatening to lower the province's rating, the Premier seems to be content to float as his main economic initiative antibusiness legislation that will only drive more companies away. What does the Premier say to the 470,000 Ontario workers who are without jobs and who are wondering where the government's economic renewal plan is and why the Premier is not getting them back to work?

Hon Mr Rae: The government is working with all sectors of the community and other governments across Canada to ensure we do have a strong renewal taking place across the province. I know it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to run everything down, and perhaps he may feel that way, but there are companies across the world choosing to invest in this province. There are businesses around the world investing in Ontario and increasing their investment in Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He cannot condemn us for economic policies and at the same time ask us to spend even more money than we are now investing in the economy. We are investing as much money as we possibly can and we are engaged in as much work as we possibly can be with other governments and our private sector partners to ensure we have a healthy and strong recovery in Ontario.

Mr Bradley: To get the economy moving again, this government must gain the confidence of the business community, which is the main employer in Ontario. Instead of gaining their trust, the Premier is driving companies away with his NDP policies, his legislation, his regulations and his rhetoric and that of his ministers.

Groups from New York state which are interested in economic development say they are getting many calls from Ontario companies asking about moving to the United States. More than 35% of the Canadian companies actually going to northern New York state are high-employment manufacturing companies. In Ontario, 36% of small companies say they might relocate in the United States because of the policies of the Rae government.

As more employers complain about the government's economic program, can the Premier tell the House what policies he has in place that will attract new investment to this province and keep those employers from thinking of closing their doors and heading south?

Hon Mr Rae: It is interesting to hear the former Minister of the Environment. It is the first time I have heard him speak in the House with such certainty about various statistics and information being passed around with respect to the policies in the province.

We are working very closely with the private sector in a number of areas. I can point to examples where our policies on training, our policies with respect to research and development, our policies with respect to new investments in the province and our policies with respect to worker investment -- our policies in place today -- are helping not only to save jobs but to encourage new investment. If the Leader of the Opposition has the time I could go through a list of companies that even as recently as today have decided they want to invest in the province.

Mr Bradley: Business continues to talk about a crisis of confidence with this particular government. They look at a government that has had to cut and delay its spending in order to meet its bloated $9.7-billion deficit target.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer should listen to the question. Business looks at a government that has increased capital spending as part of its anti-recession package and then cut capital spending to stay within that forecast. They look at a government that goes on a spending spree and then when the cupboard is bare starts slashing indiscriminately. Business people, taxpayers and workers are all wondering whether this government has any idea, any inkling of how to run its finances.

With companies already nervous about Ontario as a place to do business and competition for the investment dollar at its fiercest, is the Premier aware of how many employers, particularly large employers, are seriously contemplating closing down their Ontario operations, with disastrous consequences for various communities and the workers? If not, will he meet personally with the presidents of these companies to determine what it will take to keep them in Ontario? The Premier should mark my words: There are companies in this province that are going to close their operations with thousands of jobs gone unless he does so.

Hon Mr Rae: First, with respect to public finances, it is passing strange to hear such comments coming from members of the Liberal cabinet who went to the electorate last summer telling them there was a surplus in the budget. That is the way they campaigned in the last election. That is the basis of their last election campaign. Their last election campaign was built on sand. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I have met already with dozens of business people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Before anyone issues a writ, perhaps we could hear the response from the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition no doubt is not pointing out the fact that the largest commitment the Ford Motor Co made anywhere recently was with respect to its expansion here. He has not noticed the fact that Chrysler has made its major decision with respect to expansion in Windsor and Brampton, which is a very substantial contribution to the province, or the fact that General Motors has decided to locate its methanol production in terms of new cars in Ontario.

It is important to take a balanced view. Yes, our economy has had a rough year, there is no question about that, but it is also important to stress to the Leader of the Opposition that we are taking steps and doing everything we can not only to keep businesses here but to expand the amount of investment in Ontario today.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I could not help but take note of the Premier's shot at the Liberals having their election campaign built on sand. I want to assure the Premier that the province is quite aware that his Agenda for People was built on quicksand. My day care question will illustrate that point very well, I hope.

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

Mr Jackson: Seven months ago I put a couple of questions in Orders and Notices asking the minister to tell the members of the House and the media just how many day care centres have closed in this province. I asked her to advise us how many were closing, by profit and non-profit sectors, and I also asked her a series of questions about the size of their deficits and how much financial trouble some of these centres are in.

Could the minister please give this House the benefit of any of those statistics, to which, I might add, as per my point of order the other day, we are legally entitled to under the House standing orders? Could she just honestly bring forward that statistic for us right now, please?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The answer to that order paper question was initially signed by my predecessor, and I re-signed it when I became minister. It was rejected by the opposition because our ministry does not collect the kind of statistics the member was asking for in the way he was asking for them. The answer is that we cannot get the kind of financial information he is asking for from the for-profit sector because, of course, they do not have to report that. That is one of the reasons we are directing our funding at the non-profit sector.

Mr Jackson: Just for the record, nobody rejects an answer he does not get, and we are still waiting for this information.

The point simply is this: The minister's field offices are allocating subsidized day care spaces according to need, so they say. Perhaps they are not telling the minister that they have these data; they are just unwilling to share it with the public. But the concerns of all day care centres in this province, regardless of whether they are for-profit or not, are legitimate, and I might point out that the Treasurer has given the minister $10.8 million to bail out those centres that are in difficulty.

How is it that the minister can stand in the House and throw around nearly $100 million today in her announcement, yet by the same token can say she does not have a handle on the kinds of financial information required to spend that money? Is this not of concern to the Premier and the Treasurer? In these economic times, we do not have that kind of money to throw around. How can the minister announce that she is going to bail out centres when she herself does not know which centres are in difficulty or how deeply they are in financial difficulty?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In the non-profit sector we do know and we can direct those funds in a strategic way. That is exactly the point. In the non-profit sector we are able to get that kind of information and be very clear about the way in which we are doing it.

The member talks about the current distribution of subsidized spaces and the problems in the child care sector. We certainly do not deny that there are problems. That is why we are embarking on this full review of the child care policy with a view to really forming a child care system, which we have never had in this province; it has been a piecemeal, grow-like-Topsy kind of situation. We are doing that within the context of a non-profit child care system, and that is exactly what the announcement today was focused on doing.

Mr Jackson: The minister is missing the point. The point is that you cannot throw millions of dollars at a problem if you do not understand the problem. We are not asking for anything, at this point, other than accountability.

I know the minister attended the coalition meeting on Friday, but on Saturday, Kim Rudd, who works at Cook Day Care Centre, which is a non-profit centre, rose during the convention and spoke to the delegates and shared this information. She said that another non-profit centre had recently called her for advice. The centre's board had quit en masse on Thursday, just two days earlier. Apparently the Receiver General had not received the moneys that were owed under the law. Vacation pay for staff was not paid. The centre was not insured, nor was it incorporated. This centre wanted to know what they should be doing about it; they were calling another centre for advice.

The minister announced $10.8 million to bail out these centres. She states she does not know which centres are in trouble. I ask her again, how can she solve this problem, how can she prop up this problem if she does not have any basic understanding of which centres are in financial difficulty? When the for-profit centre goes under, it files bankruptcy. Eighty-five per cent of the operators are women; some are losing their residences because they mortgaged their businesses. But the non-profit centres just walk away and the kids are left standing there.

How can the minister make this announcement when she does not know which centres are in trouble in this province? We call that financially irresponsible. What is she going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I call that a statement with a little question tacked on the end.

The member is quite right. If there is any kind of lack of accountability in the system, it should concern us all, whether it is profit or non-profit. I could not agree with him more.

We will simply not be putting any of the $10.8 million into any centre until we have a clear handle on its accountability process. We have made it very clear that it will be a strategic focusing of the dollars and that we want to use them to improve the accountability in the system. It is a very important point of what we are planning to do and I think it is very important that we have the support of our communities while we do that.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Premier. On May 29, 1990, as Leader of the Opposition, he introduced a private member's bill, Bill 172, that would have required all companies with annual payrolls of more than $300,000 to develop employment equity plans which would identify barriers to employment and set targets for their elimination. His model gave trade unions full rights to participation in the development, implementation and monitoring of employment equity plans.

Last week, the Toronto Star revealed that the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, originally established by the Ontario Federation of Labour, has used personal connections as its main recruitment practice. Attractive $57,000-a-year positions were not advertised to attract applications from all qualified candidates. Instead, these positions were offered to family and friends of board members. In the Premier's opinion, is this a classic example of systemic discrimination?

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Labour has already indicated that the matter is under review by his ministry and by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mrs Witmer: It is unfortunate that the Premier did not respond to the question, but I will continue. Last week at its convention the Ontario Federation of Labour passed a resolution that calls on the Ontario government to introduce mandatory employment equity legislation. Mandatory legislation would dictate hiring practices to the private sector, when clearly the federation of labour's own hiring practices are not in order.

We have here a publicly funded agency that is rampant with nepotism. Does the Premier not feel it is hypocritical for the Ontario Federation of Labour to call for mandatory employment equity legislation on the one hand while exhibiting discriminatory hiring practices on the other?

Hon Mr Rae: It is important to notice that the Minister of Labour has asked that a review take place. I understand that the deputy minister is meeting tomorrow with the co-chair of the occupational health and safety commission, and I think it is very important that all public agencies, all agencies receiving public funds and everyone act in a way that is fair and non-discriminatory. That is a policy I would promote.

Mrs Witmer: The Premier talks about the review the Minister of Labour has ordered to review the hiring practices. To me that sounds like an internal whitewash, because both Ontario Federation of Labour President Gord Wilson and Ontario Public Service Employees Union President Fred Upshaw, who both sit on the hiring committee, have already publicly denied any wrongdoing with regard to their daughters working at the centre. Since the serious allegations concern senior board members, will this government be sending in an independent third party to examine all recent hiring decisions at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre?

Hon Mr Rae: Under legislation promoted by the previous government and the previous government's policies with respect to the health and safety agency, we now have a health and safety agency. They have a job to do with respect to ensuring that public money is effectively spent and that the practices of various agencies under their jurisdiction carry on their work in a fair way. I am sure all this information will come out.

CHILD CARE

Ms Poole: I would like to place a question to the Premier about how such a terrible error could show up in his householder that he claimed his government had brought in pay equity when it had not, but I know he cannot and will not answer it, so instead I will ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Minister of Community and Social Services' reannouncement today of $30 million to enhance child care workers' salaries was certainly welcomed, particularly since it has been nearly a year since the original promise was made to child care workers. We will be monitoring the minister's implementation of this commitment. She has promised child care workers they will have additional dollars in their pockets by Christmas and we hope that this time the government keeps its promise.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I wish there were a simple and quick answer to that. I am not going to be sucked by the member of the opposition into trying to state a date, except to tell her that we have made a commitment that by the end of this first term, through our consultation process and our strategic planning, we will have developed a system that will work towards the provision of affordable and universally available child care.

It is extraordinarily difficult in this time of financial restraint to predict with certainty how quickly we will be able to move towards that. I can tell the member that we certainly intend to work towards it as quickly as the financial situation allows and as quickly as the need is apparent. A member of the third party last week was talking about the uneven distribution of spaces, which is causing vacancies in some centres, and that is one of the issues we need to tackle so that we know exactly how large our problem is.

Ms Poole: It is not a matter of my trying to sucker her into a date. There happen to be families right across this province that are suffering. They do not have enough money. They cannot afford it. The minister must know that across this province there are many vacancies, and those vacancies are there because there is an inability of parents to pay those high fees. The spaces are there; the subsidies are not. The fees for infants in 1992 will be $200 per week. I challenge the minister to show me how a family with a total income of $45,000 can afford to pay this fee.

Has the minister considered that many centres are facing deficits due to vacancies that are a result of these high fees? Should this continue, we have heard from many participants, including people at the conference for the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care this weekend, that if the situation does not change, then centres will be forced to close. This is a real problem and we need real solutions. How is the minister going to ensure these empty spaces are filled so that children can receive the care they need, so that staff can continue to work and not be unemployed, so that parents can continue to work, job-search and access training, and so that these centres do not close?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We will be working thoroughly throughout the entire process of the next year, during the consultation period on child care reform and through the strategic directions I have announced today, to try and readjust the distribution of those spaces. What the member says about the cost of child care is absolutely true. It is becoming financially difficult for many parents to afford those fees, particularly since they have to be paid up front. The tax credit, which is fairly substantial, comes in later. That really affects the cash flow of families and we recognize that.

Unless we get a strategic hold on planning for the sector, it is going to be extremely hard for us to turn this situation around. We insist on doing that within a context we can manage in terms of accountability, which is the publicly funded non-profit system.

LARRY FODOR

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General and has to do with violence against women. We noted the Attorney General's statement earlier, very eloquent comments from an Attorney General who will not bring in a victims' bill of rights, which could significantly help female victims of violence. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware that more than half of all women murdered in Canada die because of domestic violence.

Is the minister aware of the case of Constable Larry Fodor of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police who was convicted of assault against his wife? He broke his wife's nose. It is the second incident of this individual being convicted of assault against a woman. Following a suspension, he is going to return to street patrol next year, a job that involves handling domestic disputes. The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police chief, Robert Middaugh, has no qualms about putting Fodor back on the street. His former wife needed plastic surgery to repair the facial injury she suffered.

Is the minister aware of this? Hopefully he is. If not, I would certainly like to know why not. What is he doing about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Just as a point of clarification before responding to the question, is this a matter from the Hamilton police department?

Mr Runciman: The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This would be a case where there would be a regional police services board, over which I have no direct authority. I am not familiar with the case the member cites. While I do not have any particular knowledge of this local matter, I would like to believe the police services board responsible would review the contentions that have been raised and see that the appropriate response is given.

Mr Runciman: Obviously a lot of attitudes need changing in this House. This matter was brought to my attention by the Hamilton Spectator, but the minister should be aware of it. His ministry went in last year to examine the police role in responding to domestic complaints and gave its stamp of approval to this force. The assault on this lady was the culmination of an ordeal which included grabbing, shaking, threatening, kicking, hair-pulling, punching, slapping, throwing furniture, hitting her with an ashtray and finally breaking her nose.

If all of these eloquent words are going to mean anything today, the minister should be prepared to stand up on his feet and say: "Yes, I'm going to take responsibility. I'm going to look into this and take action." Let's hear that response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly am prepared to do just what the member requested. If the comments that he alleges are in fact the case, they do require investigation and review and I am prepared to undertake that.

I know the member will be very pleased to hear this information: We as a government, with our concern about violence against women, have of course involved ourselves considerably in wife assault prevention initiatives and in sexual assault prevention and victim services. We would hope that these kinds of initiatives will go a long way to eliminate and stamp out any abuses, whether we find them in Hamilton or anywhere in this province or across this nation of ours.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr Duignan: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week the federal Minister of the Environment announced, as part of the Green Plan, a program designed to protect Canada's wildlife. I was wondering if the minister could indicate to this House what impact, if any, this will have on the work being carried out by his ministry.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Wildman: The former Attorney General is tempting me to refer to other elements of my life.

The federal government's national wildlife strategy is a welcome start for the protection of wildlife in Canada. It is in keeping with our initiatives with regard to a new wildlife strategy in the province. As the member knows, the Wildlife Working Group just recently reported and made a number of recommendations that we have consulted about across the province. We are committed to developing and bringing in a wildlife act. The federal plan calls for about $35 million to be spent over a six-year period across the entire country. Ontario is expecting that we will get a share of that funding for research to develop more information on the protection of wildlife in this province.

Mr Duignan: While I am encouraged by the minister's answer and while it is encouraging to see some progress is being made in this area, I feel a lot more is needed from the federal government if we are to begin to tackle the task of increased protection of our natural resources. While I am aware that the ministry under his direction has been working on a number of initiatives to achieve similar goals, will the minister outline what concrete steps are being taken by his ministry?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I indicated a moment ago, consultations are developing and continuing with regard to the development of a wildlife act in the province. Last week I introduced the amendments to the Game and Fish Act, Bill 162, which will make substantial changes to the act. It will bring in widespread protection for wildlife other than game species. I am confident the approaches we are taking with regard to public consultation will be complementary to the wildlife strategy that is being developed.

Members know we are also involved in reviewing the consultation on the wetlands policy, which we hope to bring in in the new year. We are working diligently on the endangered species project of the World Wildlife Fund and improvements to the Endangered Species Act.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is he here for a question? I would be pleased to pose it.

The Speaker: Which minister?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was here a minute ago.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr Curling: Some ministers are ducking. Let me try another minister in my question here.

I want to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I have tried another minister before; let me try this minister now. The Minister of Citizenship had promised specifically to produce legislation governing employment agencies, including tougher auditing of agencies, by the end of June and typically nothing happened.

Last month, following an appeal by the chief of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the government to enact stricter laws governing employment agencies, I asked the Minister of Citizenship to keep that promise so that minorities and women are not denied access to employment opportunities.

At that time, instead of legislation the minister talked about conferences and also said she would be developing other guidelines, but nobody has ever seen them. Because the Minister of Citizenship would not come clean with me, I ask the Minister of Labour when he will keep his promise to introduce new, stricter legislation governing employment agencies.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question of the employment agencies is one we are currently looking at and, as soon as we are prepared to move, we will bring in the legislation.

Mr Curling: I think this government has more eyes than action. They keep looking at things and we are not getting anything done. The minister is really unable to provide me with any specific answers. If the minister is working on it, and I know it takes time -- obviously this commitment has been broken by the government. In the meantime, doors are being slammed in the faces of victims of discrimination; not only that, but we have seen the unions practising nepotism and discrimination. This is not acceptable. We need a government that acts. We need a minister who acts.

I have asked the Minister of Citizenship before and I am asking the Minister of Labour now if he will do something. If the minister will not keep his promise, he should introduce new legislation. There are regulations with regard to employment agencies. I am asking him to use his authority to enforce what is already on the books. I direct him to the Employment Agencies Act, clause 7(a).

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the honourable member across the way that I do not know of any other government, in terms of workers' matters, that has acted as much as this one.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Sterling: My question is for the Treasurer. People invest money to make money. In the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and most of the 1980s, corporate profits were at about 10% of gross domestic production. Presently corporate profits are at about 4% of gross domestic production. Does the Treasurer agree corporate profits must increase dramatically in order to attract much needed investment and the resulting jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank the member for Carleton for that very helpful question. He is quite right. As a matter of fact, I was musing about that very problem with the governor of the Bank of Canada this morning, how corporate profits were about 50% the level they were 10 years ago. We were concerned about the need to have not only existing companies in this province increasing their investment but also companies from outside Ontario increasing investment and creating new investment in the province. The member is quite right. We are concerned about it and we are doing everything we can to encourage that kind of investment.

Mr Sterling: I understand from the Treasurer he agrees that corporate profits must increase. I see a nod in the affirmative from the Treasurer.

Governments in Canada seem to be doing everything within their powers to minimize the profits of corporations. The former Liberal government introduced an employee payroll tax, there was a commercial concentration tax for this area, and by offloading down to municipalities and school boards there have been higher property taxes. The government has brought forward labour law changes that are only going to increase the cost of doing business here in Ontario,

whereas the present rate of return in the United States is about 6.3% to 7% on gross domestic product.

Can the Treasurer tell us what he is going to do to increase corporate profits, or does he believe we can still attract investors to Ontario and pay them a lower return?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: You're against profits.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole would allow me to answer I will make every effort to do so. I know the member for Oriole is agitated, but perhaps she could contain herself.

In response to the member for Carleton, I say that the best encouragement for investment in the province is to create the kind of environment that says to the business community: "You are welcome here. We have a skilled labour force that will help you in your attempts to produce productively and deliver services productively."

We believe, and we are told this time and time again, that the quality of our educational system, the quality of our health care system and the quality of the environment have a lot more to do with creating investment in the province than does picking out one particular tax or another and saying, "That particular tax is higher than a tax in another jurisdiction."

If the member puts all of the taxes together that the corporate sector pays in the province and compares them with those south of the border or compares them with jurisdictions in the rest of Canada, he will find that this province is as competitive as any jurisdiction in the world. As a matter of fact, I think it is the best place in the world to work, to invest and, yes, to play as well.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As the minister knows, residents in my riding of Lincoln have been fighting a proposal --

Mr Carr: Ron, ask the Premier why you got fired.

Mr Hansen: Are you giving the go-ahead, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr Hansen: Thank you. As I was saying, residents in my riding of Lincoln have been fighting the proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a toxic waste facility in Lincoln. The proposal is currently being debated before the Environmental Assessment Board. Last week the Provincial Auditor said that OWMC spending practices were less than satisfactory according to the provincial standards.

What has the minister done or what is he prepared to do to make sure the financial abuses outlined in the report do not continue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to have the question and I too applaud the member for Lincoln for his strong concern about the Ontario Waste Management Corp and his ongoing interest in the work of my ministry. I am happy to be able to tell him that I share his concern about the way in which OWMC has been operating.

Long before the auditor's report became a public document, I had indicated to OWMC that I expected restrictions on overseas travel and scrutiny of consultants and legal expenses as though it was a ministry of the government as opposed to being a crown corporation, as it had been established by the members opposite.

On receipt of the auditor's report I met with Dr Chant and indicated to him very strongly that in a time of restraint, and in fact at any time, expenditure of public funds is something that has to be done most carefully and that the kinds of incidents reported by the Provincial Auditor were not acceptable.

Mr Hansen: Over the past five years I have been very active with the Toxic Waste Research Coalition. I have spent over $10,000 fighting this proposal. I realize the proposal is currently being reviewed before the Environmental Assessment Board and the process should not be prejudged by the government.

Can the minister tell us what measures she will take to ensure that all the money spent on the Ontario Waste Management Corp is spent responsibly?

Hon Mrs Grier: In response, I can take the kind of day-to-day administrative measures I have outlined in my response to the member's first question. I am pleased to be able to add that OWMC will be following the Management Board guidelines with respect to the letting of consultant contracts and the salaries of senior management, as though it was a line ministry and not a crown corporation.

In addition, I would like to make it very clear that should the Environmental Assessment Board approve the current proposal made by Ontario Waste Management Corp, that does not indicate automatic approval of construction of that facility. I have said that publicly. I have told the corporation that the approval of this particular project is one decision. The decision the government will then have to make, should the proposal be approved, is whether or not to proceed with the project as planned.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in my capacity as critic for the waterfront. Last week the minister and the NDP announced they had solved the Toronto Islands issue at no cost to taxpayers, but there are a growing number of questions from people such as myself who have been supportive of an island community about the fairness of this deal the minister has struck. He stressed fairness at his press conference.

The minister knows that even though market rents were projected to be about $1,000 per month, this deal allows for rents of $30 to $40 a month for current residents. Some are saying that is not fair. The fact is that rents are obviously not based on income levels and the ability to pay, because 15% of the island population earn in excess of $70,000.

In light of the fact that island residents have not paid any rent for the past decade -- and people say that is not fair; taxpayers are going to have to cover that cost -- will the minister explain whether the $30 a month these island residents are paying is the same as other tenants are paying in government-owned leases and properties? Is that fair? Is it the same?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the support in principle that the member expresses for the people living on the island and the solution we have come to. I would like to point out to the member a couple of things I think are important to remember.

First, the people who live on the island are not going to be able to pay the $36,000 to $46,000 for the land leases in upfront cash. They are going to be mortgaging that money, like the member or me or anybody else in the province would. If that amount of money is mortgaged over a 25-year period, we can look at the cost of the mortgage being more in the neighbourhood of $5,000 to $6,000 a year to the residents. In addition, the residents will be paying property taxes. We also expect the residents on the island will be expending considerable amounts of money to bring the homes up to standard so we have a good, clean, affordable community on the island.

Mrs Caplan: Obviously the minister's answer is that the $30 to $40 rent a month the islanders are paying is substantially less than other tenants are paying for government property and homes. There are many who think that is not fair.

There are a number of outstanding disputes regarding the ownership of the residences on the island and who will benefit from this deal the minister has struck. How is his legislation going to resolve the ownership dispute and the tenure in the existing island homes in a way that will be seen by the taxpayers of this province, as well as people who have an interest in the properties, to be fair? How is the minister going to make sure the disputed ownership is fair and that the taxpayers of this province see it to be fair?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member reiterated her claim that the cost of the lease was going to be $30 to $40 a month. That is simply not the case. When the financing takes place, the monthly costs are going to run more in the neighbourhood of $333 to $425 a month. In addition, there will be the cost of the property taxes, which any tenant in the community would also be paying, plus the cost of sewer, water and other services that are provided to the island. It is quite conceivable that the cost of living on the island under our plan will be very comparable to the cost of living on the mainland when all those services are put into place.

I am not quite sure what the member is suggesting. Is she suggesting the land leases should go for $100,000 or $200,000? If she is suggesting that, then the island proposal would not be feasible, the island would not be affordable and her support for this idea in principle would not be worth the time it took her to ask the question.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education, has raised a number of concerns with interested parties and many parents. I am sure other members in the House can boast this kind of mail on this one piece of legislation. There are many parents who believe their existing right to request religious education for their children will disappear if

section 50 is deleted from the act.

Is there any special way the minister is going to deal with this bill? If he has any special plans for

section 50, it would certainly help all of us in answering our mail.

Hon Mr Silipo: I too, like the member and others, have received mail about that particular

section of the bill and others. What I can say to the member is that the provisions of Bill 125 are ones I am looking at now with my officials. We are still trying to deal with this bill between now and the end of the legislative session. In fact, my office, if it has not already been in touch, will be in touch with the member as the opposition critic, as well as the Liberal critic, to discuss some possibilities around this. My hope is that we can resolve this and some other issues in this legislation before the session is over.

Mrs Cunningham: As the minister has been so co-operative on the first question, I will dare to ask a second one. There are other sections of the bill causing great concern. It helps all of us to hear the minister respond to these questions in the House.

There are some 18 separate and unrelated changed to the Education Act. Extremely controversial are some of the school transfers under Bill 30. The other one I am getting a lot of mail on is the compulsory senior and junior kindergarten programs.

If the government is really planning to get this through before the end of this session, I hope the minister can tell the public today that we will be putting this bill out for public consultation; judging by the requests I am getting, the people will be satisfied with nothing less. Will we be publicly consulting on this bill?

Hon Mr Silipo: That also is part of the discussion I have asked to happen that we want to have with the opposition critics and, obviously, through the House leaders' offices. I know various sections in the bill are of concern to people. My sense is that we can address a number of the concerns, as I have heard them, even in the time between now and Christmas, but if we get a different sense in the discussions we have been having and will continue to have over the next few days, obviously that is something I would like to be able to give some clear indication on to the House and my critics in the days to come.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I do not think I am going to get a supplementary, so, please, a little bit of indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am going as quickly as I can, but this is an important issue for people who live down in Niagara.

A week ago today a kid appeared in young offender court. He received a disposition of 60 days' open custody. Nobody quarrels with that. The family is grateful to the presiding judge and feels it is appropriate. The family wants to participate in the treatment, rehabilitation and counselling for this kid. He is a child. That is why he was in young offender court and undoubtedly why the judge gave him 60 days of open custody. The family wants to participate. The family are good, hard-working people, but they are not rich people.

The kid is sent to David S. Horne up on Highway 20. There is no room at David S. Horne, so they move this kid from Welland to Hamilton, to Dawn Patrol Group Homes. There is no room at Dawn Patrol. Where does this kid get shipped? The kid gets shipped to Windsor. Nobody is quarrelling with the 60 days of open custody. Everybody, family and friends, are hoping it is going to be fruitful and beneficial to the kid's wellbeing, but the parents cannot participate in the rehabilitation and counselling process; the kid is removed from family and community.

Everybody is fearful that the 60 days is going to be time ill spent rather than being productive and beneficial and that the kid is simply going to suffer more because he is being pulled out of his community. Nothing against Windsor, but Windsor is an entirely alien community to the kid.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Kormos: Does the minister really think that shipping kids from Welland all the way to Windsor, away from their families and community, is conducive to the rehabilitation we should expect from open custody facilities? What can the minister do and what will the minister do to help this family and make sure that kid gets open custody treatment and counselling in the community where he deserves to be?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I share the member's concern. Certainly the policy of the ministry is that wherever possible, a young person will be placed in his or her own community. Certainly there is no question that rehabilitation does occur better in the community, especially when the family is prepared to participate. There is no question about that.

We obviously are in a situation in some parts of the province where places may not be available upon the disposition of the cases, in which case the authorities look at any kind of shift being the shortest possible length of time. I would assume that in a case like this, because it is a very short sentence, the decision was made on those grounds. I cannot tell the member how frequently this happens, although my information is that it happens as infrequently as possible. I can tell him that I share his concern and the family's concern and will do everything I can to ensure that this happens as seldom as possible.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Curling: I want to give notice to the Minister of Labour to answer further my question. As I pointed out to him today, I feel it was inadequately addressed, and I now give notice that I would like to have him address those questions.

The Speaker: I trust the honourable member will file the necessary document at the table.

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILLS

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to move the following motion by unanimous consent. I have shared the motion with the opposition House leaders and they have agreed.

Mr Cooke moved that with respect to all government and private members' public bills remaining on the Orders and Notices paper following the meeting of the House on December 19, 1991,

(

a) the office of the legislative counsel shall, as soon as possible

(ii) reprint the revised bills, and

(iii) provide the reprinted bills to the Clerk of the House as each bill is reprinted, and

(

b) after a reprinted bill is provided to the Clerk of the House, the reprinted bill shall be deemed to be at the same stage of business for the House and its committees that the bill was at before it was reprinted, and all further steps taken by the House or its committees with respect to the bill shall be based on the reprinted bill.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Following the member for Scarborough North, I had risen on the same point and you failed to recognize me and went directly to Mr Cooke. I too wish to serve notice of my dissatisfaction with a response from the Minister of Community and Social Services and would be pleased to file the necessary documents with the clerk.

PETITIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Drainville: It gives me great honour again to come to this Legislative Assembly and present on behalf of the constituents of Victoria-Haliburton a petition which is to the Legislative Assembly and to the Solicitor General.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Bobcaygeon-South Veralum police district, Victoria county, are concerned about the increase of incidents requiring police attention in our community. We feel that the Ontario Provincial Police are not currently able to provide adequate services for these problems. We are concerned both for the safety of the citizens in our community and for the safety of the Ontario Provincial Police officers who patrol this area.

We feel strongly that our community would be better served by a greater police presence in the form of additional officers to be added to our Lindsay Ontario Provincial Police detachment and we look forward to your immediate attention to these concerns."

There are 1,400 signatures here, Mr Speaker, and I have affixed my own signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's Report on the State of Emergency and the Income Crunch in Ontario Agriculture and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Kormos: It is important to acknowledge the participation of any number of people: farmers and their representative groups across the province, and also people who participated in the committee -- of course, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay as Vice-Chair, the members for Wellington, Cornwall, Windsor-Sandwich, Sarnia, Lanark-Renfrew, Huron, Sudbury, Mississauga North, Timiskaming and Cochrane North. A special contribution was made by the staff: Harold Brown as clerk and Tannis Manikel as clerk, Lewis Yeager and Lorraine Luski.

Once again, this is a report that flowed from members' concerns about the state of crisis, especially in the southwest of the province, where drought this past summer created real hardship for a lot of hard-working, honest farmers who have been looking to government for a long time for some relief from the difficulties they face.

The report is an interesting one. It contains a number of recommendations. All of us on the committee are hoping the Minister of Agriculture and Food and, more important, the Premier, read the report and give effect to those recommendations and make sure they become realities.

The report is available to anybody who is interested. I urge farmers, farm families and people in rural farming communities to write to their MPP or to the office of the Clerk here at the Legislative Assembly, Queen's Park, to receive a copy of it.

I thank those people who participated in the hearings. I am proud of the committee and of the report it has prepared, and I am proud to be able to present this report to you this afternoon, Mr Speaker, hoping that farmers working so hard to grow food to feed our families will get some relief from the hardship they endure through no fault of their own; let's not forget that. It is incumbent upon government at all levels to come to the aid of those very same farmers.

On motion by Mr Kormos, the debate was adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981 / Projet de loi85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants.

Mr Cousens: This debate will come to an end shortly. Even though many of us will have stood in our place and spoken against this bill about another tax increase in the province, the government, without considering these points or any other points, will go ahead and vote for it. None the less, I feel constrained to speak out and, once again, to challenge the government to consider what it is doing and to consider the impact.

I know the member for Welland-Thorold is capable of thinking for himself. I wish he could get a few of those other guys to do the same. It is dangerous when you have other honourable members who start to think, because in the New Democratic Party they all come in here and do it one way, that is, the way of the Treasurer or the Premier, without thinking for themselves.

To get elected, they will go out and say just about anything to win the hearts and minds of their voters. Then they will come back here and who knows what will come through? It is too bad they are not the same free agents they once were. Now they are under the control of a whip and a government forcing them to bring forward legislation that has a very serious impact on our economy.

Before I get into the bill, I would like to compliment the government for at least one part of this bill. Very often when we discuss legislation in opposition, all anyone can do is condemn the legislation as being totally bad. It is not. I think there are some aspects of this bill that are important.

I want to commend the Minister of Revenue for bringing forward some changes that will force those people who are trying to escape paying taxes to be caught up in what this bill is going to require them to do. There are a number of measures in this bill that will crack down on tax evasion.

These measures proposed in the Fuel Tax Amendment Act closely parallel previous proposals that have been brought forward earlier for gasoline, but what it will do now is force mandatory registration of importers, exporters and interjurisdictional transporters, providing for separate registration for persons permitted to dye fuel and the provision for the seizure of fuel from unlicensed interjurisdictional transporters. Really what they are trying to do with this bill is clean up those practices that have allowed some people to take advantage of the loose system we have had up until now.

It is too bad we have to have more and more regulations and laws. I think what has happened, though, is that there are some people who are able to interpret the existing legislation to their own advantage, in fact to such a degree that they find it easy to break. It becomes very difficult to catch them and then the province loses revenue we should have.

On the one hand, before I come along and criticize, as strongly as I can, other parts of this bill, I can go on record right now and say that I support the efforts by the government to control those who would try to break the law. This Bill 85 certainly has a large

section in that regard.

None the less, in thinking about this bill, I have posed six questions. I will try in my own mind to come forward with the answers to those questions, and if the government, our honourable Treasurer -- it is not the Minister of Revenue who brings forward this legislation; it is the Treasurer and Minister of Economics for the province who determines how he is going to raise the necessary revenues for the government. I raise six question of my own and if the Treasurer had the answers to them and the answers were affirmative, then he might not bring forward this legislation.

Let's just take a moment or two to look at these questions and just see if there is a good reason for another fuel tax in Ontario.

The first question I pose is, are Ontario's fuel taxes less than in neighbouring jurisdictions? My assumption there is that if Ontario is paying considerably less or some degree less than other jurisdictions, it therefore might seem natural that we are going to want to raise our taxes. If we are offering such a competitive advantage to other people who are transporting within the province, we would not want to be giving something away where we could get a little more claim to some extra revenues.

The Treasurer is coming over. Has he changed his mind?

Hon Mr Laughren: Not yet.

Mr Cousens: Oh gosh, the honourable minister. We might get to him yet.

The point we then look at is that when you see where Ontario's rate for fuel taxes is compared to other jurisdictions, the fact of the matter is that Ontario's new general rate of fuel taxes for trucks and for diesel engines in the railway system will be the fourth highest in Canada. Effective January 1, 1992, Ontario's new general rate of 14.3 cents a litre will be the second-highest in Canada, assuming there is no change in any other province.

Where that comes to, in our understanding, is the fact that this bill is really broken into several parts and I should just explain it. The bill implements the budget proposal to increase diesel fuel taxes by 1.7 cents a litre effective April 30, 1991, and by another 1.7 cents a litre effective January 1, 1992. At the start of next year then, when this bill comes into full force with the second hike, the tax from the pre-1991 budget rate of 10.l9 cents per litre will be increased to 14.3 cents a litre.

This bill will also subject the tax rate applied to railway fuel to a similar two-phase increase in 0.55-cents-per-litre increments, which will push the tax rate from its pre-budget level of 3.4 cents per litre to a rate of 4.5 cents per litre as of January 1, 1992.

Our point is very simply this: Ontario is pushing itself to a new high level from previously in the costs for people doing business.

I asked the question, is the province coming in now and as a province, in this jurisdiction, charging less or more than other jurisdictions? By January 1992, Ontario will have the second-highest rate in Canada for fuel for trucks and for diesels and for railway. How can we as a province continue to attract investment or business if we are going to be in such a position as to have the highest rates?

Newfoundland has a different set of problems than we have. Ontario, the heartland of Canada, the engine that really drives the economy of this country, is being driven into the ground. You can almost say the engine has stalled. In the recession through which we are now trying to make our way, instead of there being relief, instead of there being something that opens the door of opportunity for businesses, the government continues to push down on the economy so it becomes tougher and tougher for business to prosper, to thrive, to just stay alive.

The high cost that goes into the operation of business, of the vehicles and the operating costs alone, amounts to a significant part of what a business is all about. You really see that it is approximately 75% of what it is in the large trucking companies to just maintain their equipment. When the cost of fuel is such a large component of what it is to do business, this, what seems to be an insignificant increase in diesel fuel, becomes something that is going to be passed on in the cost of goods and services that we buy in the store.

It means that if the trucker has to pay more for fuel and gas taxes, then the consumers, who are receiving the delivery of those goods, end up having an escalated increased cost in the goods and services they buy.

No one can meet these costs, and these costs amount to a significant increase. I just wish I had the numbers from some of the trucking companies that would show us what it is doing to them, but I will tell members what it is doing to them. I do not happen to have the numbers at hand, but in talking with truckers from my community in Markham, I have the great sense that they are finding the increased competition from US carriers to be so large that they are ending up not expanding their operations in Ontario or Canada at all. In fact, they are giving up business to US carriers whose total costs are less than theirs.

It costs them less to buy a vehicle in the United States of America. It costs them less to feed that vehicle with fuel in the United States. Therefore, when we now have an open licensing system where there is far more cross-border traffic and when there are trucks and vehicles going back and forth delivering goods in this free trade agreement, the Canadian truckers are being disadvantaged. They are being disadvantaged because the cost of doing business in Canada -- in Ontario in particular -- exceeds what it costs south of the border in Buffalo.

The problem existed before this bill, when Ontario had the fourth-highest rate of tax for fuel. The kindness of this government should have some sense of the need for business to at least carry on, but now instead of doing something positive it has brought forward another negative, a strong negative, that makes it more and more difficult for business to carry on as before.

We are talking about the age of competition, when it has never been more difficult for business to just stay alive. When they end up having an added cost and burden to their operating costs with an extra fuel tax, this in itself becomes another one of those negatives that makes it unattractive for business to come into Ontario.

In answer to my first question, are Ontario's fuel taxes less than in neighbouring jurisdictions? no, I am afraid not. With this bill coming in come January, less than a month from now, we will be the second-highest fuel tax levier within the neighbours we are trying to do business with. For that reason, I suggest the Treasurer should not bring forward this bill.

The next question I want to ask is, is the province using the money for this fuel tax on road maintenance? We no longer have the situation where gas taxes are dedicated revenue for road maintenance and for the building and construction of roads and bridges. We do not have the position now in Ontario where we have special toll taxes on roads or bridges. It would really be a treat for drivers in Ontario if they knew some of the fuel tax they were paying was being applied to the removal of potholes.

Thank you very much. Someone sent me a candy. If I suck the candy I will not be able to talk and then it will put me to sleep. It is probably full of codeine or something. I have to watch that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: You can't suck and blow at the same time.

Mr Cousens: The honourable Minister of Community and Social Services says that you can't suck and blow at the same time.

Mr Stockwell: Not from the same opening.

Mr Cousens: That is right. I am not a New Democrat.

An hon member: Thank God.

Mr Cousens: Then I get a "Thank God." This is not a laughing matter.

The moneys that are being collected through these road taxes and another fuel tax could be applied to some of the things we need. Just look at our roads and the deterioration that is going on. We should have some emphasis by this government to maintain our roads in better repair so that the system is not collapsing around us. We are dealing with an infrastructure that is in a state of disrepair. If the government does not begin to do something about potholes, signs, ruts, barriers, lights on the roads and subsidies for the municipalities trying to do their share, the roads will continue to be a greater and greater problem.

On the balance we are dealing with a stage where we have a chance right now in this jurisdiction of Ontario to do something about the infrastructure. In my community of Markham we are talking about the building of a whole new community of some 600 acres where 15,000 to 17,000 people will be moving.

One of the major concerns about adding to the numbers in our community is not so much the fact that we need affordable housing -- we need that -- but the concern coming through from the community is whether we are going to have the road system and the network to allow those people who come in to the east end of Markham to hook in to Highway 407. Highway 407 is not even planned to go that far yet. Are they going to have rapid transit so they can get down into the city?

Mr Mammoliti: They don't want co-ops.

Mr Cousens: Our community is supportive of new housing and affordable housing. We are also demanding that if the government is going to be adding these homes and these extra people, it should also be building the facilities, the services and the infrastructure to make it possible for them to come in. We see the government of Ontario has not decided to invest in transportation in the way we need.

The third question I want to ask is, does the fuel tax help Ontario's competitive position? One of the most cost-sensitive industries we have in Ontario is our tourism industry. How do our roads and the whole structure of roads and services right now stack up? How attractive is it for tourists to come and spend their money in Ontario right now? Tourism, as many of us know, is the second-largest business we have in the province, and yet one of the major complaints by visitors to our province from south of the border is the cost of gasoline, the cost of fuel. I cannot believe we are adding to that concern with another tax.

This is a tax that does not do anything to assist our province. What we really are doing is making it easier for people in the border areas who are going across the border. One of the first things they do is fill up their gas tanks in the United States. Here it may cost $30 or $35. If you go down there you can fill it up for under $15 and have change left in your pocket. The cost of fuel in the United States is so much less than it is here in Ontario.

What we have done is to separate ourselves even further from that competitive expectation we want to have so that people will stay here in Ontario rather than go south of the border, and likewise come north from the United States, from New York and Michigan and Ohio and other states, and spend their money here in Ontario. It is such an important part of our economy that we want to make it attractive for them to come here and spend. I think we want that.

I have friends with stores in Midland, in Markham and right across the province and they are suffering right now. There were 11 different families that traditionally came to Georgian Bay, on this one island where they had set up a common dining room and it was just a great family get-together. This last summer only one of the 11 came and spent a few weeks here in Ontario. The rest did not bother to come.

What we saw through Ontario last summer was a deterioration in the tourism industry. We are going to continue to see that kind of deterioration because we are not spending the money in the right places to draw them in; we are not making it attractive for them to come and spend their time here in Ontario. It is already costly to stay in our hotels; it is already costly to buy food and eat out. But on this issue of fuel taxes, if we had some competitive advantage, would it not open the door for people from other jurisdictions to come here?

Just the other day, in response to this bill, one of the New Democrats was saying, "The advantage of this bill is that it gives us more money in the Treasury for those Americans who come over and spend their money in Ontario." That was the most unbelievable statement. Yes, the few Americans who come will be paying a little more in tax, but the great number who stay away means there is less overall revenue for the province.

Does this fuel tax help Ontario's competitive position? The answer has to be a categorical, unequivocal no.

Mr Bradley: No.

Mr Cousens: I have to commend the member for St Catharines; he happens to agree with me on this. He and I agree on some things. It is just that when he was in power, in government, when he had the chance to do things right, he could not do it. Now that he is in opposition he is full of good ideas. But that is the way it is, is it not? That is part of the reason people are so jaundiced in dealing with politicians.

A fourth question I have is, has the government tried to cut back on other costs before levying another tax? I have to ask that question. If we had seen some effort of restraint by this government of the Premier, then we would have a sense that he is trying to do something or that his Treasurer is trying to do something, but all these people can do as New Democracts is defer the tough spending decisions.

They are not able to make them now, so when we ask them what they are going to do this year to begin to face up to the economic reality that a government should be living more within its means and not having a deficit of $9.7 billion -- which is going to escalate far in excess of that. We are seeing none of the internal controls that are going to make a difference -- modest internal controls, I give some credit for that, but nothing of the type that would begin this government moving in the right direction to try to balance its budget.

All one has to do is look at what other jurisdictions are doing. In Saskatchewan they have layoffs. In the federal government, in Newfoundland and in the province of Quebec there are special limits on pay increases to the civil service. Instead of saying, "We're going to have a few modest cuts which will bring down our deficit by $150 million," if the government froze a number of the budgets in Ontario, it could save well over $450 million. It is very simple.

If the government were to set an example now and early so that municipalities and hospitals and school boards would begin to understand that someone at the top is being frugal and careful, it would give them a reason to stop expecting more and more increases and making more and more demands.

What we really have to do is to see some tough decisions. Instead of the government making decisions, the taxpayers themselves are making the tough decisions today, and they are not pleasant ones. We are talking about a reduction of people's morale. We know through a recent Angus Reid survey that 42% of the people of Ontario will be spending less money around the Christmas season this year because of their concern about the future and because of the recession.

Many of the people having tough times are out of jobs; our unemployment rate has never been higher. We are in a position where, in order to deal with the problem, the government continues to increase its taxes and people have no money left over for themselves; they do not have it, so they are not spending.

I think what is happening is that our Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer are looking for an economic miracle. There is not one; there is not going to be a miracle to solve the economic state of Ontario. It is something we are going to have to work through and carefully and deliberately develop a strategy for the long term, instead of talking about tax hikes next year. That is what I understand the Treasurer has indicated, that there will be tax increases next year.

I have not had a chance to discuss it with some of my colleagues -- the member for Etobicoke West may well be aware of some of the increases they are talking about because he was in charge of our economic portfolio in our caucus for a while -- but there is a strong rumour now that there will be a 1% increase in sales tax and possibly a 2% increase in personal income tax next year. What a demoralizing thing for the business community, to have the government bringing in more taxes to go into effect in 1992, and then further into 1992, the Treasurer is saying, "Yes, and I will have to have further increases then."

Has the government tried to cut back on other costs before levying another tax? That is not evident. What we have seen instead is that the costs of government continue to explode. The ministries are spending more money on their offices and on their people and on their services than ever before. We are talking about an increase of 74% in office spending in the Attorney General's ministry. We are talking about the salary and wage bill in the main office of the Ministry of Financial Institutions being up by 126.7%. The salary and wage allocation for Management Board has jumped by 85.9%.

We can go through different areas in this government where they spend more and more, so no doubt it needs more and more money from the taxpayers of the province. I plead with them, I implore them not to continue this escalation in taxes.

Has the government tried to cut back on its own? To me the answer is an unequivocal no. Had there been some effort by this government to cut back on its own spending, then we might well be able to justify some of the increases it is now talking about.

I want to ask also, is adding another increase to the fuel taxes of the province the correct action the government should be taking on fuel? I would like to refer to a booklet put together by our leader, the member for Nipissing. It is called A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario: New Directions. If anyone would like to have a copy, I would be pleased to obtain one for them.

What the member for Nipissing has said in this document is: "As the tax base shrinks, the temptation grows to increase the tax rates and impose new taxes to keep revenues steady. However, this succeeds only in reducing business competitiveness as well as the incentive to expand and invest."

He indicates in this document a number of things he would do. I would like to read into the record the policy of the Ontario PC Party with regard to gasoline and fuel tax. We have a number of other strategies outlined very clearly in this document trying to develop a long-term blueprint for economic survival and prosperity here in Ontario, but I want to read two paragraphs from this booklet, on gasoline and fuel tax.

"Gasoline and fuel taxes should be immediately cut by 10%. This would benefit all sectors of the economy, including transportation, tourism and manufacturing. Combined with a reduction in PST, these cuts would begin to address ongoing concerns and job losses associated with cross-border shopping.

"The full-year cost of a 10% gasoline tax cut would be approximately $160 million. For fuel taxes, it would be $37 million. Again, both costs are in the form of forgone revenues to government; and can be fully offset by new revenues generated by economic activity, along with expenditure controls."

There are ways in which we should address the needs of the province, and one that could have long-term benefits to the people of our province is that instead of increasing the tax, we reduce it and increase usage.

Another fuel tax is very much a consumption tax. It is a regressive tax and it is something that affects people who can barely afford to pay it. The poor in Ontario drive cars too, yet they must pay regardless.

The fact is that here in Ontario we are continuing to take a gouge right out of the whole economic sector by continuing to make our fuel rates among the highest on the continent.

I ask a sixth question: Does the government have the right priorities? If the government had the right priorities, it would begin to set an economic climate for business to begin to prosper and do better. Instead of that, we have the kind of climate where people are losing their confidence in Ontario. We are not seeing the investment in capital. We are not seeing people bring their money in and start up new activities.

Two of the great bellwethers that tell us things are going well are housing and the automotive sector. In the two of them right now we are seeing no great activity, though something is beginning to happen. Certainly General Motors is showing some signs of increased activity and we are seeing some activity going on in Ford, but we are not seeing outside investment coming into Ontario right now.

Talking just a few weeks ago to the president of the Chinese businessmen's association in Scarborough, I asked where the money is now that was coming into Ontario from Hong Kong and China just a few years ago. He used a rather good term. He said right now it is "floating." The money is there and the investors are looking for an opportunity to invest in something, but until they have the confidence in a jurisdiction they are not going to put their money down and invest.

That confidence ceases to be present in Ontario, not only because of the taxation level, and I think the taxation level is one of the severe reasons people have lost confidence in Ontario's long-term future. I know that confidence will come back, but in the meantime, the harsh reality of the way New Democrats are running this province -- an increased deficit and new taxes being proposed next year and the sense that the future is not going to be good for business in Ontario -- is closing doors. They do not want to take a chance on Ontario as long as we have this negative spirit coming out of Queen's Park.

If we had some way in which we enticed businesses to come here and showed them that there is a climate for business to invest and prosper, that the government is not going to take every cent it can from them, that in fact some of that money can be plowed back into their own business for more jobs and for more equipment -- but that is not the case.

The case here is that the province feels it has to skim off the top every cent it can. I sense it from the New Democrats. I sense that they have a disdain for business, a disdain for economic prosperity. Their agenda for a social welfare state would be commendable if we had the money to provide. What the government has to do is somehow balance off the need for the social agenda of the Bob Rae government with the reality of what we can afford.

With the announcement over the weekend of another $30 million for child care and the almost guaranteed elimination of child care as provided by the private sector -- this is a government that wants to take over everything. It is not going to have room for private enterprise. That is a signal to private enterprise that says, "We aren't going to take a chance on bringing our money into this province." If the private sector in other jurisdictions had a sense that Ontario was spending its money wisely, it might come along and do something about it.

I just raise a few points. If it turns out that Ontario is going to help buy de Havilland for $150 million, is that where we should be spending our money? If it is true that the Ontario government has made a $250-million commitment to Elliot Lake for 650 jobs until 1996, using Ontario Hydro to administer the social conscience of the government, is this the kind of thing Ontario Hydro should be doing?

Is the province doing the right thing spending $5 million on auto insurance and then not doing it? I am glad they did not do it, but ho