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

March 29, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

MEN AND WELLNESS CONFERENCE

ACTS OF KINDNESS

FORT HENRY SUNSET CEREMONIAL

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

FIRE SAFETY

CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

MIDWIFERY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

ONTARIO HYDRO

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OFFICE

GAMBLING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FIRE SAFETY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

VIOLENCE

HAEMODIALYSIS

PAY EQUITY

TAXATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

HAEMODIALYSIS

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

HIGHWAY SIGNS

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT, 1994

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to take a moment to clear the air on an issue raised by the member for Chatham-Kent last Thursday in the House. The member accused both the provincial and federal Liberal caucuses of failing to support the ethanol fuel industry. The member for Chatham-Kent went on the local media saying the Ontario Liberals had turned their backs on ethanol production in southwestern Ontario.

I would simply like to draw the member's attention to the following, and I'm sorry he's not in the House today: my party's call for support of ethanol fuel production, and meetings arranged with the federal government as early as December 1991; the January 20, 1994, commitment signed by our leader Lyn McLeod for the maintenance of current provincial tax exemptions for at least 10 years, which I might add was prior to his own government statement; the March 22, 1994, letter from my leader Lyn McLeod to the Prime Minister calling on Ottawa to do the same at the federal level.

The people of Chatham-Kent and all across Ontario should know that the provincial Liberal caucus is 100% behind the ethanol industry and the jobs it creates.

Finally, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs himself recognized the Liberal Party's commitment to ethanol on December 8, 1992, when he said, "The critic from the official opposition has been on his feet many times asking me about ethanol."

Maybe the member from Chatham-Kent could speak to his own minister and get his facts straight before he makes such ridiculous accusations.

MEN AND WELLNESS CONFERENCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is about a rather unique event I attended recently at the Rama first nations. "Are You Man Enough" was the theme of the Men and Wellness Conference, which saw men of the nine-member first nations come together to nurture and develop a healthy social and physical environment in the community.

I want to thank Chief Norm Stinson and Chief Jeff Monague for their kind invitation to attend the conference, and I'd like to congratulate 19-year-old Ernie Jamieson for his fine presentation, and others who spoke so well.

Conference organizers invited a panel of speakers, held workshop sessions and conducted talking circles over a two-day period. In keeping with the conference theme, I challenged delegates to ask themselves the following questions: Are you man enough to say no to drugs and alcohol? Are you man enough to say no to spousal abuse? Are you man enough to say no to violence? Are you man enough to build a strong foundation for the future of your families?

I believe the "Are You Man Enough" Men and Wellness Conference will have a ripple effect across the Rama first nations and Christian Island and across the country. Wellness must occur first within the individual before the family and then ultimately the community becomes well. I hope the renewed strength found in the rediscovery of the aboriginal culture at the Men and Wellness Conference will lead to a healthier lifestyle across this province.

ACTS OF KINDNESS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to highlight a program which promotes social skills at White Oaks Public School in my riding of London South. This initiative is called AOK, standing for Acts Of Kindness. Through show-and-teach sessions featuring skits, rap songs and certificates acknowledging appropriate behaviour, the message of zero tolerance for verbal, emotional or physical violence is reaching students.

Teachers and school staff award AOK certificates, which entitle students to ballots in recognition of good social skills. Every two weeks, the teacher draws names of students from the ballot box to receive prizes, like fluorescent shoelaces or pencils that say, "Caught doing good."

Nearby, the White Oaks Mall merchants endorse this program with a parallel campaign. Security guards, cleaning staff and retailers all award certificates that enable students to enter further gift certificate draws.

The resource teacher-counsellor at White Oaks, Valerie Quant, is campaign coordinator and notes that the pupils are proud of their certificates and enjoy the recognition, and teachers are encouraged to look for positive acts. Vice-principal Bill Tucker feels a change in attitude in turn creates a change in behaviour, and students observe that things are better around the school now.

I laud the White Oaks Public School's AOK program in providing to all students a reminder to be safer and kinder and to provide a positive alternative to unacceptable behaviour such as hitting, threats, name-calling and blaming. Thank you to the members of White Oaks Mall as well.

M. Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie) : Cela fait deux ans et demi que le conseil scolaire public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton est en tutelle. Le projet de loi 143 contient un certain nombre de solutions aux problèmes des conseils scolaires francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton, mais ne fait aucune référence à la tutelle du conseil public.

Monsieur le ministre, quand allez-vous agir ? Vous savez, comme moi, que deux ans et demi de tutelle n'ont pas réglé les vrais problèmes. La dette du conseil public continue d'augmenter et, ce qui est bien pire encore, les parents n'ont aucun contrôle sur une institution qui est d'une importance stratégique pour eux. Comment le gouvernement néo-démocrate peut-il continuer à priver les parents de tout un conseil scolaire du droit de dire un mot sur ce qui se passe dans leurs écoles ?

Je demande au ministre de s'intéresser au sort du conseil public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton. Peut-il, aujourd'hui même, nous dire qu'il va mettre fin à la tutelle dans les plus brefs délais ? Les élections s'en viennent au mois de novembre de cette année et il est d'une importance capitale que les parents puissent élire des conseillers scolaires qui vont vraiment les représenter et qui vont être en mesure, avec la collaboration du ministère de l'Éducation, de trouver de vraies solutions aux difficultés que connaît leur conseil scolaire.

FORT HENRY SUNSET CEREMONIAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If I have a conflict of interest on this subject, it has to do with the fact that I am a former guardsman of the Old Fort Henry Guard and commandant of the guard going back to the early 1960s.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The 1960s?

Mr Cousens: The 1960s.

Today, I stand to try to protect and defend a tourist attraction for all the province of Ontario, which is in jeopardy of losing one of the major attractions to Kingston and eastern Ontario with this government's thinking. A historical tradition is being threatened, and I would like to call upon the government to rethink what it can do to keep this long-standing tourist attraction alive and attractive to tourists in Ontario.

The sunset ceremonial for the Old Fort Henry Guard is going to be cancelled this year. The sunset ceremonial, with its combined battle re-enactment, its music program, is unique and unmatched worldwide. To cut this program makes little sense. After all, this ceremony is a key tourist attraction and it is always featured in Ontario's advertising in Kingston and Ontario.

The Kingston Area Economic Development Commission estimates that the show contributes up to 20% of the local occupancy of hotels in the area. Losing this show will mean a decrease to tourism.

I say, as one MPP who has had an attraction there and loves the place, please may you look as a government on how you can keep this place alive for the future.

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to tell the members of the Legislature of an exciting first that is taking place in my region.

March 9 marked the kickoff of the first ever Neighbourhood Watch program for the deaf in Canada. This is a new and exciting first. The Neighbourhood Watch program that currently exists in the region of Waterloo relies on the telephone. The new program will be for regional Tty users.

The hearing world is being accommodated by an automated dialling system to send messages. A Tty was donated by Dahlberg Science of Kitchener to the Kitchener Neighbourhood Watch office, and this Tty and five volunteers will form a networking system to send crime messages to all regional Tty users.

As the 1,500- to 2,000-member potential is met, it is the hope of the Neighbourhood Watch organization to have a computer system in place that will accommodate the members. The deaf and hard-of-hearing communities will enjoy the additional communications as another link is removed from this barrier.

I would like to commend Paul Barber and members of the Kitchener Neighbourhood Watch, Kathy Barber of the Canadian Hearing Society, Lauralee Brosseau and our five deaf volunteers.

Neighbourhood Watch is a program that benefits any community, but one that is designed to service the needs of all members of our community is a definite plus to any community and will definitely strengthen our fight against crime in Waterloo region.

I'd like to congratulate everyone involved for taking on this responsibility, seeing a community need and taking action towards solving this need.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Housing and to the Solicitor General and it is on the issue of Bill 120. As you know, Bill 120 is the government's legislation to legalize basement apartments, and much has been said about this issue. Municipalities have made their concerns known, community groups have made their positions clear, but the paramount concern must always be safety.

Tragedies have occurred in the city of Mississauga and indeed throughout the province.

The Minister of Housing continues to push this legislation forward without any real response for the safety of those living in basement apartments. She spoke only yesterday of regulations, but in reality these regulations do not require smoke detectors and they do not deal with the issue of residential sprinkler systems.

It is irresponsible for the minister to ram this legislation through this Legislature without addressing these concerns of safety. I implore the Minister of Housing, I implore the Solicitor General to stop this legislation until safety precautions are not only in place, but also with the approval and consent of the firefighter services of this province.

These tragedies must stop. Incidents like those in Mississauga cannot be allowed to continue. Everyone's responsibility must be with the safety of the people of this province.

CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to join in the Credit Valley Conservation Authority's celebration of 40 years of conservation.

The Credit Valley Conservation Authority, CVCA, began with the efforts of the Lions Clubs of the Credit Valley, Georgetown, Brampton and Orangeville. To mark its 40th year, the authority is exploring new directions in conservation with an emphasis on returning to its grass roots.

The CVCA is much more than an agency that is responsible for flood and erosion control. Many residents of the Credit River's watershed enjoy the authority's outstanding parks. The CVCA also implements conservation programs, studies the watershed, educates the community and provides technical advice to area municipalities on planning and environmental issues. It is appropriate then that the CVCA is shifting its focus from being an authoritative organization to becoming a conservation advocacy group.

Like all conservation authorities, the CVCA faces financial challenges from scarcer tax dollars and provincial funding cuts. The CVCA has accepted this challenge by seeking new funding sources and building stronger partnerships with the private sector.

I wish the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and all the volunteer members the very best in this anniversary year. May you enjoy another 40 years of conservation success, and thank you for all you have done to preserve this beautiful world.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm proud to state that this government took the initiative to recognize and legalize the profession of midwifery in Ontario, but I am less than proud of the manner in which this program is being implemented.

Practising Ontario midwives were given a one-time opportunity to apply to assess their qualifications. Successful candidates could then register with the College of Midwives and receive a licence to practice. Unfortunately, this program was poorly managed. Many well-qualified midwives with independent practice were denied entrance while others with less experience were admitted.

Three universities have now begun offering degree programs in midwifery. There is no provision for experienced midwives to obtain advanced standing at this time. This is not efficient use of scarce resources.

We must be concerned that all licensed midwives be properly qualified, but we must also ensure that all qualified midwives be given the opportunity to obtain a licence. This has not happened. The losers are not only those midwives whose livelihoods have been snatched from them, but also the public, yet midwives could save the government money in health care costs.

I urge the Minister of Health to intervene in this matter and correct a great wrong. What began as an enlightened and commendable program should not be allowed to become a fiasco. The member for Chatham-Kent, who is sitting beside me here today, agrees.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, you recently announced that you would be spending $180,000 to study the Jobs Ontario Training program, a program which we have been saying for many months is just not working.

We understand that the purpose of your study is to find out how employers and Jobs Ontario clients feel about the program, and we suggest you don't need a $180,000 consultant to tell you that the program isn't working. The people in the businesses of this province will tell you for free, and yes indeed, we have been trying to tell you that for months.

This government has touted the Jobs Ontario Training program as being the cornerstone of its job creation program. In fact, it is the only part of the Jobs Ontario program that is designed by this government. Why has it taken you two years and $346 million before you decided to find out whether the program is working?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I would say to the member that this program, the Jobs Ontario Training program, is part of this government's efforts to get Ontario back to work. There's Jobs Ontario Homes, there's Jobs Ontario Capital, there's Jobs Ontario Youth, there's Jobs Ontario Community Action, there's our base capital program. For you to describe one particular program and say it's the cornerstone, the only program, of this government to create jobs shows how badly informed you are as Leader of the Opposition. That is just silly.

The fact of the matter is that, as of today, there are 41,435 jobs that have been created under the Jobs Ontario Training program. The fact of the matter is that we've saved $150 million on social assistance costs. That's a fact as well.

Yes, we have spent, and I think it's appropriately so, $180,000 to have an external review looking at the numbers, to talk to the employers, to talk to the employees so that we can make what is a very good program even better. That builds into the kind of accountability that government should be used to. You should have practised a little accountability like that. Maybe you would have done better.

Mrs McLeod: I point out to the minister, as we all know, that all of the other parts of the Jobs Ontario program are renamed capital spending, worthwhile projects but not new. The only part of the program in Jobs Ontario that's new is Jobs Ontario Training and, by any standards of accountability, this program is not working.

Minister, I'll give you one more example of the ways in which Jobs Ontario Training isn't working. In February 1993 you gave a grant of $650,000 to a company called Select Meat in Guelph. There was no financial check done on the company as part of the grant review; let's talk about accountability. Seven months later, Select Meat went bankrupt. It left 32 people unemployed and it took $200,000 of Jobs Ontario money with it.

In at least two other examples you've handed out $28,000 in Jobs Ontario Training grants to do feasibility studies for jobs creation, and the only job involved there was the hiring of more consultants.

It is no wonder that you have been completely unable to meet your own targets under this program, and that's another measure of failed accountability. You promised to create jobs for 100,000 people when you announced this program. You've only placed 29,000 people in jobs. There's still just a year left to go in the program. Is this not enough evidence for you that this program is not working?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact is that in this program we have 26,535 employers registered, and then the Leader of the Opposition gets up and names one particular employer where there was a difficulty and condemns the entire program. That is the kind of analysis that is really, really amateurish. That doesn't show at all that the program is not working. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should have come to the jobs fair in her own home town that we had a couple of weeks ago, where over 300 people turned up, most of whom were employers, most of whom got on their feet and said that this was one of the best programs, no red tape and easy to access, that they've ever experienced.

Mrs McLeod: I suspect it is exactly those people who will give glowing reports of the report that the government's $180,000 consultant study will search out.

I would say to the minister that I have talked to some of the 29,000 people who have been involved with the program who've found a placement and who are indeed happy to at least have some short-term work, but I don't believe that if we're talking about accountability for the program you set up in the first place, you can pretend that you're creating the long-term, permanent jobs that you wanted this program to create, and I don't think you should pretend that this is giving real, long-term, relevant training to the people who are being placed in very short-term jobs.

At best, this is a short-term wage subsidy program, and that's not what you set out to provide with Jobs Ontario Training. The bottom line is that you are two thirds of the way through a $1-billion program and you haven't yet reached one third of your own target.

As of March 4, according to the report from your ministry -- and there may be some updated figures in the last couple of weeks that we've not been able to get that would make a slight difference -- 83,000 people have been enrolled in the program but only 29,000 have jobs. That means that there were 54,000 people left on an indefinite waiting list.

You did create 39,000 jobs with the subsidy program but you only filled 29,000 of these. So with 54,000 people waiting on a waiting list, you have 10,000 empty jobs. I wonder how you can have 10,000 unfilled jobs when you've got 54,000 people on a waiting list. It seems to me that this program might be renamed too and we'd call it Jobs Ontario Waiting. The only thing --

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: The only thing this program has in common with the unemployed people of this province is that they're not working.

Minister, I ask you, is the $180,000 study going to deal with this kind of administrative chaos in this program where the consultant recommended changes to the program so we could begin to at least meet some of those target goals, or has your study been set up only so that you will hear what you want to hear as part of an ongoing public relations exercise?

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess what the member doesn't understand -- and I still would encourage her to come over for a briefing to the ministry so she could understand the program better, or to the jobs fairs that are existing across the province. The fact of the matter is that, of course, a job that is offered and is worked out with the private sector in this program isn't going to be filled the same day that it's offered. There's pre-employment training that is offered and then the people are placed.

What I don't understand with the member opposite is that maybe what she's advocating is the kind of program that they have in Liberal provinces like Frank McKenna's province where this type of training program to get people off social assistance and into the workplace is costing over $60,000 per person. This program is costing about one tenth of that to get people off social assistance, to get them the training and to get them into the workplace.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would feel a little more comfortable with the program if she would go to a place like Bombardier in her own community, like I did a couple of weeks ago, talk to people who have been through the program, talk to management there, talk to the CAW there. They don't have any kind of the criticism that you have for the program because they see --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- it working day in and day out.

Mrs McLeod: The program does nothing to get people off social assistance into long-term, permanent jobs.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Minister of Education and Training on another issue.

I think you would agree that the math test results that we saw reported from the Scarborough Board of Education today would concern us all. I think you would also agree that those kinds of results, while they will obviously differ from situation to situation, make it very clear how important it is that we do have clear standards and that there are in place tests to measure how well students are meeting those standards.

I would like to suggest to you today that testing and measuring how well students are doing has to begin with a very clear expectation of what we expect our teachers to teach and what kind of skills we believe our students have to learn.

I would ask you today whether you will commit to putting in place very clear expectations across this province of what is to be taught at least in the basic areas of math, literacy and technology, and will you require that our schools then test all students on the basis of these expectations? Will you take these basic steps to ensure that our students are learning what they have to learn?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I guess what I would ask the Leader of the Opposition is, where has the Liberal Party been for the last period of time? This government has engaged in more assessment of our education system than has ever occurred in the history of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that, because I saw a press clipping in her home town newspaper where she was talking about the education system. The

article talked about the Liberal vision of education, of accountability and so forth, and then it finished off by saying, "Of course the NDP government is doing all of that," and we are: the national testing, the provincial testing, the standards for math and language that have been released, The Common Curriculum.

This system is moving to become more accountable than has ever been the case, and I really appreciate the support that the Leader of the Opposition is announcing today for the policies of this government in education.

Mrs McLeod: I have always been more than willing to recognize those rare occasions in which the government takes some steps in the right direction. The providing of benchmark tests, which was an initiative begun under a Liberal government, is a continuation of a step in the right direction and one which I fully support.

But I would go on to say to this government that the issue I wanted the minister to address was whether or not they're prepared to put in place core curriculum in basic areas of study. I believe this government is doing a disservice to people across this province in putting in place something which they have called a common curriculum and trying to convince people that it is a core curriculum. The Common Curriculum that this government is endorsing has nothing to do with clear expectation and basic standards.

Boards of education have had to rewrite the core curriculum because it was vague and confusing. Parents couldn't make sense of what it was children were supposed to learn. Teachers can't make sense of what it is they're supposed to teach. There are outcomes about values, and those are not statements about standards that have to be met. Let me give you one example.

The guidelines in the core curriculum say things like, "Students should be able to value literature that employs inclusive, bias-free language," but it doesn't say what that means. We are calling for the government to talk about core curriculum and standards; we call for it very clearly in the commitment that I make.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: That's what I am asking this government again: Will you put in place a core provincial program with clear standards so that students can be tested on those standards?

Hon Mr Cooke: What we have done is that when The Common Curriculum was released -- and I must say that if the member doesn't agree with The Common Curriculum, then I wish to heck when they were in government they had done something about it. What is the legacy that the Liberal Party has left Ontario on education? The answer is, nothing. They did nothing on public education from 1985 to 1990 with the exception of following through on the commitment that we all made to extend funding. That's the only thing that you did.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): What are you doing, David?

Hon Mr Cooke: When The Common Curriculum was released, we indicated very clearly that it was a working document and that we would consult with parents, educators, students, people in the business community and people in labour in order to rewrite that document so that it was a more specific document. The member knows that this document will be rereleased this December, as we announced quite a time ago. If the member has any suggestions of how that should happen, I'm certainly willing to listen.

Mr Murphy: They are all deputies.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: You might even come over and offer some advice.

Mrs McLeod: What I want the minister to address is how his government will respond to what is very clearly the key concern of parents and students and in fact of educators across the province, not add to the confusion with some new direction called a common curriculum, but get back to the commitment which is needed today, and that is a commitment to very clear expectations in those core areas and clear standards that we can test students by.

I have said, although I identified the Benchmarks program as a continuation of what the former government was doing, that it is a step in the right direction. But the problem is that the Benchmarks testing program, the kind of testing that was done in the Scarborough board, is done on a random basis; it's not done across the province, with the exception perhaps of grade 9. We don't yet have a testing program that tells parents exactly how their children are doing and whether their children in that school in that system are meeting the standards that the province and the government have set.

Minister, I don't believe that we have to reinvent the wheel again. There is a clear concern. There are boards that are already responding to it, and you surely know the example of the North York board, the fact that it put in place basic core standards and benchmarks for testing for all its students in math and in literacy. The North York board is doing it, other boards are doing it --

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- we know it can be done and we don't have to wait for the Royal Commission on Learning. Can you learn from this example? Can you understand that we can have clear, measurable standards, and will you not get on with it?

Hon Mr Cooke: If the Liberal Party is advocating that we have a clear set of expected outcomes and standards, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Murphy: Something the people can understand, David.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's why the Common Curriculum document is being rewritten. That's why we put out -- and they're not called benchmarks, they're called standards, because they were redone because we weren't satisfied that the Benchmarks program was adequate or specific enough, so we changed that.

I would just ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look at her own education document. If you want to be specific, if you want to offer policy advice, then don't write a document that basically says the Liberal Party's in favour of a good education system. Get specific, put your life on the line and have a policy.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, on Sunday the Premier of the province woke up to the reality that Ontario cannot tolerate a Hydro strike. The Premier issued an ultimatum to Ontario Hydro and to its workers, saying that if the two sides didn't settle, he would do it for them.

Minister, your Premier knew he could not allow a strike at Ontario Hydro to occur, because he knew electricity is an essential service to Ontarians. Will you, Minister, and your cabinet and your caucus, instead of yippety-yapping and yelling all the time, today give force to the Premier's words and actions by acknowledging in legislation that electricity in Ontario in 1994 is indeed an essential service?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The events of yesterday and the previous weeks are evidence that not only did the Premier not wake up to something on Sunday but he had been very much involved in assisting the parties and the Ministry of Labour officials, who are very much involved in assisting the parties, to reach a collective agreement through voluntary discussion and negotiation. It is amazing that we would have a suggestion of that sort after we've just seen yesterday how well collective bargaining can work in this province.

Mr Harris: The reason a settlement was reached by Hydro was because the Premier of the province forced them into it. Both sides acknowledge that. Mr Murphy, on behalf of the union, and Mr Strong, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, made it quite clear and acknowledged that the Premier forced them into it.

Why did this happen? Because the Premier knew, despite his long-held views on collective bargaining, that we had to avoid a strike at all costs. At all costs, we had to avoid that. Perhaps over the next two years we'll find out just what that cost was. However, that's another issue for another day.

The reason the Premier had to avoid a strike at all costs is because he knows electricity is essential to the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: We know that. Hospitals know that. Industries know that. It seems that in officially stating it and coming forward with the position, only you and the Liberals refuse to acknowledge that. Only you and the Liberals seem to be in the dark as to whether electricity is an essential service or not.

I'm asking you today, as the minister responsible for ensuring a safe and a secure supply of electricity for Ontario, why do you, along with the Liberals, refuse to declare hydro an essential service?

Hon Mr Wildman: After the performance of the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues yesterday, I resent being put in the same box as the Liberals. I would very much say to the leader of the third party: Let's be serious here. Collective bargaining worked in this province. The strength of collective bargaining was shown. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. The Premier showed leadership and he's been congratulated by both Ontario Hydro and the Power Workers' Union representatives for having done that. The two of them worked very hard to negotiate a collective agreement and show that collective bargaining is strong and works in this province.

Mr Harris: I think the head of the union and the head of Hydro acknowledge that the Premier forced them into a settlement. I think that's very clear. Businesses, hospitals, mines, factories, municipalities, workers and those concerned about safety in our streets should never have had to worry about the loss of an essential service such as electricity in the very first place. You know that. Ontario cannot function without electricity. Those who live near nuclear plants should not have had to worry about the safety of the nuclear plants if they were required to meet those commitments.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Huron.

Mr Harris: We now know that they were required or the commitments could not have been met.

Pure and simple, it's this: If what makes our industries work, if what keeps our hospitals running, if what keeps our families safe, warm and working is not an essential service, what, according to your definition and the Liberal definition, is an essential service?

Hon Mr Wildman: The leader of the third party should be very, very congratulatory to the two parties for how hard they worked to ensure that collective bargaining would be successful. Both the Power Workers' Union and the management of Ontario Hydro recognize the importance of that operation to the economy of this province, to the factories, to the residents of this province, to the hospitals and to the schools, and that is why they made a commitment to do everything possible to ensure that a collective bargaining process would be successful. We did it. We should be celebrating, not second-guessing.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: You would be well advised to deal with the situation for the next time so we don't go through the same kind of fearmongering and the same kind of concerns.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please place his second question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Over a year ago, my caucus presented a nine-point plan to improve accountability in the welfare system and to reduce costs by cracking down on abuse. Yesterday, over a year later, you announced your plan. Minister, it is far too little and it is much too late. Your answer to the problem, the only solution I saw, seems to me to be typical of NDP and Liberal philosophy: Create a bigger bureaucracy. That was the only answer we saw.

Yet although we pointed out example after example and recommendation after recommendation, and you have other jurisdictions which have moved on these fronts, you did not give the existing review officers any additional tools or any clear direction on how they can prevent abuse in the first place. Why not?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's hard to answer a question that asks, "Why not?" when in fact the answer is, "We have."

Mr Harris: Well, if that's your answer --

Hon Mr Silipo: I haven't finished. I think the announcement that I made yesterday outlined very clearly, and I can assure the member that the instructions that are going out to our staff and the instructions that are going out to municipalities and the discussions that we will be having with them will make it absolutely clear, that we are very clear on the need to do the systematic investigations and review that I outlined yesterday, to do that in a way that focuses initially, during the first six months, on those cases that we believe have the most potential for abuse and to ensure as a result that we are indeed protecting the system for those who need it.

Mr Harris: I think you know as well as we do that unless we reduce the overall envelope of welfare costs in the province, we're not going to be in a position, we're not going to be able to afford to help those who truly need help and in some cases much more help than we're giving them today.

During the biggest boom years of the province, under the changes brought in by the Liberals, welfare costs went up, if you can believe that. You know that and I know that. The Ontario government, over the last 10 years, has increased welfare eligibility to the point that the system has gone from costing $1 billion to over $6 billion a year in a 10-year period.

For example, in that 10-year period 16- and 17-year-olds have been simply saying, "I don't want to live at home any more," and they are eligible for welfare. As well, there are some 32,000 students in Ontario today collecting welfare because they say they want to. Why didn't you address this situation in yesterday's announcement?

Hon Mr Silipo: I need to correct the member when he says that 16- and 17-year-olds can simply decide that they don't want to live at home and therefore become eligible for social assistance. That is not what the provisions are. In order for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to be eligible for social assistance, they have to demonstrate, and the worker has to be satisfied, that there is an issue of abuse that's there. I think we would want to ensure --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That is not true.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think there is an answer to the question, if I'm allowed to give it, and that is that what we have to do in that particular area is strike the kind of balance I hope we would all support, which is that we have to be able to continue to provide support in those instances where there is abuse or other legitimate reasons for the young person leaving home but to also make it clear that we will not support young people simply leaving home, and becoming automatically eligible for social assistance.

I can tell the member that we are looking at how we can strike that balance in a better way, but I think it's important that we set the rules straight and that we describe the rules as they exist in the most straightforward fashion.

The leader of the third party also talked about the increasing costs of welfare. We all acknowledge, as he has acknowledged, the fact that even during the boom years costs have continued to go up. That is why we have ventured on some significant reforms and some significant changes that will assist individuals in moving off social assistance. We believe that we can still bring about some of those changes. I'd be happy to outline over the next number of weeks what we can do.

We obviously, as a result of what the federal government has been doing to us, have not been able to carry forward with all of those changes in terms of the child income program which we believed were going to be a fundamental improvement in the quality of life for all people of low incomes, but we are intent on proceeding with a number of the training and support initiatives that will help --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- people to move off social assistance, to move off the dependency of social assistance. That, together with the initiatives that I outlined yesterday, will give us both a more effective and a more humane social assistance system in the province.

Mr Harris: It is not good enough simply to say the federal Liberals have abandoned the poor in Ontario, the helpless, the needy. It's true, but it's not enough just to lay the blame there, because in spite of the despicable actions of the federal Liberals in Ottawa, there is much, Minister, that you can do. There is much that you can do even in spite of the complete abandonment of Ontario by the federal Liberals in Ottawa.

For example, you are still directly depositing welfare cheques into bank accounts, you have not reinstated home visits, you did not adopt the Quebec review system we brought to your attention and you admitted yesterday that you have absolutely no handle on the extent of the problem. You think it's more than 3% but you have no handle on it.

Since you are not willing to get to the bottom of the situation, will you -- and you acknowledge you don't know the magnitude of the problem -- immediately ask the Provincial Auditor to step in and conduct an audit of our entire welfare system, which now is costing over $6 billion a year?

Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Speaker, on one point at least, I stand corrected. The member is right in that I shouldn't have put the blame completely on the federal Liberals; I should have also pointed out the great disservice that the previous Conservative government has also done to the province of Ontario.

I think that what we have to do in this issue is -- we can choose to debate from here till doomsday what the level of fraud and abuse in the system is, and I'm not sure that would get us any further ahead in dealing with the real problems we have, both in terms of abuse and in terms of some of the other issues outside of the question of abuse.

I also don't think that putting a worker in everyone's home is necessarily the way to address the issues that we've got. I know that the workers in our system have the ability to use home visits where they think that's an appropriate mechanism.

I think what we have to do is continue the process that we have been undertaking for some time, to which we've added some significant steps in the announcement that I made yesterday, which will give us, I think once and for all, the kind of control over the system that we need, not just in the system that we are directly responsible for running as a province but also the other half of the systems that the municipalities are responsible for. That's what we are intending to do.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Mr Minister, you will be aware of a discussion and information that was released today, Radio Noon, CBC, which indicated that last night at a public advisory meeting, which I believe was held in Elmira, a report was made public for the first time. This report contained, I believe, some very disturbing news about the presence of a particular chemical in the groundwater which has a potential of leakage into the Grand River. My question is: What information can you share with this House today on this matter?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I must say that I wasn't privy to the radio program to which the member refers so I'm not quite sure what matter he's referring to with regard to the report in Elmira, but I will take his question under advisement and report back to the House.

Mr Offer: I was hoping that the Minister of Environment would be aware of this type of information which would be so crucial to the community and the surrounding area, and I take note that he will respond and report back to the Legislature.

I would also like the minister, in his response back to the Legislature, to comment on the fact that this report was made known to the Ministry of Environment as long ago as February and not made public until last night. This is of crucial importance as to why a report of this nature and magnitude, which has this impact in terms of the environment, would not have been made public immediately by you and your ministry upon it being brought to your attention.

Hon Mr Wildman: If the member's information is accurate, then I am very concerned. Obviously, as I indicated, I'm not aware of the content of the radio report or the report that is reported to have been released in Elmira or how long it might have been held within the ministry, that the ministry had knowledge of it. So I will get all of that information and report back to the member. If his information is accurate, I do take it as very serious.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OFFICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, announced that a prestigious environmental office will be awarded to Montreal.

In making her announcement she blamed your Premier's opposition to NAFTA for the decision not to award the office to Toronto. The residents of Ontario, and particularly Toronto, want to know what you're going to do to reverse this discrimination against Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I think the Premier has been quoted on several occasions as to his reaction to that explanation. The explanation --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You can't suck and blow at the same time, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, a Liberal across the floor has suggested we can't suck and blow at the same time. The last time I checked, I thought the federal Liberals had opposed NAFTA as well. That's what I was always led to believe.

What I want to have explained to me is how an Ontario-based minister, namely, the Deputy Prime Minister, from Hamilton yet, who also was interested in achieving this centre, would stand in her place and say that Montreal is the best location for the centre. This is a federal Liberal. I'd also ask, where in the world were the 98 federal Liberals elected from the province of Ontario when this decision was being made?

In the interest of brevity, I will sit down and look forward to the supplementary from the member.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm sure the Deputy Premier will save the best until last.

Ms Copps clearly said that she tried to secure a letter of intent from the Premier of the province of Ontario with respect to the implementation of the NAFTA side agreements, not to embarrass Canada. The Premier wouldn't play ball. He would not give that letter of intent. He wouldn't make that commitment. That's simply why she said that Montreal was chosen, because of the lack of commitment by the Premier of Ontario. My question to the Deputy Premier: Are the Liberals wrong?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wanted to make it clear. We have checked to find out if anybody in Ottawa had requested any kind of letter or indication of support from us. We cannot find a single request that came from the federal government for us to support their bid for that centre.

Perhaps a community leader from elsewhere in the province said it better than I could say it. The mayor of Windsor, Mike Hurst, is quoted in today's Windsor Star as saying the following: "Laying the blame for the city of Windsor or the city of Hamilton not getting this particular commission at the feet of the Premier is dirty politics and political crap of the worst possible kind."

I believe it's becoming clearer and clearer and clearer to the people of this province that having elected 98 Liberals federally from this province hasn't meant that this province is well represented at the cabinet table in Ottawa. That is becoming increasingly clear.

GAMBLING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'd really like to pose a question to the Prime Minister of Canada on why he's neglecting my community, but I will pose my question to the second-best, which is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I know will not turn her back on my constituents.

A recent Toronto Star story reported that the government had a plan for an additional 300 teletheatres in Ontario. This report has caused great concern to me and the horse racing industry in my riding.

Minister, why are you introducing this plan when you know that members of the industry are concerned about the impact of the teletheatre on live racing?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Although I'm surprised I come second-best with you -- I'm sure I'm number one -- I'm really glad the member asked that question. Contrary to a statement in the Star that I was announcing a new government gaming plan, I was not announcing a new government gaming plan. We announced in the 1992 budget that we would be proceeding with teletheatres and Pro Line lotteries. We are now simply implementing what we announced then.

Specific to your question, there is no fixed number of teletheatres. The ultimate number will reflect the marketplace and the needs of the horse racing industry, and we will be continuing to discuss with them how much further we will go with teletheatres in Ontario.

Mr Hope: In your answer to the question, you say you will guarantee. I need a guaranteed commitment from you, Madam Minister, that you will consult with the horse racing industry before any decisions are further implemented in this province.

Hon Ms Churley: We always consult with the horse racing industry before we proceed on any of these issues that affect it. In fact, my staff and I are working closely with the industry at this time. We've created a whole-sector strategy round table to discuss all kinds of issues that are relevant to the horse racing industry these days, and the role of teletheatres will continue to be discussed with all the sectors in the industry before we take it any further. Right now there are only 75 applications before us, up to 75, and about 60 of them are open, so we will continue that discussion with the industry.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Interjection: Just hold up the number of the answer.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Well, I have a question that I don't think any of the numbers will fit. They may try.

My question's a very serious one. I was going to ask the Minister of Education, but I think I'll ask the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Educators across the province -- and they to a certain extent have to monitor this situation -- are expressing increasing concern about the number of students who are now receiving welfare benefits but are not attending school consistently.

It was my understanding and the understanding, I think, of municipalities across the province that are trying to address this that the students had to be consistently attending school to receive those benefits. Could the minister explain how it is that so many students across this province appear not to be attending school regularly but are still receiving those benefits?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member raising this question. I know it is a very serious issue, and it is certainly one, as I've talked to people throughout the province, from people on social assistance with respect to their own children, and to teachers and others, that I know is a very legitimate concern.

It is my view, and I want to be very clear, that if we are providing assistance to 16- and 17-year-olds, because I think those are largely the people we are talking about, that there is and there should be a reasonable expectation on our part that they be in school, and if they're not in school, there has to be a very good reason they're not.

I've heard the concerns. I am not sure why the confusion is out there, because my understanding is that the expectations and the rules we have are reasonably clear.

In light of the concerns that have been expressed, I can tell the member opposite that we have been looking at this and we will be issuing clarification, if that's what's needed, to the system, both the provincial system and the municipal system, because I know a lot of the concerns have been expressed particularly through the municipalities.

This is an issue we do need to get at and do need to resolve as quickly as possible.

Mr Bradley: Members of the House on all sides will know there are a number of students out there who come from genuinely very difficult circumstances at home, terrible situations at home, and this is whom the program was supposed to apply to.

But increasingly we are getting reports that a significant number of people in the age bracket the minister is talking about are using the threat of being able to get welfare to lever their parents in terms of discipline and order within the household.

Could the minister explain to the House how the government is going to deal with the problem of having the students using that against their parents as a possibility of leaving home and having a way of living if the parents don't comply with the requests? Could he tell us how that's going to addressed? We are getting a report that that is being thwarted centrally. Whether it's by the Social Assistance Review Board or your ministry, centrally, municipalities are having a hard time having their concerns backed up.

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't think I can outline for the member in detail today all the steps we are taking to try to address this, but I do want to say to him that we are, because this is a very important issue.

This question of both the perception and the way in which the rules are being used or understood is something we have to get at. In terms of the rules as they are laid out, they seem to be reasonably clear that some form of abuse or some concern about abuse has to be established, and it's not a question of the worker simply taking the young person's word for that. There has to be a process, and there is a process that is supposed to be followed so that the worker and/or his or her supervisors can satisfy themselves that there is some element of that which has been established.

That is usually done by the worker talking to the parents, the worker talking to other people where that's necessary, and verifying that.

It's obviously clear to me, in light of the concerns that have been expressed by municipalities and others, that we need to be clear about what those steps are that have to be followed. That's something, as I've said to the member, we are looking at doing, because this is an issue that has to be addressed.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Housing, in answer to my grave questions about the tragedies in Mississauga, referred all of us to the draft regulation changes to the fire code. What this minister did not tell this House, however, is that those draft regulations were finalized last May.

This minister has to answer to this House. Since last May, we have had four deaths in basement apartments in Mississauga. Since last May, we have had three deaths in basement apartments in Scarborough. These regulations do not need legislation; they do not need to wait for the passage of Bill 120. The proposed regulation changes could have saved seven lives, including two babies.

I would ask this minister to stand in this House and tell us, when your government believed so passionately in basement apartments that you have already amended the building code, why have you not made the changes that you know are necessary to protect people in existing apartments by addressing the regulations in the fire code?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The work that has been done around the fire code regulations that apply to apartments in houses is work that comes together with the passage of that bill in this way -- and I hope the member will finally start to understand the connection, as it's very important: You can't make things safe if they're not legal. As long as basement apartments operate in a black market, we can write rules till they'd smother you and it's not going to change the situation for people, both owners and occupants, who are afraid to admit to the world that there's an apartment in the house because the zoning makes it illegal.

If she could just get that notion through her head and move Bill 120 on, then we could get the kind of progress she's looking for.

Mrs Marland: I will try not to be as personal attacking as the minister, but I will say one thing in this House. If there's one thing I do understand it is that we all bear some responsibility for the fact that seven people have died when possibly fire code regulations could have been implemented last year.

When basement apartments are regulated, the fire chief in Mississauga has said that without a registry, without a right of entry, without a warrant, we still won't be able to know where they are, as the minister has said. However, they exist.

The fact is that yesterday in this House this minister said I attributed things to Chief Hare that he did not say in committee. Mr Speaker, I have to read for you what Chief Hare did say in committee. He said:

"It has been our experience that a justice of the peace will not grant a search warrant without substantial evidence. In 1993, we in fact attempted to obtain a warrant to do an inspection on a residential premises. We had an affidavit from a private individual who had raised concerns, who had been in the property and identified concerns, and the justice of the peace did not give us authority to enter the property to do the inspection."

Those are the words. Why were you trying to tell this House yesterday that Chief Hare did not raise those concerns, which have been reinforced by the recommendations of the coroner's inquest into these deaths, yet everything is on record in Hansard? I would appreciate it if you would read it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can assure the member that I have indeed read Chief Hare's statements to the committee with great care. She cares to draw conclusions which I don't draw from those words, which I have read very carefully. What he suggested was that in 1993, without the changes associated with Bill 120, which the member for Mississauga South is attempting to stall, delay and impede, without those changes he did have difficulty getting a search warrant.

He also told the inquest into the tragic death of the two people in the McNutt family, and I'm sure the member is aware of this, that he had never requested an inspection of an apartment in a house -- a basement apartment, as I think he described it -- and been refused. I have to take the chief's own words in his testimony to the inquest.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege: The Minister of Housing said that I am impeding the passage of Bill 120. I am not.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There is clearly a difference of opinion between the two members, which I understand, but no privilege has been lost.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would listen to my point of privilege. The minister just made a statement about my actions. She is impugning my actions as a member of the committee that is debating Bill 120, and I would ask that minister to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: The member will know she does not have a point of privilege. However, another member of the House has said something to which the member takes exception. The member for Ottawa Centre has an opportunity to withdraw her remark.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has to do with the announcement that his ministry will begin a comprehensive investigation to eliminate welfare fraud and other errors in the social assistance system.

I think we all understand the need to control social assistance costs, which have increased dramatically in recent years. Minister, how will you ensure that any investigation carried out by the ministry into current case files is done with fullest respect for the privacy and human rights of the social assistance recipients, who would, after all, rather not be on social assistance at all?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the member. We have tried, in the process we've established, which I announced yesterday, to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance between getting at those people in the system who are indeed abusing the system and being absolutely clear in our approach that the vast majority of people who are receiving social assistance benefits are receiving them because they are entitled to receive them.

I can tell the member that in the instructions that are going out to our staff, in the work we are going to do with the municipalities in terms of how they are going to implement similar initiatives, we are going to continue to be absolutely clear about those two points having to be kept uppermost in people's minds.

In the way we've set out the process, focusing first, in terms of the time lines, on those situations where we believe there is the greatest potential for abuse and not assuming that everyone who's on social assistance shows a potential for abuse, I think we've shown the respect necessary and appropriate for the vast majority of people who are legitimately receiving social assistance benefits.

Mr Gary Wilson: This afternoon we've heard that it isn't because of fraud that the welfare costs are so high, but that policies of federal governments as well as things like free trade have forced up the welfare rolls here in Ontario.

What I would like to know, Minister, is that while you are tightening up the system so that only those who are truly entitled receive benefits, what measures will you take to help people get off welfare and into the workforce?

Hon Mr Silipo: The member will know that of the steps we outlined last summer in Turning Point, we had to indicate last week that we would not be able to proceed with at least one major part of that, the Ontario child income program, because of the lack of appropriate funding from the federal government.

There are, however, other parts of that reform that we are quite intent on proceeding with. We outlined and we are working hard on a number of initiatives that will assist people to move off the dependency of social assistance through training and other kinds of support, through looking at a number of things we can inject into the system, and through just simple things like providing more publicity for some of the basic rules that exist now in the system under the STEP program, through which people are able to earn some dollars and still retain some of their benefits.

It's a combination of those things that we will continue to do.

PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a serious question to the Minister of Citizenship on what seems to be a deliberate attempt to punish certain ESL programs.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I appreciate the question from the member opposite and tell you that I have not personally seen this letter. It just arrived here at this moment in front of me, so I will take this under consideration and read the letter carefully.

But I want to make one comment before I sit down. I say to the member opposite that what we have done within our ministry is help the programs that are teaching ESL. Mr Bradley is probably going to show a number at this particular time, but if you take a look at the average amount of dollars that is spent per immigrant by the federal government in the various provinces across Canada, you would find that most provinces get $1,500. The average payment per immigrant in Quebec is $1,900. Ontario receives $780 per immigrant.

We are doing our best to make sure that we provide the best quality service. We have not cut our funding; in fact, we have been trying to pick up the lapse that the federal government has not given to us. That is why we are entering into an agreement with the federal government to make sure, not just that we are getting our fair share, although that's important, but that people who choose to live in Ontario are treated equally and fairly as all people are treated across Canada and that they are not penalized because they have chosen to come to this great province.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition regarding Bill 45 and Bill 55. The petition asks that we earnestly request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing both bills. I've signed the petition.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): One of the signatures on this petition is from Utopia. We have people from Barrie and Orillia and Markham and Unionville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently within the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition with some 350 signatures.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have an additional 26 petitions that have sent to me from the towns of Whitney, Barry's Bay, Petawawa, Chalk River and Eganville which I would like to read out.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

There are 257 names on these petitions. Added to the ones yesterday, that is now 577 signatures.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

PAY EQUITY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of my colleague from Cambridge:

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

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

"That the government of Ontario Ministry of Labour down payment funding for pay equity re-examine the application for pay equity advance payment 1992-93 in connection with the Cambridge Association for the Mentally Handicapped, and that the commission examine the relationship between other similar organizations that have been granted the initial payment to determine whether the application of rules applied to one are equally applied to the other.

TAXATION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has consistently mismanaged its finances and failed to support the economy of the province;

"Whereas the government's new tax agenda has hurt many businesses across the province and killed tens of thousands of jobs;

"Whereas the NDP government has lost over $2 billion in revenue after imposing over $3 billion in new taxes;

"Whereas the government is raising non-tax revenues through raising fees on everything it can think of including toll roads, photo-radar, snowmobile fees, ferry fees, health services fees, children's services fees, without consultation and without studying the impact of these new fees on local communities;

"Whereas the government is camouflaging its deficit crisis by phantom sales of government buildings;

"Whereas the government is hiding its spending by setting up crown corporations to take on new debt;

"Whereas the government, even after all these questionable measures, has still been unable to control its $10-billion deficit and is planning to introduce even more taxes which will only lead to further job loss across the province, reduce business confidence and prolong the recession; and

"Whereas the government continues to waste money through tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified expenses on meals and hotels by senior political and ministerial staff;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government to take action to halt any new tax increases, cut its own wasteful spending, take real action to support business and job creation and get the province of Ontario working again."

I add my name to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition regarding the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination.

This petition was signed by 98 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters from my riding of Lanark-Renfrew and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time to pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms we have no desire to own or use,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 55," which I believe is the bill of the Conservative member from Markham, Mr Cousens, "would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Mr Cousens's bill, which is Bill 55, is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality, ie, Jewish, Muslim, Hindus, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Mr Cousens's Bill 55."

It's signed by a number of constituents, and I affix my signature thereto.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth, and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present another petition on behalf of my colleague the member for Cambridge pertaining to the issue of provincial funding and quality for the Catholic school system. It's signed by 251 of his constituents.

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here signed by 23 farmers from Timiskaming district:

"Dear Mr Ramsay:

"We, the undersigned, feel strongly that all the revenue from the lease of property of the former Ontario Stock Yards should go into the livestock development trust fund. We urge you to speak to the government officials about this matter."

I have affixed my signature to this.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have two petitions here from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas all individuals of Ontario must be treated within the spirit of a free and democratic society;

"Whereas individuals must be treated by government in a manner consistent with the Ontario and international human rights codes;"

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To replace the Minister, Ms Evelyn Gigantes, with a person more inclined in the democratic duty, in serving the people of a democracy, to provide fair and reasonable information and reply in a positive manner to positive questions."

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I won't read the

preamble to the other one. It just says:

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To incorporate to the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario all limitations on parking/no parking, stopping/no stopping, standing/no standing. This would ensure that a visitor coming to Ontario and all drivers from Ontario would be guided and informed by one law and one law only, and hoping that this law be prescribed in a fair and understandable language, in the language of the people who use the roads."

That's signed by Henry Freitag of Penetanguishene.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide the needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and the loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

A lot of my constituents, especially in the community of Sutton-by-the-Lake, have affixed their signature to this and, in full support, I do the same.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here that was forwarded to me by Christ Our King Lutheran Church in Mississauga and it reads as follows:

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

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternate lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for different opinions."

It's signed by 85 residents of Mississauga, and I will attach my signature to it.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I am affixing my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Cooper, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr95,

An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 23:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1994, and ending July 31, 1994. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The motion of interim supply which I have just moved means that spending authority other than for payments authorized by a specific statute is granted by the Legislature to the government by the process of supply, as governed by the House standing orders and parliamentary tradition.

Prior to the passing of the Supply Act, government spending proceeds under a motion of interim supply. Government spending is currently authorized to March 31, 1994, by the Supply Act, which received royal assent in December 1993. To ensure that spending authority continues after March 31, a motion of interim supply needs to be approved by the Legislature. Without a motion, delays in payments will start April 1, affecting suppliers of goods and services, utility companies, rent payments, doctors, private medical laboratories and transfer payment agencies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions or comments? Any further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to begin the debate on interim supply. For those who may be watching the debate, what we're dealing with, as the Minister of Finance said, is providing the government with the authority to pay its bills over the next few months.

I want to talk about some of the things that are impacting on our ability to pay our bills.

Hon Mr Laughren: Be nice.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Finance said to be nice, and I will. I wanted to start by talking about what, for me at least, and I think for the people of Ontario, is quite clearly the major issue facing the province, and that is the whole issue of jobs.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, I'd just like to interrupt you for a few minutes. I just want to read this statement here.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Burlington South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning social assistance, and this matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

Mr Phillips: I started by saying that I wanted to talk about what, for me at least, is the number one issue on people's minds; it is on my mind. I spent much of January, February and March travelling around the province talking to people about this issue and hearing about it in a whole variety of communities. I honestly don't think it's overstating the case to say that, in my opinion, the job situation is a state of emergency. I think it's difficult oftentimes to convince perhaps ourselves here of that. I happen to think the people out there believe it.

The challenge you always run into in a thing like this is, if you're in government, you have of course in many respects a vested interest in saying: "Listen, things are getting better. They're going to improve. The opposition is merely exaggerating the size of the problem." Similarly, I think that when you're in opposition, as I am, people many times just assume you're exaggerating the problem for political reasons.

Therefore, the problem I think we face with the job situation is that if we don't collectively all agree on the size of the problem, in my opinion we won't get on with the solution. As I said, I think governments at every level in every part of the country have a vested interest, when you're in power, of saying, "Listen, things are going to get substantially better," and when you're in opposition it's difficult to convince people.

For the Minister of Finance's information, I went back through the last three budgets just to look at the prediction of the unemployment rate for 1994, because while each budget has said things are going to get substantially better, the fact is that they're not.

I went back to the 1991 budget and I looked at what the estimate was for the unemployment rate in Ontario in 1994, the year we're just now moving into. It assumed then that the unemployment rate would be well below 8%; it would be around 7.5% or 7.8%. That was the 1991 budget estimating the unemployment rate for 1994.

The 1992 budget, what did it do? It said things were going to be better in 1994, but instead of a 7.5% unemployment rate, the 1994 unemployment rate was going to be 8.3%. Last year's budget said the unemployment rate in Ontario for 1994 would be around 9%. Now the Minister of Finance's documents indicate that the unemployment rate in Ontario in 1994 will be well over 10%.

My point is this: The people of Ontario have been anticipating that the situation is going to improve; the government had been hoping it would. In my opinion, it is not improving nearly well enough nor, as I might say, nearly as well as the government had been predicting. I really think this is a situation that cries out for -- I call it a state of emergency, and I don't think I'm being overly alarmist there.

When the January unemployment numbers came out, I was shocked, actually. They were so bad that I, in some letters I sent out, said: "They're so bad I don't believe them. I think they are a one-month blip. When we have the February numbers, they will be substantially improved." I was at a public meeting with the Minister of Finance. He had the same concerns, I think, about the January unemployment and employment numbers. The February numbers came out and, in my opinion, they were close to as bad as the January numbers.

The numbers are something like this: For us to begin to make a dent in our unemployment situation in Ontario, we need to see around 75,000 to 80,000 jobs a year created in this province. That essentially just holds our unemployment rate, because that's the number of people who enter the workforce. After two months in the province -- and I accept they're two of 12 months and we're early into the year -- rather than seeing substantial growth year over year, we in Ontario have seen 10,000 fewer jobs. It's extremely serious.

I'm hopeful that the March numbers that come out, and they will be out in a week and a half, will show a dramatic turnaround, but so far the numbers are extremely discouraging. We've lost 10,000 jobs year over year when we should have seen growth at least of 60,000 jobs. We have a shortfall of 70,000 jobs. I might add that in all of the rest of the country we saw job growth in January and February, year over year, of 143,000 jobs. Ontario, for some reason or other, is struggling badly. We actually lost jobs in January and February over the same period a year ago while the rest of the country saw substantial growth.

In behind the numbers -- and I'm not sure how to make the case properly here, because when we talk about millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of jobs, I'm afraid we lose the personal side of it, but these are the numbers we need to work with and I urge us to really get in behind these numbers. I watched the Premier closely. He obviously knows it's a problem. He's spending an awful lot of his time going around the province talking about jobs. But the numbers aren't coming, for a variety of reasons which I'll talk about later.

But if you look behind some of these numbers, where are the big problems in jobs? We all know the construction sector has really suffered badly. By the way, I had fully expected the construction sector to be picking up by now, yet in January and February we had the two worst months in years and years and years for our construction workers. These are the January and February 1994 numbers, the last two months. There were 210,000 people working in construction in Ontario. The same period the previous year there were 243,000 people in construction.

I'm praying it was the cold weather. I'm praying that this isn't indicative of the construction activity out there. But it was a disaster, and it was a disaster because I go back in the construction numbers. In 1989 there were 327,000 people working in construction; in 1990, 324,000. Then we start down: 277,000 in 1991; 254,000 in 1992; 255,000, about the same, in 1993; and then the first two months of what can only be described as a disaster. As I say, I'm hopeful that we will see in March, in another week and a half, that the numbers were dramatically influenced by cold weather and that we will begin to see the pickup.

But those numbers are very discouraging because it comes in an area where the Premier has been talking about capital expenditures and spending the money and the capital, although I must say that the provincial capital spending has actually gone down in each of the last two years, in spite of all the rhetoric. The explanation we get is, "We're buying better," but the amount of money they're spending on capital has actually gone down.

The manufacturing sector has also been extremely hard hit; we've lost almost 20% of our manufacturing jobs. I think we all know that's in many respects the engine that drives Ontario. In fact, without the auto sector, I might say, I think we would be in a disastrous situation. Our auto sector has been extremely buoyant. We've been fortunate, and I think with a lot of hard work by our auto companies and the CAW, we've got a very solid auto sector in Ontario. We've got some of the best plants --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): And the provincial government.

Mr Phillips: -- and the provincial government, the member says. Yes, I think provincial governments overall, for all three parties, have recognized that our auto sector is the engine that drives the Ontario economy, and thank goodness for that. Thank goodness that the US economy is going very well, that many of the vehicles we manufacture in Canada are selling exceptionally well in the US. I think it's fair to say that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors all have winners in terms of the production that they have in their plants.

But having said all of that, with our manufacturing sector in the auto sector doing well, the rest of our manufacturing sector has lost a dramatic number of jobs. I might say that even as the economy in the US picks up and our exports pick up, and we're benefiting enormously right now from essentially a 73-cent dollar, it doesn't look like, even with that pickup, in the manufacturing sector we are going to see a significant growth in jobs. We're going to see a growth in output, but it will not be in jobs.

We're seeing that the growth has been in the service sector, and by the way, about a third of the jobs in Ontario are in the service sector. That's where, when I look at the numbers, the job growth, for 1989 to 1993, as I said, we lost 20% of our manufacturing jobs, 200,000 jobs there, we've lost 70,000 of our construction jobs, but it's been in the service sector where we've seen 150,000 in job growth. That's been the growth area.

Now, the challenge we face there of course, as we all know, is that half the service sector jobs are the public sector or the broader public sector jobs. Roughly a million jobs in Ontario are involved in schools, hospitals, universities, social services, all our community services, our municipalities, our police forces, our fire departments and what not. I think all of us here recognize and accept that it's unlikely that we are going to see job growth in that area. As a matter of fact, I think it's fair to say that we will see, at the very best, holding the line on jobs if not a decline in jobs there.

So when I look at what's going to be required to begin to tackle this problem that can only be described as an emergency, I don't see the job growth coming in the manufacturing sector, I'm hopeful some of it will come in the construction sector and it's going to have to be in some of the other areas in the service sector, apart from the public sector.

Also, when I looked at where the problem is geographically in the province, I think it's fair to say that every community is struggling with unemployment. Virtually all of our sectors -- many of us spent time in the Lindsay area, and the tourism industry there is working very hard and struggling. But the area where we lost the jobs, where do we think the big job loss occurred from 1989 to 1993, remembering that the rest of Canada has seen job growth and in Ontario we've lost 155,000 jobs? Where did that occur? Where would you think it occurred?

I'll tell you where it occurred. It occurred in the Metropolitan Toronto area: 170,000 jobs have disappeared from the Metropolitan Toronto area. When I say Metropolitan Toronto, I don't mean just the traditional definition of Metropolitan Toronto of Steeles and Etobicoke Creek but the greater Metropolitan Toronto area.

These numbers are important because they are a sign for us of a big problem that we face in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. As I say, I look at all of Ontario. Over that period of time we've lost 156,000 jobs. In the Metropolitan Toronto area we've lost 170,000 jobs. The rest of Ontario has actually grown by 14,000 jobs, if we follow all of that. Ontario has lost 156,000 jobs, the Metropolitan Toronto area has lost 170,000 and therefore the rest of Ontario has grown by about 14,000.

I point that out because I think one of our challenges in the months and the years ahead is going to be, how do we re-energize the greater Metropolitan Toronto area?

I'm hearing from the city of Toronto and the board of trade that there are these incredible battles going on between municipalities in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area competing for businesses, understandable competition, but perhaps in the long haul not productive and perhaps something where we are spending resources on people moving around for reasons that may not make good business sense, because I've heard of people who can save a considerable amount of money by simply moving their business from one municipality to another.

We've got to tackle that, and particularly when I see the number I've talked about.

I happen to be from Metropolitan Toronto. As you travel around the province, someone once said the thing that keeps Canada together is that people aren't particularly fond of Ontario and the thing that keeps Ontario together is that people aren't particularly fond of Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto is struggling, and if we let the vibrant metropolitan area stagnate and if we let go unnoticed 170,000 fewer jobs, we are sowing the seeds of -- our own destruction is too strong a term, but we are sowing the seeds of some significant and dramatic problems.

Another thing I'd say is that I rather appreciated in last year's budget that the Minister of Finance actually had a chart in the budget -- I may not be able to find it right now -- that indicated the real unemployment level. In my opinion and the opinion of the ministry officials, there's a reported unemployment level, and in this particular case the budget said the reported unemployment level is around 10.5%.

It said, "Listen, there is another group of people who have simply dropped out." It's fairly easy to estimate the size of that because the labour market should have grown at a certain rate. It's been hardly growing at all. You know they're there, you know the people are there, in my opinion, you know they're there and they want to work, but they've simply become too discouraged and they've dropped out. The real unemployment rate is, without much doubt, running up around the 13% to 14% area.

The reason I'm spending the time on this issue is that I think if we don't collectively find the ways to solve this problem, we run the risk of spinning our wheels on all the rest of the stuff. I have no doubt in my mind that the reason for the dramatic growth in the social assistance case load is the result of people having difficulty finding jobs.

I've no doubt, by the way, that there are cheats and frauds and all those sorts of things on welfare, but the fundamental reason -- we see these people. I see these people every day in my office. I see people come to me who never thought they'd be out of work. It never even entered their minds. As a matter of fact, they have real difficulty dealing with it.

I have to say to them, and I hope this won't get me in trouble with people out there who may have different views, "Listen, maybe you should be looking at social assistance." "No, no, I don't want welfare; I don't believe in it." "No, no, maybe you should be looking at social assistance," not that I want to be spending the taxpayers' money, but these people never thought they'd be in this position. As I say, it is a fundamental problem.

It's always difficult to single a group out because then it sounds like other groups aren't that important, but I think particularly of the young people. We look at the statistics that come in here. If we're not careful, they just become statistics, but in behind them, if you look at -- when you're in opposition you have time to do these things, so I grab these statistics as they flow in and I analyse them, sometimes trying to score points against the government, hopefully periodically trying to be helpful, but there is no doubt that among our young people, we are making it very, very difficult for them.

Again, the number in February is now close to 20% unemployment among young people, and people who have looked at these statistics will tell you that they are actually substantially higher than that.

I think our challenge is that when you're in government, you're always assuming and hoping and promising that things are going to get better. My fear is that we're wrong on this, that this is not going to work through what I'll call incrementalism; it's not going to work through just tinkering at the edges.

I'm a supporter of the infrastructure plan, by the way. If you remember the debate in the Legislature here, our party supported something that was called Bill 17 which means something only to us in here, but to the people out there, it was a bill designed to help facilitate private sector-public sector partnerships, get on with building some subways and some roads and some things like that, and sewers. We supported it. We had some reservations about it, but we supported it because we felt that on balance it would help to get on with the infrastructure.

Frankly that's not going to be enough. It will be helpful. Psychologically it's good because if I see a crane and I see activity, that's good. That gets the rest of the business community and the rest of the job-creating community feeling good. Clearly the infrastructure program will create several thousand jobs -- extremely important -- but at the end of the day, it's not going to be enough.

As we begin this debate on what's called interim supply and looking at how we pay our bills, what I'm trying to urge all of us is to, if we can -- we can keep our partisan hats on because we'll never change, but I would suggest that we get in behind the numbers and recognize that this is more serious than we are all collectively acknowledging.

The solutions: I think we only solve the problem when we collectively agree on the magnitude of it, and I don't think we've got a consensus on that yet, but if we all were to agree on it, I happen to think we should be setting ourselves a target in this province to substantially lower our unemployment rate from what we have planned right now.

When I say "planned," I mean if you look at the projections that the government puts forward and the projections that most economists put forward, we're looking down to 1997 and the unemployment rate is still over 9%. If we follow the kind of history of these things, and our ability to deliver those numbers, you would say the likelihood of us hitting the 9% -- it's likely going to be higher, if I just use the history of what's happened in the province.

I don't think that's either acceptable, nor is it inevitable. I think there is a way, if we could all agree on it, to substantially lower that. It's going to require action on a whole bunch of fronts. I think we're going to have to set a different tone in the province. Again, we conducted what we call a jobs task force, a Liberal jobs task force, and there is the need to change the tone in the province. There is a sense of pessimism out there, and there's a sense in much of the business community that they are not prepared to invest.

I think the second thing we have to do is, we truly do have to find a way to let the economy breathe. There's no doubt in my mind and in most people's minds that our jobs are going to be created through small business, and I think most people in small business truly do feel they're being stifled now. I don't think there's much doubt, to use the jargon, but it's true, that we have to find a way to reinvent many of our programs.

Mr Sutherland: What are the specifics?

Mr Phillips: Well, the specifics, the member said: There's no doubt that we need to reform the social assistance, and that all I've heard to date from the government -- it promised it would have substantial reform -- is that it's hired 280 people to go out after welfare cheats. I understand where you're coming from. The public applauds it and I applaud going after people who are cheating, but that's not getting at the fundamental issue you promised. It wasn't my promise I made; it was your promise you made.

Mr Sutherland: People want to know where the Liberals stand on it.

Mr Phillips: The member across the aisle is saying, "People want to know where Liberals stand on it." What we've said to the government is, you promised to come forward with your social assistance reform. You didn't do it. For whatever reasons, you haven't done it, and if you're not embarrassed by that, that's fine.

The fourth area is, without doubt, the tools that our business community have need help. The banks: I mean, it's quite fashionable to bash the banks these days from almost every quarter, and I think it is fair to say that our banks have not been as helpful to the changing economy as they should have been. They're playing catch-up now; they're working hard to do that. But in the meantime, I've hardly talked to a small business person who has not had a tough experience with a bank.

As I say, perhaps I can understand how they got there, but we have to find the tools, through the banks, the credit unions, the trust companies and other tools, that people have access to the necessary capital: operating capital and equity and debt and all those sorts of things.

I might also say that tools in the future will be kind of the hard infrastructure stuff -- the roads, the sewers -- and the soft infrastructure stuff, which we all talk about but we've got to make absolutely sure we're actually doing it, because I look at some of the jurisdictions that are now competing aggressively against us, and they brag about their hard infrastructure and their soft infrastructure.

The fifth area is, without doubt, I think we have an enormous resource in the people of Ontario and in the institutions that are there: our colleges, our universities, our elementary and our secondary schools and the resources we put behind them. But I think all of us would agree we haven't focused on that well. We've asked our institutions to try to be in many respects all things to all people. I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface in helping to take advantage of the asset that is our diverse society.

I was at a banquet recently. There was quite a large group from the Chinese business community there. In that room was an individual representing a company that had just bought all the Stouffer resorts from around the world, and another individual who owned the casinos at -- I think it's called Macao, near Hong Kong; just enormously successful business people, and I just use those as two small examples.

What I'm afraid of is we're letting time go by. I think that's an asset we've had, because we've believed and we've been able to attract significant business people literally from around the world to come and live in Ontario, but we haven't found a way, for the wellbeing of all Ontario, to harness that.

It's not enough just to simply say, "Listen, there is a problem." In my opinion, the problem on the job front is huge and we're not going to solve it. We're tinkering at the edges. As I said when I began my remarks, the problem is when you're in government it's always difficult, because you are hoping and planning for it to get better even when it's not. When you're in opposition, you give a speech like this and many people say, "Oh, it's just a partisan speech designed to score some political points."

That for me is the issue, that if we don't find a way to really get at it in a very, very significant way -- I don't know who the good models are for us to emulate. I happen to think probably Frank McKenna's done not a bad job in New Brunswick. There are things he could do better no doubt, but I think he's done many of the things that I think we're going to have to do here in Ontario.

The first issue I want to get on the table when we're debating interim supply and the challenges we have of meeting the bills in this province is that if we don't tackle this one, the rest is just far more difficult; not impossible, but far more difficult.

The second thing I want to talk a little bit about is the finances of the province. Because I may not have a chance at the end, I wanted to talk about one subaspect of the finances of the province that some of the members in the Legislature worked on during the session between when the House sat in December and when we came back in March, and that's the whole issue of the underground economy.

The committee completed its report on it and I thought it was a relatively good piece of work, recognizing that we are trying to deal with a huge problem with a limited amount of time and resources available.

The things I learned from that study on the underground economy are, firstly, there is no doubt that it is large and growing. I don't think there is any doubt that as we look at the revenues of the province, the revenues have been significantly impacted by it. My view is that the underground economy without much doubt is at least 8% of the economy, probably approaching 10%. If you accept those numbers, the province is losing probably $3 billion to $4 billion a year in revenue.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Largely due to the GST.

Mr Phillips: The member said, "Largely due to the GST." I don't think that's the case. The GST, there's no doubt, was a stimulus for another spurt in the growth of it.

I have reluctantly concluded that for many this is actually a tax revolt. I went on two open-line shows to talk about our report, and the first time I was totally unprepared for the calls. Maybe I shouldn't have been totally unprepared, but I went thinking the discussion would be around: "Listen, this is a problem. I understand why it's a problem. Can we begin to look at solutions for it?" To me, we all have a collective interest in solving this, because it's growing substantially and it's essentially unfair. It essentially allows people to make their own mind up about how much taxes and whether they want to pay them.

But anyway, the point I'm making is that when I got on the open-line show, without exception -- I think without exception; certainly I can't remember one -- virtually every call that came in said, "I'm participating in the underground economy, I'm happy about it and I'm going to keep doing it." The reason they used, by the way, was, "You politicians are misspending my tax dollars so I'm going to do whatever I can to teach you a lesson."

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Was one of those phone-ins NDP Noon? I think it was, wasn't it?

Mr Phillips: No. My point is this: We have an epidemic on our hands here. It is growing substantially, to the best of my determination, and the biggest loss we have in the revenue is in the income tax area. People think it's on booze and on tobacco -- it was on tobacco -- and on home renovation GST and PST, but the biggest loss is in the income tax area because people are simply not reporting their income. I wanted to mention that one.

As I say, the committee concluded its report. I don't think we've begun yet to find the solution on this. The problem we're going to run into is that the longer it goes without a collective solution on it, the more we run into incredible unfairness, because if you can select when you choose to pay your taxes and when you choose not to pay your taxes, I think we're into quite a dangerous environment. There are some recommendations for solutions. I think the ministry has 120 days in which to reply and I'm looking forward to the reply.

I wanted to talk more specifically around the state of the finances of the province, because this is the second big issue of the province and how we're going to have to begin to tackle the challenges of meeting the bills that we're going to have to pay once we pass this interim supply motion.

Again, I don't think there's any doubt that we've dug a very deep fiscal hole in the last three years. I don't think there's any doubt that if Premier Rae could turn the clock back to their first budget, the 1991 budget, he would do it differently now. I don't think there's any doubt but that if you could turn it back, you wouldn't be saying you're going to spend your way out of the recession. I don't think there's any doubt that would have been a restraint budget instead of the budget it was. But you can't turn the clock back, and now we've seen three consecutive years of deficits over $10 billion.

What that essentially means for people out there is that we're spending 25% more than we're raising, and as we all know in our personal lives, you can only do that for a very short period of time. We're running the debt up substantially. As I think most people in Ontario now realize, when the NDP came in the debt of the province was around $40 billion. When's March 31? In two more days, as of the day after tomorrow, the debt will have doubled. That's the end of the fiscal year. That's when the debt of the province will have reached $80 billion.

We've seen, over a four-year period, the debt of the province doubling from $40 billion to $80 billion. The problem you start getting into with that is that the debt servicing costs begin to eat up an enormous portion of the budget. As you all know, it's now well over $7 billion, and we've been fortunate that we've been living with some comparatively low interest rates; that's been helpful. And I happen to think the province has done not a bad job of managing its borrowing. It's a heck of a lot of money to borrow, but I think it's done not a bad job of borrowing it; has managed the cost of borrowing this amount of money about as well as you can manage it.

None the less, when you double the debt, what it really means is that people out there, every family out there -- and this is one way to think about it, because this is reality -- each family in Ontario now owes about $13,000 more in debt in the province than when Premier Rae got elected. The fact is that the interest has to be paid on that. I think many people have just assumed, "Somehow or other, someone else will pay the interest."

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Does that include the debt you left us?

Mr Phillips: The member asks, "Does that include the debt you left?" It's interesting that the Provincial Auditor says there's been only one balanced budget in 25 years in the province, and that was the final year the Liberals were in power. Actually, I'll read it. This is from the Provincial Auditor. I think people in the province believe the Provincial Auditor; they are far more sceptical of politicians. What the Provincial Auditor said in his 1991 report is, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years (year ended March 31, 1990.)" That's what the auditor said. When did Bob Rae take over? September 1990. Only one surplus in 20 years in the province; that's what the auditor said.

As I said, I think the mistake Bob Rae made was his first budget, the 1991 budget, when he said he would spend his way out of the recession. Spending went up 14% when inflation was running at 2%, and he's been playing catch-up literally ever since.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Did you guys call for restraint at that time?

Mr Phillips: The member asks, did we call for restraint? Actually, we did call for restraint. I remember Bob Rae would say, "The Liberals weren't forthcoming with us about the need for restraint." Just for the people who are viewing here, each year a Legislative committee looks at the budget. What did the NDP say when it was in opposition, leading up to the budget, when the Liberals were saying it was time for restraint? This is what Bob Rae said.

Hon Mr Wildman: The Liberals weren't saying that at that time. They were crowing about a so-called balanced budget.

The Deputy Speaker: There's a period of questions and comments after. Please.

Mr Phillips: No, no. Mr Wildman may have even signed this report. Here's what the NDP were saying when they were in opposition just before the election: "The Ontario government" -- that was the Ontario Liberal government -- "has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its Liberal pretence and is showing its true conservative nature. The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of fiscal, financial restraint." That's what we were saying, but Mr Wildman signed the report saying: "No, no, no. This isn't a time for fiscal restraint. This is a time to spend."

Hon Mr Wildman: That's when you were saying there was a balanced budget, and we believed you.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr Phillips: Mr Wildman may not like to hear this, but we were saying, in your own words, Mr Wildman, "The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of financial restraint."

Hon Mr Wildman: And we thought there was a balanced budget.

Mr Phillips: Well, there you are, and now you want to shift ground. That's what we were saying, and you acknowledged it, so you can't have it both ways.

Hon Mr Wildman: The lesson is, never believe the Liberals when they say there is a balanced budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have questions and comments after the debate. I would ask you, I would beg you, as a matter of fact, to take advantage of that, but please don't interrupt.

Mr Phillips: I've obviously touched a nerve. I think they're still bitter that they won. He's never forgiven us.

But, Mr Wildman, don't listen to me. Listen to what the Provincial Auditor says. He says, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years (year ended March 31, 1990)." Then the auditor goes on to ask, why was there a $3-billion deficit? The auditor spelled it out exactly.

One thing was that for good reason, the government, the NDP, Bob Rae, decided to write a bunch of things off. How did we get to the $3-billion deficit? The auditor explains it perfectly. First, remember, everybody, there was only one surplus: the year ending March 31, 1990. You came in a few months later and took over the books. What happened? The auditor explains how we get to the $3-billion deficit. Maybe you should read it some time.

The auditor says it was quite understandable that when the budget was prepared, it was expected for the second year in a row that there would be a surplus. Here's what happened:

"The extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget," dropped revenues by $1 billion. That's number one. Okay, you got that.

Number two, special payments were required primarily because of the social assistance case load increase. You understand that.

Third, and this is good politics, the NDP government decided to write off $924 million in special payments, $200 million to the teachers' pension. It wasn't due until the next year, but you've got to get the $3-billion deficit. You prepaid $200 million. Do you understand that? That was $200 million. Urban Transportation Development Corp, a $400-million loan, not due; you wrote it off. And then our favourite: the SkyDome, of course, which was completely written off, $321 million.

The reason I go through all of that is because I'm not sure all the NDP members appreciate it: a balanced budget, only one with a surplus in 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990. You all came in a few months later, took it over. How did you get to the $3 billion? The auditor explains it in detail.

I know it's hard. I know you'd love to blame the Liberals for leaving you things, that it's not your fault. Don't take my word for it. Read the Provincial Auditor's report.

So I go back to the challenges with the finances, the fact that we now have seen three credit downgrades. When you took over, the province had a solid AAA credit rating, no doubt about that. A year later, it's downgraded to AA+; a year later, it's downgraded to AA; a year later, it's downgraded to AA-.

The province can sustain a AA-. If we lose one more credit rating, we have a problem. I will do everything I can to make sure that -- whatever I can do, but I will be as supportive of the government as I can. My feeling is that we will not see a downgrade. If we see a downgrade into single A, we have a major problem on our hands, because we can borrow money reasonably at a AA rating, but if you move into the single A, we have a significant problem, so we all have a huge interest in ensuring that not happen, and when the budget comes out in a few weeks, I'm hopeful it won't.

But my feeling on the budget is that, without much doubt, the government is going to put together a budget that will show a deficit in the $7.5-billion to $8.5-billion range. I don't think there's much doubt about that. We're going through the ritualistic dance of, "It's going to be real bad. It's going to be this, it's going to be that," but I don't think there's much doubt that we'll show a deficit in the $7.5-billion to $8.5-billion range.

The problem we're going to run into is that, in my opinion, there are several very questionable accounting techniques being used to get to that number. If there is a problem with the rating agencies, it will be here, as people get in behind the numbers.

I will just go through a few of the things that worry me. I've reached the stage where, in my opinion, the reported budget number is important, but it doesn't come close to telling an accurate picture of a year-to-year comparison. I want to run through a variety of things I see in this year's budget and next year's budget that I think undermine the credibility of the province and, as people see through them, run the risk of putting at risk our credit rating, primarily because if people begin to have doubts about how much they can trust the books, they begin to have doubts about whether they want to loan money.

I'll just go through a few of these things, because they're important and because I think they wil