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

April 9, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

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

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

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

CAMPAIGN WATERLOO

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

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

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

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

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

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY

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

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

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

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

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

ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY RIDGE

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

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

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

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

KEN MACINNIS

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

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

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

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

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

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

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

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

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

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

TOBACCO TAXES

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

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

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

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

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Today I rise to acknowledge the work of an agency that has contributed to the wellbeing of many of my constituents. For the past 10 years, Scarborough Community Legal Services has provided a variety of services to those in need. These services include

summary legal advice, legal representation, community organization, community education and, most important, law reform work.

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLANNING APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

PLANNING APPROVAL

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLANNING APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTAMINATED LANDFILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Today's headline in the evening edition of the Toronto Star about our grim green future and the release of a new report saying that Canada's natural environment continues to be destroyed at an alarming rate leads to my question to the Minister of the Environment. It has come to my attention that a significant amount of petroleum-contaminated landfill is being dumped this week on the shores of Hamilton harbour with the concurrence of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.

This is occurring despite regulations under the Environmental Protection Act requiring that contaminated landfill be disposed of in a licensed landfill site. I ask the minister to confirm that this is indeed an illegal activity under regulation 301 of the Environmental Protection Act and ask if she will advise the House what action she is currently taking to halt this illegal action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAPITAL FUNDING

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

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

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wouldn't confirm any such thing. When the member opposite talks about the capital expenditures, I would ask her to keep a couple of things in mind. First, and I suspect it was the case when the party opposite was in power, is that built into the budgets of all the various ministries is a base capital budget, and beyond that, anything added above that would be added to the total capital expenditures for the province.

An example would be last year, where there was a base capital budget for the various ministries and then on top of that the government introduced a $700-million capital works program all across Ontario, which was completely above what was already built into the ministries' budgets.

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

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

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

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

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

If I could take the Treasurer from the general to the much more specific, last fall the Ministry of Transportation announced a new study on the Red Hill Creek Expressway, which included the possibility of resuming construction of the original route. The report is due this month. The immediate construction which is possible on the original route would meet the Premier's commitments to streamline government red tape, which was so clearly enunciated again today, as well as the capital spending that will promote job creation.

The project would provide construction jobs, but it would also provide the kind of transportation infrastructure that is necessary for further economic and business development in the Hamilton area.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: In view of the

preamble to that question in which the member opposite engaged, I think I have an obligation to respond to that aspect of her question as well.

The $700-million anti-recession package from 1991-92 was not meant to be a strategic long-range capital program. I tried to say that and then in your

preamble you seemed to be critical of that fact. It was simply a list of projects that had a very high priority at the local level. They helped establish the priorities. We did not establish the priorities here in Toronto; they were established at the local level, and I disagree with you that the local communities didn't appreciate that money. We've had a lot of very positive comments about that program.

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

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

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

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

Mr Harris: Welcome back, exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

In trying to clarify, I will say to the member that I don't think there's an inconsistency, although I appreciate that there may be some confusion.

What I have been saying to school boards and to the teacher's federation is that in addition to dealing with the non-salary areas of the budget, quite frankly we have to begin, in the area of education, the sector of education, to take a look at how we're going to rationalize the kinds of salary increases and compensation packages we've had over the last year, when we were dealing with increases in the 5% and 6% range, with the kinds of increases we believe are more in keeping with the kind of inflationary increases we have in place now.

There is a period of adjustment we are all going through and that clearly the school board sector is going through.

One of the things we are doing in looking at the use of the transition funds, which, as I've indicated here in this House and on the program last night, we still have to allocate, is looking very much at how we can position some of those funds to assist with this transition.

Quite frankly that means a number of different things, depending on whether boards and teachers' federations, in this case, have contracts that go to the end of this school year or in some cases beyond, and what may be possible in terms of looking at future years, and putting together some proposals we could look at that I think show us that in fact there's an effort being made to deal with that kind of transition in costs from a high range to a lower range. The details of that, I should say, we are trying to work out in discussions with representatives of both school boards and teachers' federations.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to things like in vitro fertilization, let's not scaremonger. I have never said I'm cutting those services. What I've said is that we have to have a health care system that is based on good analysis of what the health outcomes of procedures are. There is a lot of debate around things like in vitro fertilization: whether it is an effective procedure, whether there are good health outcomes of the babies that are produced with that kind of technological intervention. All I have said is that we should do better evaluation.

We have now put in place the kind of clinical evaluation through the Naylor Institute. I think we're building a rational system. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

LAYOFFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

AGRICULTURAL LAND

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. I would like to get from the Treasurer his estimate of the impact of his transfer payments on the various colleges, universities, hospitals and school boards. We know the treasury department does estimates of the number of hospital beds or classrooms that might be closed. As a matter of fact, last year you will recall you personally came to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and outlined for us the exact number of classrooms that would close as a result of transfer payments and the exact number of hospital beds.

I think you said last year that if you were to flat-line your transfer payments, 5,000 hospital beds would close, there would be 25,000 fewer students in colleges and universities and 6,000 classrooms would close. So it is clear those numbers are done and are available.

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

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

Mr Phillips: One is that you know the answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Phillips: You did it last year.

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

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

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

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

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

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

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

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

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

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

SCHOOL FACILITIES

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

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

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

PORNOGRAPHY

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

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

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

"The 1991 federal Criminal Code,

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

interpretation."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

I affixed my signature to this petition.

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

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

[Interruption]

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: They have been advised already.

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

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Pearson?

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

[Applause]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said I'd better take a look at the settlement. Here it is. This is the settlement according to Hydroscope. It says: "Hydro, CUPE reach tentative agreement." Here's the tentative agreement you are so proud of: $65,000, already overpaid, 20% higher than any other average, 25% more employees than everybody else in the country needs to generate power. Here's what they get -- I guess you are talking about the 1%, 2%, and 2% program -- 1% in the first year and 2% in the second year on the basic wages. I suppose that is what you are referring to. They should be happy they've got a job.

They should be happy they weren't cut 20% both in staff and payroll and in numbers. They would've been happy, in fact, to take a cut to keep their jobs. But no, you think 1% and 2% is a good move for the highest-paid already in the province.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government has provided the infrastructure, the education system and the health care system there." It was a good place wherein to live, to work, to bring up a family, to educate your children. You and your predecessors since 1985 are destroying all of that.

You say you're going to establish an Ontario investment fund, voluntary investment by Ontario pension plans in the Ontario economy. We really are interested to see how this will work. You see, you've slipped in the word "voluntary," which we agree with. I guess what you're going to say to the public sector unions is this: "Look, we want you to invest. Have we got a deal for you. Take your pension money which you're counting on for retirement." The banks won't touch it, the trust companies won't touch it. Nobody else will lend them money. The venture capitals won't.

None of the business people, none of the bond agencies will. Nobody in the private sector will touch this. "But is it a good, safe place for you to put your pension money. Have we got a deal for you."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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