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

May 5, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Since the Treasurer tabled his budget last Thursday, needless to say our offices have been flooded with public response. I'd like to read into the record some of the comments we've received.

One businessperson in St Catharines believes that:

"The NDP budget extinguished any faith taxpayers might have had in looking to Bob Rae for fairness. The NDP's usurious personal tax rates will, no doubt, stifle any possibility of rekindling consumer confidence and further breach hopes for new business investment in what my customers tell me is an already 'too high cost to do business' belief about this province. Furthermore, the budget clearly demonstrates that the NDP's gambling initiative began with their 'fiddling' of the province's standard accounting practices: This amounts to no more than a 'shell game' foisted on the unsuspecting public."

A tremendous number of people have written or called us to express their views regarding this latest NDP budget. In the coming days we'll be bringing their message to this assembly so that their voices may be heard.

I would like to close with the following quote, which was made the other day and I think succinctly expresses what most people feel about this budget in Ontario. The person said, "I'm disgusted and can hardly wait until Ontarians get a chance to start to repair the damage" inflicted by this government.

COLLINGWOOD MUSEUM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My statement is directed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. As many members of this Legislature are aware, the models of ships which were on display in the east wing of this Legislative Building from January to April of this year were provided by the award-winning Collingwood Museum.

However, members may not be aware that the Minister of Culture and Communications is denying the Collingwood Museum several pieces of essential equipment which the museum needs in order to maintain the quality of its facility and displays.

Included in the Collingwood Museum's equipment list is a series of conservation temperature/humidity monitoring devices. These hydrothermographs have been identified as a priority item by the Ministry of Culture and Communications because of their value in helping to preserve museum artefacts.

To date, the Collingwood community has raised $11,000 towards the installation of hydrothermograph devices at its museum. During a time of recession, in an area that has been devastated by layoffs and plant closures, the community's commitment to the project is outstanding.

All the museum needs is for the NDP government to live up to its end of the bargain. I would urge Bugsy Rae and Blackjack Laughren to take a second look at this proposal and to start betting on sure things, like the Collingwood Museum.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In my riding of Cochrane North, many people are concerned about the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They believe the act must be updated to meet today's labour standards.

Almost 30 years ago, a monument was erected in the community of Reesor between Kapuskasing and Hearst. This monument commemorates three workers' deaths and six injuries from gunshot wounds. The fatal dispute occurred over the issue of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage.

Again last winter violence erupted in Hearst during a legal work stoppage when replacement workers were used to deliver wood to a sawmill. A large number of people were fearful of what might have happened if the situation had dragged on.

I have received over 600 letters from workers throughout my riding, especially in the Hearst-Kapuskasing area. In their letters they write that the OLRA must be updated to meet the labour standards which already exist in other jurisdictions. Many people in Cochrane North are concerned about the pain and suffering that drawn-out labour disputes bring to their communities. They don't want that history to continuously repeat itself over Ontario's outdated labour laws.

BUDGET

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): It is now clear that last week's budget was a blatant attempt by the NDP to cook its books in order to save its political hide. As many NDP members are already aware, this tax-grabbing, confidence-wrecking budget is nothing short of indefensible.

My caucus has invited the taxpayers of Ontario to tell us what they think of the budget. These are some of the responses:

"This budget is taxing away the middle class's initiative to work and create jobs."

From an owner of three small businesses we hear: "We have decided to close down one of our manufacturing branches, while the other two operations have had a reduction in personnel by 50%. These constant tax grabs and the unstable government have caused us to rethink our whole organization."

A retailer in Toronto states: "The budget is going to force more Ontarians to shop across the border. It is unacceptable -- their own tax commission recommended overall rate reduction."

A home owner from Toronto says: "Their strategy is wrong. We have to stimulate the economy. Creating new taxes will only hurt us. Sunday shopping should be allowed. The creation of casinos is abominable."

Responses from Mississauga are similar: "Surtaxes on income are a nearsighted and destructive approach to deficit management. This surtax will result in reducing expenditures for goods and services in Ontario at the very time when more spending and consumer confidence is needed."

Finally, a businessman from Toronto states: "Taxes on small business owners have reduced all incentive to remain in Ontario. We can't afford to live here. Please insist that the Provincial Auditor review all NDP manoeuvres."

This is just a small cross-section of the responses we received from real Ontarians. These are real people with real concerns who deserve more than the Treasurer and the NDP seem able to give.

MOOSE TAGS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I recently received your media advisory dated April 16 concerning your review of the allocation of moose tags within the tourism industry.

Your review is supposed to address concerns about the current system, including looking at ways of improving administration and communications; how new tourist outfitters can join the tag share program; how outfitters who are currently in the program can expand their operations, and looking at ways to lessen the impact on the tourism industry if moose tag quotas are reduced.

You are no doubt aware that tourist outfitters and individuals throughout Ontario welcomed your review of the moose tag allocation system when you first announced it two years ago. Hunters from all parts of Ontario welcomed the opportunity to provide input. However, your media advisory of April 16 indicates that you are only going to consult with a select few by holding meetings in Timmins, Sudbury, Wawa, Thunder Bay and Dryden.

You are snubbing the majority of individuals from southern Ontario who obtain moose tags each year by conducting your secret consultation meetings in select communities in northern Ontario. These people, the users, should be the most important. Get their input. It's important to hold meetings closer to the majority of the users. Am I mistaken in my assumption that you are a minister of the crown for all the people of Ontario? Or are you not?

TORONTO RIOT

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Since I was elected, downtown Toronto has become a second neighbourhood to me, but last night I didn't recognize it. Although there were more police in the area than I've ever seen, I didn't feel safe. Walking on the glass-strewn sidewalks, I sensed the mixed emotions of those around me: bitterness, bewilderment, excitement, sadness.

I think nearly everyone would agree we can't establish a community where events like these occur. When groups are shut out of society, however, we create the conditions for violence and destruction. Those of us responsible for the betterment of our communities must do all we can to fight the evil of discrimination.

This can be in the form of supporting initiatives of job creation so that no one in our society is unemployed. Employment equity programs must be put in place to guarantee that our workplaces reflect the makeup of our communities. I am pleased to see that the anti-racism advisory committee has been established by the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat.

Discrimination isn't just a big city problem; it exists everywhere in Ontario. Because of this, all members of this Legislature have a duty to work in their communities to remove the root causes of racism and other forms of discrimination. A discrimination-free society can be established once and for all. It requires accountable institutions, both private and public, that are sensitive to the wellbeing of all groups in our communities.

Last night's riot is only one event in a long history of incidents arising out of discrimination in Ontario. I believe, however, that our province also has strong traditions of tolerance, fairness and justice for all that will provide the basis for our creating a society worth celebrating.

KRISTEN FRENCH

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With deep sadness and a profound sense of loss, the people of St Catharines said farewell yesterday to Kristen French, a bright, vibrant, sensitive, caring young person whose plight has been uppermost in the minds and hearts of people in our community for the past fortnight.

Life seems so unfair when a kind, gracious, innocent girl is taken from her family, her friends and her colleagues at school, in broad daylight in a church parking lot in the midst of a residential subdivision. The sense of vulnerability for women of all ages cannot be made more acute than by the bold, calculating, cruel kidnapping of a girl on her way home from school in her own neighbourhood.

A violent act perpetrated upon an individual in our society is a violent act against all of society, a fact not lost on the community, which has responded overwhelmingly to the tragedy which has befallen the family of Kristen French. Attitudes and actions which breed individuals who prey upon the vulnerable must be reversed. Violence against women, young and old, under whatever pretext, must not be tolerated.

The enactment and enforcement of laws to deal with violent crime must reflect the revulsion of our society against such crimes. It is not an issue which can be avoided, delayed or debated endlessly. It must be addressed now and it must be addressed with commitment and determination. We owe it to Kristen French.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): This week is Education Week in Ontario. Schools, teachers and students across the province will be celebrating in many different ways. We should all remember that schools are open to the public every day, not only during Education Week. For this special week, all aspects of education will be displayed through artwork, creative writing, science projects, musical performances and career nights.

In London, students will be bringing education to the community by showing their projects in local malls and inviting families and friends to join them in their classrooms to experience the quality of programs their children are involved in.

As the member for London North and a former school board trustee who was and still is actively involved with students and educators in our community, I'm very proud of our schools and am encouraged to see the amount of public interest we have in our school system as well as the amount of support so many parents give to their children's education.

It's very important for government, business, labour and communities to work with our students, who will be our next leaders in an increasingly competitive global economy. We must ensure that education is a priority with this government and that the quality of education is not jeopardized in light of the recent transfer payments. Students deserve the training and opportunities that were made available to us. This can only happen with a commitment to major changes in the delivery of technological training and apprenticeship programs. What we need is the political will to get on with it.

ENVIRO FUEL

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I bring some good news from the investment world to the Legislature. In my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and in the township of Ernestown, as recently as last Friday myself and some other dignitaries cut the ribbon on the opening of Enviro Fuel. Konrad Sigurdsson and Perake Persson came to my office several months ago looking for assistance from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of the Environment, and after some negotiations were finally given the go-ahead to open up their Enviro Fuel.

Enviro Fuel is the official name of their company, and what it does is take basically unusable, wasted motor oil and redistil it through a process that turns it back into No 1 fuel oil. I want to say this is particularly important for a number of reasons. First of all, they chose Canada and not the United States to invest in. It's going to employ about 15 people, it's an environmentally sound process and it most certainly has the potential for growth in the future. I wish Enviro Fuel every success in the future, and I expect it will be very successful.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 65 and also under "Privilege" under standing order 21, I'd like to get some direction from the Speaker. Today I was given by the government 199 amendments to Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110. These are significant bills, and, for the record, we have in our party tried to be as constructive as possible in dealing with these pieces of legislation.

However, it's becoming somewhat questionable, if these amendments should become part of these bills, whether the bill we passed on second reading in this Legislature is in fact representative of the final piece of legislation we may consider in committee of the whole House and on third reading.

Also, in terms of the privileges with regard to members of this Legislature, we would like to think that the parties which appeared before the committee would have full knowledge of what the government's intentions are with regard to this legislation as we go through the process. We had four weeks of hearings in the committee on these particular bills. Through these 199 amendments the bills have been substantially altered from what they were when they were first presented to this Legislature and presented to the public. It's my understanding it's the government's intention to proceed with the clause-by-clause analysis of these bills in three to four weeks without further public hearings.

Mr Speaker, I'd like you to consider, and under advisement because it's not an urgent matter, whether it's out of order for the government to carry on with legislation when there are substantial amendments that basically rip apart the original bill and the basis upon which this Legislature gave approval for second reading of this legislation.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I wish to rise in support, in some ways, of the honourable member for Carleton, although I would like to note, when you're taking this issue under advisement, that a large number of amendments by themselves are not defeating of the purpose of the original legislation. During the minority legislatures we have always found that government bills were not universally acceptable and as a result a number of changes had to be made. It included in fact, during my stay as Minister of Health, Bills 54 and 55. When we finished with those in clause-by-clause, it turned out that the bills were substantially changed.

Having taken that as part of your reflection with respect to this particular request, I think the problem can be cured. In fact, we've discussed it in caucus. I was prepared to go to the meeting of House leaders on Thursday and try and work out some understanding, perhaps a possibility of an extended time for consultation or reconsultation. I think that perhaps there is an avenue there to cure, at least partially, the defect.

I also would like to note that our critic, the member for Halton Centre, has already widely distributed the amendments. I presume that the government likewise has widely distributed the amendments. But I think in terms of the record you probably would want to deliberate on whether it would be within parliamentary tradition to have at least a rehearing of some of the issues being dealt with by the amendments.

Two points: First, if the amendments are to be accepted and not seen as out of order, we should probably go through committee time for rehearing. Second, just because of number, that does not, in my view, necessarily defeat the purpose of the bill. It would seem to be much more reasonable under the circumstances, in dealing with the importance of the nature of these bills, that a rehearing of the public interest groups should proceed. I think that obviously the House leader for the government would probably be open to some discussion on that point.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, very briefly, I think the suggestion that's been made by the House leader for the official opposition is a constructive one. We can talk about it Thursday, outside of any deliberations you might want to have on the issue. While 199 amendments are a lot of amendments, I gather from the public hearings that have already occurred on this legislation that there was a lot of input and a lot of support for the direction, but a lot of concerns have resulted in amendments.

The ministers and the government were listening to that input, but it is difficult with 199 amendments. I'd certainly be willing to work with the opposition House leaders to try to sort out how we deal with this in a responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Carleton, the House leader for the official opposition and the government House leader, first may I say I appreciate the fact that the member has raised this important issue in the chamber. It's my understanding that this matter is currently before the standing committee on administration of justice. The most appropriate course of action to follow would be for any member of that committee to raise these points with the Chair and allow the Chair the opportunity to reflect on it and decide whether the amendments are in order.

Finally, I certainly appreciate the atmosphere of cooperation that seems to be evident in the chamber this afternoon. Perhaps that will spill over into question period.

Mr Elston: Just as another point of interest, Mr Speaker, I understand that you wish to have the Chair of the committee take these items under advisement. It is my view that when the deliberation is held, after we've had our discussions obviously, there not be a request to ask whether each of the individual amendments is in order but a consideration of the package.

That is because in the committee, as I understand it, there really is no avenue for someone to raise the point that all the amendments taken as a package result in a series of amendments that are together out of order, but as you take them under advisement, one at a time, it might very easily be said, "This one is in order, this one is in order," and in the end come up with a result which probably may not be exactly correct.

The Speaker: I hate to suggest that at some point this matter will not find its way back to this chamber, but indicate that the first and most appropriate way to proceed would be to raise it in the committee.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I rise this afternoon to declare May as Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This action by our government is directed towards changing those attitudes that promote sexual assault, a crime that fundamentally alters the lives of countless women and children.

As minister responsible for women's issues, I announced at a news conference earlier today the highlights of our government's public education campaign. This year we want Ontario to know that any sexual act without consent is sexual assault and is against the law.

Although our understanding of what constitutes sexual assault is better than it was five years ago, the incidence of sexual assault has not decreased. Clearly, a better understanding of this crime must be accompanied by a change in attitudes. Unless we change our attitudes, we cannot hope to change our behaviour.

Sexual assault is any unwanted act of a sexual nature imposed by one person upon another. This includes unwanted kissing and touching, sexual harassment in the workplace and actual rape, either by someone we do or do not know. Sometimes these actions culminate in the victim's death. All of us in this House are deeply saddened by the tragic death of young Kristen French, the most recent victim of murderous sexual assault.

The terrible reality of our society is that one in four women in Canada will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, most likely by someone she knows.

The very fear of sexual assault affects women's lives in serious ways. For example, this fear can hamper a woman's ability to support herself. Some of us decline shift work or opt out of night school courses because we're afraid to travel after dark. Many graduate students jeopardize their chances at advanced research opportunities because they do not feel safe in the labs or libraries of our institutions during extended hours in the evening or on weekends.

The spectre of sexual assault also affects our social lives. Women hesitate to go out alone or to travel freely around our own city, our province and our country.

I am not exaggerating the fear that women feel. In a national poll conducted last year, 50% of Canadian women said, "We are afraid to go out in our own neighbourhoods after dark."

Our fears are well founded. Victims who report sexual assault are physically injured in at least 60% of cases. Of these, at least 20% are hurt seriously enough to require medical attention for bruises, lacerations and fractures.

Often, too, psychological and long-term health problems are the direct results of sexual assault. Depression, nightmares, erratic mood swings, eating disorders, anxiety, flashbacks and self-destructive impulses are among the frequent aftershocks endured by survivors of sexual assault.

Imagine how much more frightening and debilitating sexual assault is for young children, elderly women and women with disabilities. For these victims, already disadvantaged and disempowered by our attitudes towards age and different abilities, the effects of sexual assault are even more devastating.

For all these reasons, sexual assault poses a major barrier to women's equality. Sexual assault is a crime of power, not passion. It is a means of exerting control, not expressing love. It is unjust, it is illegal and, in the view of this government, it is intolerable.

Some people have trivialized the issue of consent by suggesting that men will have to sign contracts or call their lawyers before engaging in sexual activity. We are simply saying that men have the obligation to believe what women tell them, either by words or actions, when it comes to sexual contact.

Key components of this campaign, a first for Sexual Assault Prevention Month, are candid radio commercials aimed at teenagers. It is tragic that 50% of all sexual assaults happen to women 17 years of age or younger. While it is estimated that fewer than 10% of sexual assaults are ever reported, that figure drops to fewer than 1% where date and acquaintance rapes are concerned. Tomorrow I'll be joining students at Northern Secondary School here in Toronto to launch these radio messages, as well as to hear about how young people are working in their own ways to challenge sexual violence among their peers.

Besides forging a new partnership with young people, this year's campaign enjoys a strong partnership with our communities. This government has awarded grants totalling $210,000 to 102 community groups throughout Ontario for local awareness projects.

Let me share a few examples: The Grimsby-Lincoln Association for Community Living will hold a workshop about sexual assault for women with developmental disabilities; the Silayan Filipino Community Centre in Toronto is sponsoring an information and awareness campaign about sexual assault for the Filipino community; l'Association des femmes noires de l'Ontario is organizing workshops to educate young black francophone women about date rape and sexual harassment, and the Batchewana First Nation of Ojibway in Sault Ste Marie will conduct workshops for teenagers on three reserves.

Of course, Sexual Assault Prevention Month is only one facet of our commitment to the challenge of violence against women. Since 1990, Ontario has almost tripled its support for initiatives against sexual assault, to $17 million a year. Over $8 million is new funding to enhance services for immigrant, racial minority, native and francophone women and women with disabilities. Twenty ministries and agencies, along with countless community workers and volunteers, are helping us to ensure that women receive the most effective response from our crisis services, our counselling efforts, our justice system and our prevention initiatives.

Our related programs on wife assault prevention continue to be funded at a record level of $71 million per year. By 1994, the sexual assault and wife assault prevention initiatives will be integrated into a strategy to address all forms of violence against women.

But public education offers us the greatest hope for lasting change. After last November's campaign against wife abuse, for example, 72% of the men surveyed said they had been influenced to take responsibility not only for their own violent actions but for naming and working against the violence of other men too.

The media also deserve credit for their efforts to identify the prevalence of the circumstances under which this violence occurs, as well as to monitor the response of the criminal justice and social services systems to these crimes. This means the very sources through which we learn that yet another woman or child has fallen victim to yet another crime of sexual assault can also be used to raise our consciousness and thereby reduce sexual assault. Television, radio and newspapers need not simply report this crime; they can also help stop it by pointing out the effects of sexual assault and by detailing the sanctions applied against convicted offenders.

Stopping the crime of sexual assault is essential to achieving equality for women. We must ensure that everyone in Ontario understands that any sexual act without consent is sexual assault and is against the law.

TORONTO RIOT

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I would like to make a statement with respect to last evening's events here in the city of Toronto in the downtown area.

I share the concern over these very unfortunate events that took place last evening. I found these matters personally very disturbing and certainly frustrating. I want to convey my belief, though, that for many people these events began as a peaceful demonstration of some rather heartfelt frustration.

The event began as a peaceful demonstration about 4 pm yesterday at the United States consulate. The demonstration then moved to the Metropolitan Toronto Police headquarters. Following this, there was a sit-down demonstration at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets. The demonstrators then moved from there to the old city hall. A number of speeches were made and the demonstration basically concluded at that point. Most demonstrators left at that point and the remaining crowd of some 300 consisted mainly of vandals.

It was then that eggs and bottles were thrown and a number of windows were smashed and indeed broken. That crowd then began to move farther up Yonge Street, with incidents of looting and broken windows.

Police reports also indicated that Molotov cocktails were being thrown and that there was a large degree of disorder, but in fact by 9 pm the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force had, in the main, restored control. Between 9:30 pm and 12 there continued to be sporadic incidents, but not of the sort earlier in the day. During this same evening about 200 stores were vandalized. Additionally, 37 officers sustained some injuries. Other civilians also sustained minor injuries. There were some 32 arrests made by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

These disturbances are condoned by no one, especially not members of this government and, I know, no member of this House.

I want to acknowledge as well the many people who were involved in the efforts to control the situation.

As well, there was considerable damage inflicted upon many stores. I am sympathetic to the plight of those particular shopkeepers, but the police, I believe, were effective in controlling this volatile situation and protecting the right to demonstrate peacefully. They acted in a very professional manner. I believe the police service rightfully recognized that a large show of force at the beginning would probably only have inflamed an already difficult situation.

I want to say as well that the police were assisted by a number of solid members of the community who helped in a variety of ways and came forward. Other responsible members of the community assisted police officers, the media and others who were or found themselves in the most difficult circumstances.

I personally monitored this situation all evening. I received constant updates from my policing services division for Metro. I offered the assistance and support of my ministry to the Metropolitan Toronto authorities to help them contain the situation if it became necessary. I personally spoke to Metro Chairman Alan Tonks and Toronto Mayor June Rowlands. I took the situation extremely seriously and I continue to take the circumstance very seriously.

I want to share with the House as well that this morning I met with the chair of the police services board, Susan Eng, as well as the Metropolitan Toronto chief of police, William McCormack, and the deputy chief, Peter Scott, who was in charge of operations last evening. Considering the professional performance of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force last night in minimizing injury and preventing escalation, I have every confidence in the ability of our police force to handle these types of difficult situations.

Finally, I want to conclude by saying that we live, as we all know, in a multicultural society, and it is important that we all work hard to ensure that all services provided by our society take that reality into account. This government is committed to ensuring that this is a reality in Ontario. However, I would like to point out that vandalism is not to be mistaken for constructive protest in this city or in this province or in this country.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Race Relations): I too would like to rise and speak on the events that occurred last night, and mainly to talk about why they occurred and why people are feeling so frustrated and anxious about the situation.

We heard comments from all sides of the House yesterday about the feeling of frustration people had, and I think my colleague from the official opposition expressed very clearly his own personal experience and how he felt about his children. I think we all as legislators feel concerned that people in our society are not feeling a part of the whole society.

We also must recognize that we as legislators must be concerned and that we must act and we must act now. The frustration we all face and share cannot happen and cannot continue to happen. We must develop strategies and we must provide solutions to the problem, and I know all of us want to work towards that end.

Through our ministry, through the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat, we will continue this week to work closely with groups and organizations across the province and particularly in Toronto. This June, another phase will be developed with $350,000 being available for community-based anti-racism projects across Ontario; however, with special emphasis to be placed on the greater Toronto area to work with multi-ethnic and multiracial groups.

We will also have a very broad-based public education campaign that will be put into effect to educate individuals and institutions about systemic discrimination and to address the solutions. Secretariat staff will be assigned to work with community groups to address and support their needs.

The Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Working Group, which is made up of 18 men and women from all areas of the province from all racial backgrounds, will continue to help and assist the government to implement our various solutions to the problem. For example, the advisory group will assist in the development of the Ontario anti-racism policy. This policy will cover all sectors of Ontario society: business, labour, the broader public sector and of course the Ontario public service.

These are short-term strategies that are necessary and must be put into effect as soon as possible. This government knows many communities in Ontario want action and direction. This government is prepared to act and to respond now.

Fighting racism is not easy. It's an insidious disease which is manifested in so many different ways. Institutional racism is what keeps people excluded and powerless. People's dreams and aspirations are destroyed. The loss is to all of Ontario society and it is overwhelming. But we have to be vigilant in battling this terrible scourge.

We know Ontario benefits from its multicultural, multiracial diversity. It is a unique province and Toronto is a unique community. We cannot afford to let anything divide or separate our people in any way. Our strength is our people and our strength is in our culture and racial diversity.

I invite all members of this House to be united in combating racism in our society and I know I will get the support of all members of this House.

RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The Liberal caucus welcomes the announcement today by the minister responsible for women's issues. It is particularly fitting that she is launching this campaign during Education Week. Her timing could not be better, because that's what it's all about, educating people, young people in particular, and changing ideas, attitudes and behaviour. The message that this new campaign is trying to send out is an important one. It's about time that the often tragically misunderstood concept of consent be tackled and clarified.

As the mother of a 14-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old son, one thing is clear to me. Young women have to realize that they have a right to say no and not feel guilty, and young men have to know that they have an obligation to really listen to what women are telling them.

As the member for St Catharines so eloquently said earlier, we must, as a society, address the issue of violence towards women. We owe it to Kristen French.

TORONTO RIOT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday members from all three parties, with unanimous consent, addressed an issue of significant concern to all members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario. At that time there were eloquent and heartfelt speeches made about systemic problems facing members of the black community in Toronto.

Today I rise to respond to the statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and the Solicitor General. I would first like to say, in agreement with the Solicitor General, that none of us condone the vandalism and destruction carried out last night by a small group of individuals, and we appreciate the clarifying statement the minister has provided.

Clearly this was not the planned outcome of what began as a peaceful demonstration. To that end, we join in applauding the efforts made by demonstration organizers and others to try to stop this unacceptable destruction. At the same time, it is very important that we commend the police for their restraint and professional work under incredibly difficult circumstances.

Now is not the time to enter into unhelpful rhetoric. However, I believe it is also important we recognize that for some members of our society, the system still does not work. This includes fair access to justice and to education, and the ability of individuals to get jobs. As legislators, we have a responsibility to work together to ensure that those who feel excluded from our society can be more fully brought into the system.

It is not good enough for us to say that the system has mechanisms which are designed to address the alienation we all know exists. It is not enough to say that we have a Human Rights Commission, an Anti-Racism Secretariat or a special investigations unit if these institutions do not work effectively. Ultimately we will have to make the changes that will make these institutions work. To that end, I once again stress the willingness to work with everyone in a manner that will provide real solutions to these complex problems.

Whatever occurred last night, we know there are tensions and underlying frustrations which must be addressed. I believe a starting point to the development of real solutions to what we have discussed today would be for the leaders of all three parties to meet. Our objective would be and our objective must be to seek in a non-partisan way an understanding of the complexity of what occurred last night and an understanding of how we can all best respond to both the immediate concerns and the long-term needs.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In the one minute I have, I'm taking this opportunity to commend both ministers for acting upon this initiative. I must express my disappointment, though. I had hoped that the Solicitor General, when he met with the chief, would call us. We had expressed the thought that this is not a partisan issue and that all legislators here would be willing, and I as the critic for the Solicitor General would have been willing, to meet with the chief at that time and to give our five cents' worth of what it would be.

Also, with the other minister, I was disappointed with the fact that all we have seen here are the old platitudes being offered again. We have to come up with more creative ideas and stop throwing money at it and feeling that we have solved this issue. This is much deeper. This is not a police issue against blacks, as all of you have said so very well. This issue is very deep, and we must be more creative in our approach to this.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to express our regret in respect to the events last evening in downtown Toronto. They certainly are not representative of any group in Metropolitan Toronto society. We sincerely believe that.

The Solicitor General, in his comments, used the word "unfortunate," and regrettably I believe I have to comment on what I believe were the Premier's unfortunate comments on the weekend, which, to be generous, were not helpful in respect to the situation. The Premier seems intent on legitimizing the completely baseless charge that Metro Toronto police are racist. No doubt there are bad apples in every barrel, but there is not a shred of evidence that there was any racial motive in the police actions last weekend.

It is high time the Premier stopped casting sly aspersions on the integrity of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. The Premier spoke, over the weekend, almost entirely about alleged racism and not at all about the evils of drug-dealing, winning back our neighbourhoods and the dangers police face on a daily basis. Premier, instead of running to the media, I urge you to work with the other two parties in this house to begin a healing process to bring all groups in society together.

Finally, I want to express our party's hope that the government will do whatever is necessary to assist the Metropolitan Toronto Police, including the deployment of OPP officers, if necessary, to ensure that the demonstrations this Thursday and Saturday do not jeopardize public safety.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): One doesn't know whether to call it racial or whether it's public safety or what it is. All I know is the depth of the concern of everyone who saw what happened in Metro Toronto last night. They are stopped in their boots and they are shaking with a sense of fear about what has gone on and about the breakdown that's going on within our society.

The respect that is needed for oneself to be able to believe in oneself, the respect for one's neighbour, the respect for property, the respect for law and order, the respect for the things that make our society strong is what this is all about. If that's racism, let's call it racism, but it has to do with the deep, fundamental needs of our society. We and our party and the people in society are pleading for all of us to find ways to work together to make this a better place to live.

I can only say that if we as a party and as a people are going to allow poverty to continue, if we are going to allow people not to get an education and if we are going to allow a city not to have the respect for the things that keep it together, then we as a society will have failed our youth, our seniors and all that we represent. This is not a happy moment, and I'm coming to Pogo -- I get confused with the way he said it -- who said, "I've seen the enemy and them is us."

We all bear a sense of responsibility for what goes on in our society. I don't want to see us pointing a finger, but let's at least point with respect to the people who make this society whole and good -- respect for our leaders -- and may we continue to have that. When people within our society who lead a parade or who lead something lose something of that, then our society loses as well.

I thank Mr Runciman for his remarks, and I thank all members of this house for a sense of purpose. May we find it and may we work towards it and may we not be casual in any way.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Our party certainly supports the direction taken by the government in its attempt to change attitudes that promote sexual assault. I can assure you that women do live in fear of sexual assault and that it certainly does affect our daily lives. However, I'm very concerned about the fact, and it's been pointed out here, that 50% of all sexual assaults happen to women 17 years of age and younger. I'm very concerned, although we do everything possible to publicize -- posters, buttons and toll-free numbers, and they get fancier each year -- that there are no services available for these young people.

I'd like to read from a letter I received from a mother in this province, where she indicates to me: "My daughter has been emotionally and sexually abused. I tried to get help and counselling for her when she was 15. I could get no help. Now, at 20, we looked for treatment and found to our dismay there was nothing available. We consulted our doctor, who suggested we might be able to be referred to a psychotherapist seven months away. I am very concerned that this government talks about the need to change attitudes but is not making a commitment to these young people under 17."

I would suggest that you do everything possible, Madam Minister --

The Speaker: To the member for Waterloo North, it is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, as you have noted, in the order of business of the House it is now time to move to questions and to our role of holding the government accountable. It is important for us to move to our continued concerns about the direction set out by the government in its budget and the impact of those directions on the people of the province. I would ask the question of the Premier, although I recognize he may wish to refer it to the Treasurer.

Having said that, there is no question that last night's events bring into focus the need to address the root concerns of many, many people in the province of Ontario as well as in the city of Toronto. Jobs are obviously a major worry of everyone in the province these days, perhaps especially among younger people. In Toronto and across Ontario, 18% of all young people between the ages of 15 and 24 do not have jobs. I would ask the Premier if he can tell this House why his government and its budget appear to be doing virtually nothing to address the serious problem of jobless youth.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I take some exception to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to what we are doing on jobs. We have created three separate funds which are intended to direct attention to the jobs question. We have the Jobs Ontario training fund, the Jobs Ontario capital fund and the Jobs Ontario homes fund. We also have the views, I can tell the member, of a great many people in the business community with respect to the impact of the changes we've made to the tax system and the impact that is going to have on new investment in the economy.

I can tell you, with regard to the jobs question, with regard to the training question and with regard to the increases in the budget of the Ministry of Skills Development, we are going to be spending more next year, nearly $1 billion in the skills development budget alone, with respect to new training programs in cooperation with the federal government. So together with the federal government, we are going to be spending more on training, retraining and apprenticeship programs than at any time in the province's history, an achievement of which I'm very proud.

Mrs McLeod: Predictably, the Premier, in responding to the question, has identified what the budget identified and that is the job creation funds identified in the budget, two of those funds being capital funds. The reality seems to be, however, that the government is spending exactly the same amount on capital projects this year -- $3.9 billion -- as the government did last year. So it would seem to us that the government is simply supporting existing jobs, that there are no new jobs being created in the government's capital spending program.

I would ask the Premier whether he would not agree, simply in confirming what is stated in the budget, that the capital accounts in this budget are not creating any new jobs; they are simply supporting existing ones.

Hon Mr Rae: I am not going to allow the Leader of the Opposition to get away with that, because it simply isn't the case. With respect to the base capital funding of $3.4 billion, that is intended to create 67,000 jobs; the homes fund 2,400 jobs; the strategic capital fund 9,800 jobs, and the training fund 10,800 jobs, in addition to the child care spaces.

Mr Speaker, let me also point out to you, and I think the member slipped over this in her question, that we are adding $6 million to apprenticeship training to assist youth, women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and others who are underrepresented. The joint Ontario-federal government labour force development agreement this year is worth more than $1.6 billion. That is the most substantial investment that the two governments have ever made in training and apprenticeship in the history of the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: We will ask questions about the government's training program and we'll look forward to the same answers about training programs being provided when we ask questions on that subject. Our concern today, and I believe it is the concern of thousands and thousands of people in this province, is what the government is going to do to create jobs or even to maintain existing jobs.

The Premier, in his first answer, referenced the fact that there are some tax relief measures. However, the tax relief measures, particularly on the corporate side, as somebody has recently said to me, don't make a lot of difference if you're not making money anyway. In any event, they don't come into play until 1993. It doesn't help very much the corporations which are currently trying to stay alive.

This year, according to the government's own budget, it expects employment and job creation to grow by only 0.3%. We are also aware that you'll lose one job for every $40,000 in extra taxes. To us that seems to mean that this budget will kill 25,000 jobs this year. I ask the Premier, why has his government put in place new tax increases which will kill jobs when what clearly was needed was to create jobs instead? I wonder if the Premier can tell us what will be the impact, in the loss of jobs, of those tax increases.

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that to describe her numbers as voodoo would be to pay her a compliment in regard to the impact of the numbers.

Let's hear from those people in the private sector that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the third party and the Treasurer are all agreed are going to be the critical factors in creating new jobs.

Don McIver from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto said, "The federal and provincial tax rates on manufacturing appear to be lower than in the United States." That's a big boost in terms of competitiveness.

The chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade said, "I think some of the initiatives may give business more confidence."

The director of taxation for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said, "I feel so much more positive now than I did before the budget."

These are the people who are going to be encouraging the economy and creating jobs in the economy. I'm relying more on them than I am on the doom and gloom from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: We of course recognize that some of the initial response to the government came before people had an opportunity to really examine the numbers. If the Premier wants to describe the numbers I'm using as voodoo numbers, I simply refer him back to his own budget for the source of the voodoo.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Since the Premier wants to talk about training and I want to talk about jobs, perhaps I can take him back to the other plank in this supposedly job-creating budget. I'd like to talk about the 10,800 jobs in the government's training strategy. These are jobs intended for social assistance recipients, to help them get back into the workplace, but the very premise of this training credit scheme is that the private sector will have vacant positions available.

With the Treasurer taking another $1 billion out of the hands of consumers who would hopefully lead us out of the recession, can the Premier tell us how he expects the private sector to create those jobs for the social assistance recipients to move into? Does he really expect that a $1,000 one-year-only training credit is going to be enough to encourage people to hire when they are not now hiring?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer that question to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Unlike the leader of the official opposition, we don't draw or make the phoney distinction between training and jobs that the leader of the official opposition seems to make. We believe that there is indeed a very strong link between the need to provide people with training and, quite frankly, retraining so that people develop a real and permanent attachment to the workforce and don't simply engage in make-work projects the way governments of the past have done. We are determined to continue to put money into training so that when people do get into the workforce they will be prepared and have the skills to stay there.

The leader of the official opposition, as part of her question, asked, why will the private sector take advantage of such an offer? It seems to me that the private sector understands very well that it is in its best interests as well to have as part of its workforce well-trained people, both new people it hires -- keep in mind that the training credits that are going to be offered to the private sector will be used, if it chooses to do so, to retrain people who are already in its workforce. This is a unique program which trains new employees and also retrains existing employees.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Treasurer conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Why wouldn't the private sector be anxious to take us up on that kind of offer?

Mrs McLeod: I don't know how the Treasurer can possibly say that there is not some distinction between training and jobs. All you have to do is talk to the men and women who have already gone back to school to take retraining programs, hoping they get a new start, and now they're out there applying for jobs that just don't exist.

It clearly says in the budget that the Treasurer's training program is dependent upon private sector employers being prepared to create a position which does not now exist. We simply don't know how that training scheme is going to be supported by an economy that is already in difficulty. I wonder further what the unemployed men and women of this province can find in this budget to encourage them. These people are desperate for some glimmer of hope.

The reality is that 609,000 people are out of work, 209,000 more than when this government took office in September 1990. This means that jobs are disappearing at a rate of more than 500 a day since this government took office. Even if the government's able to find 10,000 businesses willing to create a position out of its Jobs Ontario training strategy for a few of the million on social assistance, those 10,000 positions will account for 20 days of job losses. It offers nothing to the 609,000 unemployed people in the province.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mrs McLeod: I simply ask the Treasurer this: What can he point to in his budget that will lead to the creation of long-term permanent jobs in the private sector for the 609,000 people currently unemployed in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: For I think the first time in the history of this province we have established a strategic capital fund that's going to help provide funding in strategic industries so that we do not make the mistakes of the past and for ever offer short-term, sweeping-the-floor kinds of jobs for people in government programs. We are determined to make sure that taxpayers' money is invested in long-term, high value added jobs. That's the reason there's a child care component to our proposals and there's such a strong training component to our job programs.

I think what the leader of the official opposition doesn't seem to understand is that what she's asking for is exactly what this government is doing.

Mrs McLeod: I keep trying to find ways of helping the Treasurer to focus in his answers on the real price people are paying out there in our communities. The fact remains that there are 609,000 Ontarians out of work. Let me take a somewhat different approach to the question.

There are colleges and universities students who this spring are going to be graduating after many years of study and work, and tens of thousands of high school students are going to be attempting to enter the workforce. The sad reality is that these high school graduates and university and college graduates simply won't find that they have jobs to go to. I suppose the simple advice might be to hide in school for another year, but the Treasurer's hardheaded approach in that regard has made that impractical too. With drastic cuts to student assistance, that puts post-secondary education opportunities even more out of reach.

If the Treasurer is not prepared to make post-secondary education accessible and he's not prepared to let the private sector create jobs, just what advice does he provide to those thousands of young people leaving school this spring and trying to enter the workforce?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are finally reaching the point in this recession where most objective observers are saying we're starting to come out of it; there is hope on the horizon.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I can tell the members opposite that the recession is not restricted to Ontario. It's not restricted to Canada. It's in the United States as well. I do understand that the official opposition has a responsibility to try to pick holes in the budget; that's its job. I've done it from time to time in the past. But she does seem to be the only person out there in Ontario who doesn't now think there's more hope than there is despair. I would ask her to get with it and join the majority of this province.

TORONTO RIOT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last night Toronto experienced rioting and vandalism that many Ontarians, many Torontonians, many of us thought couldn't happen here. I think we must make an important distinction between the peaceful protest that was held yesterday afternoon and the reality of last evening. However, I don't believe we can deny that the demonstration that was scheduled for yesterday did in fact become a forum for every hooligan who felt like throwing a Molotov cocktail or breaking windows or looting.

Given that reality, Premier, could you inform this House if you have since last night spoken with the organizers of yesterday's demonstration about their thoughts on this and how last night and the results of last night might impact on their plans for the type of further demonstrations they may wish to make in a very legitimate way, as they are entitled to do? Premier, have you discussed this with the organizers of the rally yesterday?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have had a couple of conversations with members of the black community, and to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know whether or not they were involved or could be considered to be organizers of the peaceful demonstration yesterday afternoon. I've had meetings with a number of people over the last few days and spoken to a few people on the phone with respect to what happened last night and with respect to the feelings in the community.

All I can tell the honourable member is that members of any community are free to peacefully assemble; that right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. But that does not in any way, shape or form mean we condone any kind of vandalism or any kind of violence or anything of that sort. I've made that very clear. The Solicitor General has made that very clear today.

But I think, in fairness to members of the community and members of different communities who feel strongly about their rights to speak their minds with respect to public policy, we have to make that distinction and we must not assume that every peaceful assembly will necessarily lead to or contribute to

an act of violence or hooliganism or vandalism. It's very important for us to make this distinction, because it's an important distinction in fact as well as an important distinction in law.

I would take this opportunity, and I hope the leader of the third party will allow me to do so, to express my profound hope that anyone who is exercising his or her peaceful right of assembly would exercise that right with a sense of understanding and with a sense of responsibility, and I'm sure that's exactly what people are going to do in our society.

Mr Harris: There are different forms of peaceful right of assembly. There are different forms of protesting actions, injustices, and I'm not questioning that right and I'm not questioning the injustice we talked about yesterday in this Legislature as needing to be addressed.

What I am suggesting, Premier, is that I believe there is a role for you or one of the senior members of your government in communicating with and discussing with the organizers of the rally yesterday, and potential organizers, I understand, of rallies now on Thursday and on Saturday, to see if we cannot come to some agreement with them and some accommodation and some understanding of other forms of protest than the one we saw on Thursday. I suggest, Premier, and ask and implore -- I guess I'm asking you to do that.

Given the reality of what happened yesterday, that the form of protest yesterday, of assembly, I suggest to you -- I'm sure not with the intent of the organizers -- ended up being a lightning rod for actions that none of us condone, including I'm sure the organizers of the protest yesterday --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: Given that reality, Premier, would you not agree with me that there is a role for you as Premier or for a senior member of your government in trying to work with the black community in Toronto to make sure the protest is one that is less likely to spark this kind of reaction?

Hon Mr Rae: I certainly think it's important for members of this government, including the Premier -- I met with people on Sunday. I met with my staff on Saturday afternoon in my office when I heard of the original shooting incident because of the concern I had with respect to the situation. I had a very quickly arranged meeting at noon on Sunday with a number of individuals from the black community, attended as well by some people from my office and from other ministries. I continued to talk by phone yesterday, last night and today about the situation.

I think it's important, however, for us to stop short of saying it's going to be the Premier of the province who is going to suggest to people whether or not they are going to congregate, if that's what they decide to do. I think that's something which goes a step beyond what is appropriate.

What is certainly appropriate is for me to say, both in private conversation and publicly, that we recognize fully people's rights to peaceful assembly. In no way, shape or form is that to be confused in any way with hooliganism, vandalism, the breaking of windows, the destruction of property or anything else. If I may say so, I think it's been very clear from the comments that have been made by those who were associated with the beginning of the demonstration last night that they share that view. I think they've made it very clear that they do not see the peaceful protest as in any way sanctioning or condoning or approving of the deplorable vandalism which took place afterwards.

Mr Harris: I agree with you that they did not see it that way and they are not condoning it, but, Premier, surely you would agree with me that that was the net result. There was some spark that set off the rioting and the looting. It didn't start on Saturday or Sunday; it started after this peaceful assembly, which is their right to do.

Given that these are particularly delicate times, given that the protests are made to make sure that we as legislators, you as Premier, the Solicitor General, the police, the mayor, the regional chairman, those in some position to help change the attitudes they want changed -- that's the reason, I believe, for the protest, the demonstration.

Do you not believe, given these times, given what happened yesterday, you could meet with the organizers and potential organizers of similar protests for Thursday and Saturday and indicate to them that there are other ways to protest that will have a significant impact on you -- that you're listening, that you're hearing -- without a repeat of the hooliganism and the violence we saw last night in Toronto's streets?

I would ask you for that reason: If you believe, and I don't think you do, that it would have happened last night without something to precipitate it -- very regrettably; that was not the intent -- but given that it did, ought not we do everything we can to ensure that there are other, more peaceful ways to express the opinions that wish to be expressed?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't want to be argumentative, because this is such a sensitive subject and such a difficult one. But I do want to say to the honourable member I think he should be very careful about the fact that there was a group of people assembling together and his making the assertion that this is somehow a necessary link to the events that took place on Yonge Street. There may have been many other events which intervened between those two events of which neither he nor I are aware. I have to be very careful in reaching those conclusions he is drawing.

All I can tell the honourable member is that of course the members of this government will continue to work with all the members of our society, with all members of all communities with regard to what is going on. We will be doing whatever we can to try to ensure that however it is that people choose to express themselves, it will be done in a way that is peaceful and in a way that fully respects the rights of others. That is something I am very much committed to doing.

Mr Harris: Premier, if there is one remote possibility that there is a possible link, wouldn't it be worthwhile initiating the first move to discuss this?

INCOME TAX

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the Premier. Yesterday you told this House, and in your budget you told this House, that someone earning $53,000 a year is well off. I'd like to ask you about Carmen, the 40-year-old single mother of a 16-year-old son. Carmen is a South American immigrant who just recently proudly became a Canadian citizen. As an assistant bank manager in Toronto, Carmen earns $53,206 a year. Premier, Carmen is very proud of what she has achieved and has high hopes for her son. She knows his education will be costly. Can you explain to Carmen why you are penalizing her for her success and hard work in this new, chosen country that she picked?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer this to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I want to make sure I heard the leader of the third party's description of Carmen correctly. This is a person who has a son, I believe, which therefore means she has a deduction that would certainly remove her from the $5,500 Ontario tax payable threshold. As a matter of fact, while I'm on my feet, Mr Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to explain more fully than I did before.

The $53,000 level is the income for someone who has only the personal deduction. If that person has any other deductions, such as belonging to a trade union or if the person makes contributions to an RRSP or pension plan, then she would not pay the surtax until her income got up around $60,000. I was using the $53,000 as the person with the least possible deduction under our tax system, namely, the personal deduction. In fact Carmen, the person you described, would not be paying tax if her income was $53,000 for one reason for sure: She apparently has a dependant; and second, if she has any other deductions from her income, the rule would be she would not pay the surtax.

Mr Harris: And if she perchance had $500 in other income, she would. Treasurer, I'm really surprised that this $53,000 --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, no.

Mr Harris: You can have two different jobs and it doesn't count? It's not the total income?

Treasurer, I'm really surprised at the one reason you have given me. I've seen a lot of what you have done as a payback to unions, but I didn't know that the $53,000 was to encourage people to join unions so they could have that write-off and try and get below the line. You insist, Treasurer, that $53,000 a year is loads of money, even though more than half of that money is eaten up by taxes.

Treasurer, you're having a tough sell of this with Ben. Ben is a senior constable with the Ontario Provincial Police. Ben has 11 years' experience and earns $51,643 a year. Ben regularly works overtime to pay for his mortgage and to make sure there's a little left over for a rainy day. After your budget last Thursday, Ben now says it does not make sense to work overtime. You are killing initiative in this province. Can you tell Ben why he should want to work any harder when you have stated that should he get a little more money you're going to take it all away from him?

Hon Mr Laughren: We do not yet have in this province, and never will have I assume, a 100% marginal tax rate. That is absolute nonsense. I don't know what the leader of the third party thinks about when he comes up with some of these questions. For example, he talks about the deductions for union dues. That's under the federal Income Tax Act; it has nothing to do with the province of Ontario. Those are standard deductions from income that have got nothing to do with the surtax. They're already in place and they're simply legitimate deductions from personal income.

The leader of the third party may have a pessimistic view of the work ethic in this province that is not shared by members of this government.

Mr Harris: The people in this province don't believe they have a government in charge that wants them to succeed. They feel that working harder only means getting hit harder. Not once in your Agenda for People did the Premier or you, Treasurer, tell the hardworking men and women in this province that you intended to gouge them further. In fact, you travelled this province and told them the opposite. You said, "Somebody else will pay." You said: "Don't worry. We can have it all and somebody else will pay."

Treasurer, will you now admit that in your Ontario, in Bob Rae's Ontario there is in fact nobody else to pay, that it will be the middle class, that it will be hardworking men and women, that it will be anybody earning $20,000 a year or more who must pay more taxes for every new initiative and program you've brought in?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: Will you now admit that is the case, not the scenario you painted in 1990 in your Agenda for People?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not for one minute believe that the people of this province who feel the taxes they pay are going to provide the essential services in medical services and education and other social services, I don't believe that there's resentment at paying taxes when they feel that money is being well spent.

Second, I remind the leader of the third party that the last time I checked I believe the top marginal rate for Ontario's income tax rate was the third lowest in all of Canada. The leader of the third party is blowing smoke.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Earlier in question period today the Premier and the Treasurer spoke about skills training programs. The fact is that many people who complete a skills training program still can't find a job, and that's what we're talking about today -- jobs.

I'd like to ask the minister why, after we have brought it up week after week in this past month, he has continued to cut a program, piloted across this province, that not only provided people the opportunity to pick up the entrepreneurial skills in order to create a job for themselves but his own government's assessment has proven has been able to create jobs for a lot of other people too, and create jobs for this ailing Ontario economy.

I'd like to ask the minister why he has cut these programs and what strategies he has got out of the throne speech and the budget that are going to replace these programs and get people off social assistance and help them create their own jobs. Why is he putting the ones who are doing that now back on social assistance?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I haven't the faintest idea what the member is talking about. There wasn't a reference to a specific, named program. To the best of my knowledge, there is no program that I'm responsible for that has been cut back.

In fact, anybody who looks at the budget last year or this will know that all our training initiatives under this ministry have been dramatically expanded. He will also know that some of the programs he might have been referring to, under the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that have been brought up in this House are worthy of continuation and are being looked at from that point of view. There are some that cost so much you wouldn't even fund them, as I said the other day, if you were on this side of the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Ramsay: I'm surprised the minister is going to judge the opposition as to whether they're going to fund these programs or not. We think they're very good programs and they should be funded, and that's what I'm saying to you today.

What are the strategies you've got to fund these programs to help these people? These people have come to these programs funded by government. They've picked up these skills; they've hired these people; they've created jobs, and now you're cutting these programs. We want to see what planning has gone into the new programs you've announced. You haven't announced any new programs from the budget or throne initiatives in regard to skills training.

These three-year programs, these three-year plans you've talked about in your jobs strategy: What's going to happen to those people when they finish your programs? Are these people in three year's time going to go back on to social assistance? Where is the strategy to create the long-term training and job creation for this economy?

Hon Mr Allen: We have talked in this House before about the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and its long-term plans. We have talked about the local board structures and their long-term plans. We've talked about the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement, which plows more money into training in this province than either the federal or the provincial governments have ever done before. We've got a $940-million program that's laid out in the budget.

If you want to read the budget, you can see references to apprenticeship programs which will be expanded in the schools and outside them, and for francophones for the first time in places where they'd never been offered before. I can go on but I would take up too much time of the House. Other people want to ask questions.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, yesterday your Treasurer admitted that it was tough for him to oppose Sunday shopping when you have given and he has given the green light to gambling and casinos in Ontario. Given that you, Premier, your cabinet, your caucus and your party no longer have a moral leg to stand on -- there's no value, there's no principle you stood for that is now in your road -- are you willing to allow shopping seven days a week in Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Since the Treasurer spoke so eloquently on this subject yesterday, I think I'll let him answer the question today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and through you the Premier. I did indicate yesterday in speaking to a fine group assembled downtown that the Sunday shopping issue was one which had plagued three successive governments now and was an extremely difficult one, because there's no question that over the last several years public opinion and what people feel very strongly about out there on Sunday shopping has changed. There are still some very strong feelings on both sides of that issue, however. All I concluded, and I'll say it again today as I stand here in my place, is that we have not changed our position on Sunday shopping.

Mr Harris: We're told, Treasurer -- if you want to refer it back to the Premier, it's probably entirely appropriate on the supplementary, if he's still here -- that some of the major stores in Ontario are considering opening on Sundays. Some, they say, are considering it as early as this Sunday. We're hearing many say, "Well, we're going to have casino gambling." The government's sending out lots of mixed signals. Some over there seem to think it's a good idea.

Perhaps some of them are at the point where they're concerned that they're going to be bankrupt and not around when, next month or two months or three months or six months from now, you finally figure out how you're going to explain the quid pro quo to Bob White as to why the change in position on Sunday shopping. We know you're desperate for cash; we understand that.

Treasurer, rather than prolonging the agony, do you not feel the signals you've been sending out are so very obvious that before the end of your term of office you're prepared to allow Sunday shopping? Would you not agree it would make sense to allow it now so we do not have businesses breaking the law, tying up police resources just so they don't have to go bankrupt? Why don't you do it now instead of three months from now or six months from now?

Hon Mr Laughren: For the sake of being repetitive, I just say to the leader of the third party that, no, we're not prepared to do that at this point, and also that we fully expect the retail sector in this province to obey the law, and I have no reason at this point in time to believe it will not.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is for the Treasurer of Ontario. Yesterday in the Legislature, I could hardly believe my ears when the members of the official opposition accused the Treasurer of somehow cooking the books. The leader of the third party said: "...Treasurer, that you are no more successful in pulling the wool over our eyes, and you are certainly not successful in pulling the wool over the bond rating agencies' eyes. Ontario is now on rating alert because you have no credibility as Treasurer." I believe the hocus-pocus as suggested has been resolved. I would like to know what the credit rating is now of the province of Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That question is more appropriate than the member who asks it fully realizes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Standard and Poor's just dropped.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, that's right. Perhaps this would be the appropriate time to inform the member and the Legislature that earlier today Moody's, the American bond-rating agency, reaffirmed our credit rating as AA. However, subsequent to that, Standard and Poor's, the other large credit-rating agency, lowered our credit rating from AA-plus to AA, which puts them at the same level as Moody's. So with the AA credit rating, that puts us one notch below British Columbia, at the same level as Alberta and above the credit rating of every other province in the country.

Mr Mills: Treasurer, I thank you for that answer, and I hope this will be widely reported on because it's not a state of gloom and doom in this province; it's a state of prosperity and go-ahead. I wish you people would contribute to this --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there a supplementary?

Mr Mills: -- instead of keeping on with the gloom and doom. I'm sick and tired of the lot of you.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I did not hear a supplementary question; I did in fact hear a brief speech.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Treasurer. A Toronto Star

article recently described, "Sheriffs' eviction notices have become a sign of the times in Peel." That's a sign, Treasurer, for businesses and for families of the unemployed. Treasurer, since your government has taken office, over 38 major, and I stress the word "major," businesses have closed or laid off staff. That has added up to over 5,000 jobs lost in the region of Peel. I would like to indicate to you, Treasurer, that these figures to not include the many hundreds of small businesses in the region of Peel with under 50 employees that do not show up on the government records.

I would like to ask the Treasurer to comment on how his plan for over $1 billion in tax increases and for temporary training subsidies to create temporary person-hours of employment is going to replace the very real jobs that have been lost in the region of Peel.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member opposite most appropriately refers to the very serious job losses we've experienced in this province. We've lost over 250,000 jobs since this recession started. But objective or fair-minded people, whether they like this government or not, have not blamed this government for this very severe recession. I hope the member opposite is not doing that.

Specifically addressing the measures in this budget, I can tell the member opposite that while the income tax increases do extract money from the economy, we are putting many, many times that much back into the economy. As a matter of fact, the revenue from the tax increase goes right back into the economy. It's not as though we take it and store it someplace. That goes right back into the economy to help stimulate the economy and encourage investment and jobs in Ontario.

Mr Offer: Let me try to explain to the Treasurer the realities of what's happening in the region of Peel. Today in question period we have heard the Treasurer use the phrase "the phoney numbers" and we've heard the Premier use the words "voodoo numbers." In Mississauga we have Corona Corp, 131 real jobs lost; Inglis in Mississauga, 500 jobs lost; Amdahl Communications in Mississauga, 209 jobs lost; McDonnell Douglas, 575 jobs lost. Treasurer, the list goes on and on. You talk about freezing some business taxes, but the reality, and the message you are sending out, is that the taxes are going to go up by more than $1 billion.

I ask the Treasurer, have you ever considered raising revenue by raising business confidence instead of taxes? How can you, Treasurer, explain to the 404 laid-off employees of Walbar Canada in Mississauga that more taxes are going to bring back their jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the member opposite would be fair, because in this budget we did reduce the income tax rate on manufacturing, processing, mining, fishing and agriculture. Second, we reduced the tax rate on small business from 10% to 9.5%, enriched the research and development allowance and increased the current cost allowance. So it's not fair to say that we haven't done something for the private sector in this budget. We sure have. We've given them the incentive to get out there, invest in this province and create more jobs.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations confirmed that before the implementation of the casino policy goes forward, it would be done by legislation as opposed to order in council. One of the concerns our party has is, in the communities that are going to be allowing these casinos and other forms of gambling, is the government going to provide proper police protection to these communities when these casinos open up?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The simple answer to that question is yes. First of all, the budget indicated that where casinos will operate will only be done with consultation with municipalities, first nations, charitable groups and so on. So I don't think they're going anywhere there isn't a welcome or an inviting host.

When they do arrive at those locations they are invited to, the concern about the policing and the fact that there's already a strain on policing I think is a valid one to be raised; the member opposite raises it. But the police are going to be involved right at the outset of consideration of those casinos. If in fact it becomes a circumstance that they are government-owned and -operated and have the involvement of the police right at the first steps, I think concerns can be very heavily minimized. Beyond that, I'm sure that whatever agency looks after the operation of casinos will have its own auditing and control devices internally to ensure that it minimizes any need for policing.

Mr Tilson: I appreciate your saying that you are going to provide special funding or extra funding over and above the funding that's allowed by the various municipalities to assist in policing these casinos and the various problems that are going to develop from them.

The police commissions and the police services boards are talking about how their budgets are being stretched to their limit now. They simply don't have the funds to operate. Where in the world are you going to get the extra funds to provide for the policing of these casinos if the police services boards are saying now that you're not giving them adequate funds as it is?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, there will be a lot of very deliberate attempts to minimize the impacts of the requirement of additional policing. Of course, as we do in all policing matters, whatever resource is required to maintain the public safety would be provided and any additional dollars therefore would be the subject of future estimates.

BUDGET

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is to the Treasurer. I could ask you a question about the report from the Toronto-Dominion Bank economist who's predicting that Ontario will lead the country out of recession, but I won't, because the opposition will accuse me of asking a puffball question, so I'm going to focus on the budget.

When you look at the hardworking people of Brantford, in Westcan, in Gates and Keeprite, the clerks and bank tellers, I don't believe any of them would make enough income to qualify to pay the surtax being implemented in the budget. The $53,000 threshold in fact probably isn't really a threshold, because that's only a bare minimum and people would be making more.

The comments in the budget were that 10% of the working population of Ontario probably would end up paying the surtax one way or the other while 90% -- the working people, the middle class of this province -- would be exempt because they didn't make enough to meet the threshold.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the question?

Mr Ward: How did you arrive at those figures, Mr Treasurer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's an important question, because it is important to make a distinction: $53,000 is the rough estimate of the gross income at which the threshold would kick in, and it's important to note that it's not on the $53,000 that the surtax is paid. The surtax is paid on the Ontario tax payable. Generally speaking, as a very minimum, with absolutely no deductions except the personal deduction, a person earning $53,000 would start to pay the surcharge on the amount in excess of the $5,500 of Ontario tax payable.

However, if there are any deductions beyond the personal deductions, their income would go up higher; for example, if they had very average deductions, it would be closer to $55,000 or $60,000 before the surtax would kick in.

In conclusion, I would say that actually fewer than 10%, in other words, more than 90%, will not be affected by the surtax.

Mr Ward: Some of the comments from the people of Brantford about the budget direction have been quite favourable. The Taxpayers Coalition Ontario representative said it's a fair budget. The chamber of commerce president said the business tax cuts should be good for business.

Now, this is going to be my supplementary. It's going to focus on the benefits the small business community should derive from this budget. There is a tax cut for small business. Could you perhaps expand on what benefit that could be for the small business people in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: A number of components of the budget will be in favour of the small business community. I mentioned one earlier today, namely, the reduction in the tax rate on profits earned by small business from 10% down to 9.5%. However, I think the biggest benefit in the budget for the small business community will be the confidence we are expressing by investing in Ontario ourselves, by our job creation proposals, by our attempts to draw the private sector into the training aspect of workers, whether it's new employees or existing employees.

So I'm not surprised that we're getting some very favourable comments. There are some predictable objections to the budget, of course, but generally speaking, I think most objective, fair-minded people would agree there has been quite a favourable reaction to this budget.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question was going to be to the Premier, but I'll go to the Treasurer. We've seen some signals from the Premier that he might be softening on the Sunday shopping issue. We saw him take a straw vote at a meeting of the reeves etc in Windsor -- who all voted in favour of it -- indicating he might be backing off. We heard you yesterday say that your government was not going to back off. Sir, whom do we believe, you or the Premier?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes.

Mr Mahoney: So we believe the Premier when he says he may be backing off and gives the signals, but we believe the Treasurer when he says the government's not going to take -- that's fair, actually, because that's exactly the kind of message I expect out of this government: "On the one hand, we believe this, and on the other hand, we believe the opposite."

I'm trying to get some clarification for the small business community, particularly the small retailer, Mr Treasurer, who cannot afford the time, the cost or the red tape to apply for an exemption, particularly in light of the fact that under your regulations, he -- and in many cases she -- could wind up at the Ontario Municipal Board facing a challenge from anyone. You're looking at spending $7,000 to $10,000.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the supplementary, please.

Mr Mahoney: Considering the silly answer I got to my question, you could at least allow me to put the appropriate question to this person.

Despite your comments yesterday, whoever you are -- this person -- we've seen clear evidence that about 67% of the public supports revisions to Sunday shopping. We see the costs involved in applying for an exemption and it's just not realistic. In fact, in a call to my office, Eaton's is saying it's not going to open but the Bay is saying it is going to open.

Treasurer, my question is, in light of the overwhelming support for Sunday shopping, will you change your legislation, will you back off, live up to the rumours and implications of your Premier and allow the retail sector to open on Sunday?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member opposite should not lead the public of Ontario or members in this House to believe that everybody out there in the business community supports the idea of wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr Mahoney: It's 67% per cent, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm talking about the business community. There are lots of people in the small business community in particular who are very worried about Sunday shopping.

Mr Mahoney: They're dying.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd let me answer, they're telling us, "We hope you will study this very carefully before you make any change in your policy," because there are some businesses that would not be beneficially affected by a change in the law, and we are taking their advice and studying this matter very carefully.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Treasurer. Why did the bond-rating service Standard and Poor's drop your credit rating, Mr Treasurer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Standard and Poor's has dropped its credit rating to the same level as Moody's, and basically it's now constant.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I really was hoping I would have a chance to answer a very important question. If the heckling will die down, I'll make a serious attempt before the clock runs out as we get near the end of question period. It really is an important question and I wouldn't want to see question period end without having at least a serious attempt to answer it.

There is no question that when Standard and Poor's looked at the pace of the recovery in this province, they regarded it as being slow, as we do too. Virtually everybody who examines the economy, not just in Ontario but elsewhere, realizes that it's going to be a very modest recovery. That causes them some concern, and it causes us some concerns as well.

Finally, if I might, they are concerned about the degree to which we are going to have flexibility on expenditure reductions and on revenue increases --

Interjections: Five, four, three, two, one.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- in order to keep the deficit in check.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You weren't fast enough.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That was a very good try.

These agencies, Mr Treasurer, don't lower or raise your credit rating on the performance of the economy. They lower or raise your credit rating on your performance in managing finances and the economics of the government.

I ask the Treasurer, as your deficit numbers are considered to be way off by most experts -- most fair-minded people would suggest that your deficit numbers are way off, that in fact we're looking at a $12-billion or $13-billion deficit -- do you think the fabrication you came out with in your budget about a $9.9-billion deficit had something to do with the credit rating drop?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I certainly do not. I would remind the member opposite that Moody's just reconfirmed its AA rating, so I don't think the member opposite should treat this as though it were some cataclysmic event. And he's fundamentally wrong when he says the credit rating agencies don't take a look at the economy when they take into consideration the fact that the economy's going to experience a very slow recovery.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The people in the county of Middlesex are very concerned about the greater London area annexation policy, and I have in hand a petition signed by some 37 people.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

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

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

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway 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."

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition signed by some 2,000 constituents in my riding, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, supporters of the Kenora District Citizens Coalition for Minimum Impact Electrical Lines, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario require Ontario Hydro to reopen the consultation process for choosing a corridor for the Ontario-Manitoba interconnection project, so that (1) the Kenora district citizens affected will have meaningful input into the decision-making process, and so that (2) the chosen route will not be south of the CN line, and will have (

a) minimum impact on the health of the people who live in the area; (

b) minimum impact on the environment; (

c) minimum impact as visual pollution and (

d) minimum impact on property values and tourism."

I have signed my name to that as well.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have today about 12,000 petitions as part of the total which has now risen to 116,000 petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 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."

These petitions have my signature and come from the five area ridings in the Hamilton-Wentworth area which are government ridings.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 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."

I have signed this petition and submit it with the support of these people.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I present a petition signed by 25 citizens from the city of London and the county of Middlesex with the same

preamble as read by the member for Ottawa East petitioning the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed the petition.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I present the following petition in regard to the funding of nursing homes for the aged from my constituents.

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

"We request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

I have affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 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."

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just interested in the situation. I believe that when a situation like this comes up I guess I am supposed to say -- thank you, Mr Speaker. Never mind.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Oakville South for his assistance and recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Let me thank the member for Oakville South who has, as he has indicated, demonstrated quick thinking, a Deputy Premier-like response to a situation that faced his leader where the media were far more interested and concerned than the government, the Treasurer and the Premier seemed to be about the downgrading of the credit rating of the province of Ontario by Standard and Poor's and the implications that would have for this province in attempting to borrow money. Gosh knows we're on a track where we're going to have to borrow significantly large, huge new sums of money over this next period of time.

There are a lot of people who would like to comment on this budget. I will attempt not to take too much time today, but there are a number of points I know my caucus wishes me to make.

There are a number of points Ontarians all across this province wish me to make, families, taxpayers, hardworking men and women who believed in this province with all their hearts, who believed that if they worked hard there was an opportunity to get ahead, who believed that Ontario was the province of hope and opportunity and became that way because of governments that understood that in public policy there must be a balance of the size and role of government, ie, how much taxation and borrowing is required to sustain it, and the private sector, individuals, taxpayers, families and consumers.

When we had that balance this province prospered and thrived. Indeed, many are saying to me repeatedly that for 42 years we were envied across this country. This province was envied around the world. Many immigrants from other countries and many Canadians from other provinces desired to come to Ontario because the investments seemed to come there, the prosperity, the jobs, the good-paying jobs, the education system, the quality of life, the environment, the clean water, the clean air, the safety on our streets.

The balance of government providing those services that were important to Ontarians was there, yet there was still enough room in the economy to make a buck. Businesses could invest and get a return on it. If you worked extra hard, you could get ahead and perhaps move from an apartment to a modest home, and if you worked extra hard and paid off the mortgage or paid it down, you could perhaps move into a little larger home.

These dreams of home ownership, of advancing yourself, of working hard perhaps in the first 10 or 20 or 30 years of your working life so you could take it a little bit easier in your 60s and 70s and 80s, of providing a hope, an opportunity and a chance for our children and an opportunity for them to be able to succeed -- we've lost that in this province. We've lost that.

I was out west in the fall, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba. I met with politicians of all parties. I met with people on the street, with businesses, with taxi drivers. I talked to them all. I told them I was a Conservative politician from Toronto, from Queen's Park, from Ontario, and you know, not one person out there envied me. I have relatives out west, I have friends out west, and for 42 years it wasn't that way. In fact, many of them hated us. They said: "You get all the money. You get all the jobs. You got all the prosperity. It's not fair." I never heard that once in the whole week.

What I heard was: "What's happened to Ontario? What did you do in Ontario to destroy the prosperity, the dream, the hopes, the aspirations?" They said, "Our young people aren't asking to go to Toronto for jobs, or the Golden Horseshoe or Ontario."

Indeed, we are hearing this now more and more around the world. For Europeans, if you look at the makeup of this province for 100 years, seeking an opportunity for a new life, to be able to work for prosperity, for a better chance for their children, Ontario was the top of their list, and they're saying that's no longer the case. They're looking elsewhere. They're looking to other provinces. They are looking to other countries.

Investors and entrepreneurs from the Pacific Rim, from India, from Pakistan, from other countries where they may have had a product and some modest success in jurisdictions and they wanted to access the North American market -- and where they would invest and build their plants and their distribution systems, they would create new jobs -- they're now saying to us, "Ontario doesn't seem to want us, appreciate us, understand us." Realize that you have to be able to make a buck when you invest money, that you have to be able to keep something to reinvest to expand your plant.

I start this way so this Legislature and many of the newly elected NDP members will understand that this Ontario is not the same Ontario, not the same powerhouse, not the same jurisdiction of prosperity it once was, and this budget is brought down in that context. This budget is very similar to other budgets we've seen in the past seven or eight years. It's premised on the fact that government can spend an individual's money better than he or she can, government knows what families want more than families do, government knows what taxpayers want more than taxpayers themselves do.

We've gone through a period, when we look at the massive increase in government spending and role in life in our economy over these past eight budgets of this Liberal-NDP coalition, socialist, whatever you want to call them, they're all the same; they've all been based on the premise that government will spend two or three times, increase the rate of inflation more and more, and therefore we will tax from the people and borrow, which is future taxation our next generations will have to pay back, to feed this appetite for government spending and control of our lives.

Government has taken more and more control of our lives since 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Then last year's budget and now this one, where spending actually in this year's budget is up two and a half times the rate of inflation -- worse than last year; a bigger bite of government involvement in our lives versus the private sector or individual's involvement than even last year's budget.

It is the cumulative effect of all of this that has made us -- you can blame the Liberals if you want and I understand. That's perfectly fair and reasonable because, of these eight budgets, six of them were theirs.

But surely, as you throw back, as I've heard in this House, blame on to the Liberals, it's time to look at your own house, because, as critical as you were when I was in opposition with many of you of the 33 tax increases that made us the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, you have carried on that same direction: $1 billion in new taxes last year, another $1 billion in new taxes this year and spending increases, and government involvement in our lives more and more than ever before.

When my party left office -- this is a figure many of you won't understand; the Treasurer doesn't go back quite that far in his table -- the total government spending in the province of Ontario was $26 billion.

I ask the backbench members of the New Democratic Party to think of where you were in 1985; to think of what life was like in 1985; to reflect on the fact that we had fewer portable classrooms, more hospital beds, fewer lineups for food banks, surgery, medically necessary procedures, housing and day care. I ask you to think of 1985 and that we did it on a spending level of $26 billion.

Our infrastructure was further ahead than it is today. Think of sewers, water, roads, garbage: all of those infrastructure investments were not nearly as far behind as they are today.

What have we accomplished for spending leading up to this budget that was $53 billion -- more than double? Inflation for the same period, from 1985 to 1992 before this budget was tabled, was about 40%. If governments from 1985 to before this budget had increased their spending at the rate of inflation they would have been spending about $37 billion. If they had increased the spending over the 1985 level indexed for inflation and for new population, the total spending in Ontario going into this budget would have been about $38 billion -- $15 billion less than you were spending after your last disastrous budget.

What do we have to show for it? What do Ontarians have to show for $15 billion of new spending by Liberals, NDP and socialists? What do we have to show for it? We've got more poverty, more hunger, more need for food banks, more lineups for the health care system. We are worse off.

That is why, anticipating this budget, we gave the Treasurer the advice that the big spending ways of the past seven budgets were wrong for this province. They did not improve our lot in life; in fact, they made it worse.

I know that pre-budget some people were talking that maybe it makes sense for government to borrow money in a recession and spend it to stimulate the economy; that would create some jobs. Don't you have to analyse how that's worked over the past 10 years and indeed in the past seven? If a government, borrowing money, running up a deficit or taxing, and taking that money to stimulate the economy, actually created half as many jobs as it destroyed, we'd be very prosperous in this province, because we're the master province for borrowing. We borrow more than any other province.

We spend more than any other province in a country that is borrowing and spending more than virtually any other country, yet we're not booming.

It's why my caucus and I put out a document called New Directions. It's why in pre-budget submissions we said to the Treasurer, "You must move in a different direction from the last seven years, this direction of government taking over more and more of the economy and taxpayers and individuals and families less and less." That has not worked. We have fewer jobs now. We have less prosperity now. We are killing hope and opportunity. When we look at the specific measures of the budget, and I'll get into a few, we think of that. That's the tragedy of what you are doing.

You're patting yourselves on the backs and saying, "We're a little better than the Liberals" on this or that point. I liken that in some comments recently to fine-tuning the radio on the car: The station's a little staticky so you fine-tune the radio on the car with this bill or that bill or this program or that program -- but the car's going over the cliff. You're headed in such a dangerous, disastrous direction for the future of this province that a lot of that little tinkering really doesn't matter very much.

This 1992 budget is the latest link in a chain of fiscal folly stretching back to 1985 and the tabling of that first Liberal budget. The 1985 budget the Liberals brought in established the policy of taxing and borrowing and spending that is still so lavishly followed by Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae and the NDP.

The taxpayers have simply moved from being gouged by Bob Tax-the-Ripper Nixon to being held up by Pretty Boy Floyd Laughren. That's about the only difference -- that and the fact that the Liberals hiked taxes and increased the debt during good times while the NDP hike taxes and run up the debt during bad times. You NDPers were the ones who encouraged and supported the Liberals in running it up during good times. You said that was the time to hike taxes. Now we're in recessionary times and you're telling us that's the time to run up spending and hike taxes. The bottom line is that there are no more good times for Ontario taxpayers -- absolutely none.

It must be difficult for the current Treasurer to listen to criticism of his budget from the Ontario Liberals who squandered the opportunities that were presented to them by the unprecedented economic boom of the mid- to late 1980s.

If you think of the groundwork, the infrastructure that had been built up for 42 years -- hydro, power, roads, schools, community colleges and universities and hospitals -- if you think of the balance that was left in the system and the tax capacity that was still there because we were taxed not the highest, not the lowest but in the median with lots of room; the spending not the highest, the deficit not the highest, on balance we boomed from those middle 1980s because of the tough decisions that had been made in the early 1980s by a government that left this province poised to prosper.

Those opportunities then came to the Liberal-NDP coalition and then to the Liberals and now to you.

It must be difficult to listen to the attacks on tax increases by the Liberals, a party which in office hiked taxes no fewer than 33 times, a party whose Treasurer, Bob Nixon, never met a tax he didn't like, who liked taxes so much he even created a whole new set of them.

Who could remember these new things we'd never heard of: a tire tax, a commercial concentration tax -- $100 million or so out of Toronto, and look what a disastrous effect it's had on Toronto, on our tourism business, our convention business, the hotel business, on the head offices moving out of Toronto, not just because of the commercial concentration tax, but that was one of the nails in the coffin -- the gas guzzler tax, brand-new, dreamed up by Bob Nixon, all these opposed by Floyd Laughren and the NDP. Now that you are in office they are perpetuated, carried on, expanded.

In 1984-85, before the first Liberal budget, provincial taxes in the province represented 8.8% of our economy. In 1990-91 after the Liberals' last budget, after the strongest sustained economic growth of the postwar period, provincial taxes represented 12.1% of our gross domestic product. Government taxes alone went up 50% in that short time that the Liberals were there.

In 1984-85 the per capita provincial tax burden in Ontario was $1,688. Every Ontarian was responsible for $1,688. The Liberals took over office, and after 33 tax increases the per capita tax burden, when you rascals took over, stood at $3,448, an increase of 104% in five years and six budgets. I understand your chagrin, Treasurer, when the Liberals criticize your budget.

The Liberal record on spending, of course, is just as dismal. During a period of sustained economic expansion, when the economy was growing, when individuals were doing better, Liberal government spending never once fell below 15% of the gross domestic product, and in 1990-91 provincial spending accounted for 16.8%.

Over the period 1984-85 to 1991-92, program spending by Ontario governments increased at an average annual rate of 10.6%. Every other province in the Dominion was increasing its own expenditures at a slower rate: the federal government at 3.9%, David Peterson and the Liberals at 10.6%. That spending is what has precipitated the high taxes, the high deficit and the level of government involvement in our everyday lives.

The difference between all other nine provinces and Ontario is what has made the change from Ontario being the most prosperous province to Ontario becoming a have-not province. That is the difference, and the other provinces are benefiting but not happily. They would benefit more if Ontario were still strong, but they are benefiting. There's no secret that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the prairie premiers and ministers of industry and trade are sending out the signal to Ontario businesses: "You want to pay less tax? You want to come where you're appreciated?

You want to come to a jurisdiction where we understand? You want to come where you can work with government and labour together, not on a confrontational basis? Then pick any province other than Ontario."

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Stop badmouthing your own province.

Mr Harris: I am badmouthing the leadership and the government of my own province, Mr Treasurer, and that is you. It is my role, when you head in a bad direction, to badmouth you and to point that out.

If the Treasurer wants to talk about this province, why then, in December and in this budget did he go to Ottawa and ask for an equalization payment for Ontario? Why is it we have sunk to the state where we're asking the taxpayers of Newfoundland, the Maritimes and the Prairies to bail Ontario out?

We've mishandled our affairs, our finances and our prosperity so badly over the last eight years that now we're saying to these other provinces that used to turn to us for help, that used to ask Ontario to help them to be able to afford social programs and to have equality of access to health care services and education that we had: "Please bail Ontario out. We've mismanaged so badly we need your dollars now to come to Ontario to bail us out."

That's what has happened to this province in the past eight budgets in the past seven years under the Liber