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

November 28, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L031 - Tue 28 Nov 1995 / Mar 28 Nov 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF HAMILTON

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

JOB CREATION

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

LONG-TERM CARE

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TAX REDUCTION

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

TAX REDUCTION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

NUCLEAR SAFETY

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY 416

COURT EMPLOYEE

CHILD CARE

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

VISITOR

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

TAX REDUCTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TAX REDUCTION

CHILD CARE / SOINS POUR ENFANTS

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TTC SERVICE

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

CHILD CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

OPPOSITION DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

The House met at 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On Saturday, November 4, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Armenian Community Centre of Hamilton. The Armenian community in Hamilton is one of the oldest Armenian communities in Canada. Records of Armenians in Hamilton-Wentworth date back to the late 19th century.

Two very important organizations stemmed from the settlement of the Armenian communities: the ARF VRAMAIN in 1908 and the ARS in 1915. Each of these leagues has worked diligently over the years to ensure that the Armenian community in Hamilton remained strong and vibrant.

The strong sense of community felt among the Armenians reached a milestone with the completion of the Armenian Community Centre in 1950, but now, in 1995, a new community centre has been built to meet the ever-changing needs of a flourishing and vibrant Armenian community.

Many individuals worked diligently to ensure that the new community centre became a reality. I would like to congratulate the members of the community centre building committee for their outstanding efforts. They have done a great job in putting together a first-class building that's going to serve the community well.

Ontario is a diverse province where people from many different cultures come to live and celebrate their heritage in an atmosphere of peace and harmony. Events such as the opening of the new Armenian Community Centre of Hamilton present a wonderful opportunity for all Ontarians to become involved and familiar with the traditions of their fellow citizens.

Congratulations once again to the Armenian Community Centre of Hamilton. I wish them the very best in the future.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today I want to bring to this government's attention the concerns expressed by a number of individuals and groups in my riding about what this government is doing in its cuts and how those are hurting children.

Last week I had the chance to present a petition in this House from Stella Maris public school, a Catholic school in my riding in which parents and teachers of the school, some 350 names, expressed their concerns about the impending cuts to kindergarten.

On Friday of this past week, I had the chance to come down to Queen's Park on one of two buses which came down from the Sprouts child care centre at McMurrich Junior Public School in my riding, two busloads of people -- parents, staff and children -- concerned and worried about the cuts to child care that this government has begun and no doubt will continue.

Earlier in the week, in taping my cable program, I had on as one of the guests the executive director of the Earlscourt Child and Family Centre, a children's mental health centre in my riding which is renowned throughout the province for the good work it does with troubled young people. Again, I heard very directly the worries they have about what this government is doing.

I attended also a meeting at Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School, where parents were very worried about what this government was doing to education.

All of those people, individuals, are concerned that this government, in its provision to pay for the tax cuts, can find money to pay for tax cuts but doesn't seem to be willing to find money to pay for children's services.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I've had numerous requests from constituents asking for my assistance with the family support plan in collecting arrears for child support. At times this has been a frustrating process, as many non-custodial parents have devised elaborate schemes to beat the system.

As parents, the most important job we have is raising our children. Today, with the high number of family breakdowns, this job takes on greater importance. However, today we find too many non-custodial parents are ignoring their financial responsibility in raising their children. This disregard has resulted in tremendous financial costs to the province of Ontario and social costs to the children who find themselves in this situation.

It is important that all members of this House cooperate to find workable solutions to the problem of delinquent child support. Non-custodial parents have a responsibility to their children and they must live up to it.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I rise in the House today to address a problem which is of concern to many citizens in my riding. Funding for community health centres has been frozen for this year, and with the government's economic statement looming, there is a very real fear that this freeze will be extended to next year.

Most of the 56 existing community health centres are located in urban centres, yet, for example, in the city of Toronto the ratio for family physicians only, not including specialists, is one doctor to 669 patients. In my riding, in our catchment area, there is one doctor for 2,800 people. We need doctors.

The Tilbury and district community health centre steering committee has completed its needs assessment for a community health centre and has been approved by the local district health council. They desperately are trying to bring doctors and services to our community, yet we all fear that the economic statement will extend the freeze on community health centres and that my community will lose this important project.

I urge the government and the Minister of Health to ensure that this freeze does not affect community health centres in underserviced, rural and northern areas which urgently need health services.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Last week, in response to a question raised by my colleague the member for Algoma, the Minister of Education and Training refused to give a commitment to ongoing government funding of junior kindergarten programs across the province. Trustees and parents should conclude then that this Conservative government has no interest in supporting early childhood education initiatives and will offload on to school boards both the decision and the cost of continuing to provide the same. That represents a huge step backwards for Ontario education and for Ontario children.

The Royal Commission on Education spent much time studying the results of full-day junior kindergarten projects in Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, Michigan, France, Britain and Sweden. Those children who entered the school system at an early age consistently demonstrated lower failure rates in school later on, had better language, attentiveness and interaction skills, achieved better employment at higher rates of pay, were much less likely to ever be involved with the law, and generally were ahead in numerous other fields than their peers who started school later on.

All of the evidence reviewed time and again demonstrated the benefits of early childhood education, which is why the commission recommended strengthening of the early years program.

In Sudbury, both school boards have offered senior and junior kindergarten programs for some time. The majority of senior kindergarten programs have been full-day, and in the numerous studies that parents and teachers have responded to, they have been highly successful. Indeed, the separate school board was in the process of preparing an application to the ministry for a pilot project.

Making JK optional and refusing to fund the same is a huge step backwards for kids and for education in Ontario.

JOB CREATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Not too long ago I had the pleasure to rise in this assembly to announce 100 new jobs at Ronal Manufacturing in Stevensville, Ontario, home of the Tim Hudak Action Centre.

Today I rise again with a similar announcement. First Delaware, the sister company of Great Lakes Bureau, the third-largest receivables management firm in the US, will be coming to Fort Erie, Ontario. Beginning with 50 new well-paying jobs, Great Lakes hopes to expand to over 100 paid personnel within a year.

I remember not too long ago the flight of jobs from Ontario across the Peace Bridge into the US. Those were the days of successive tax hikes, job-stifling labour legislation and an explosion of government debt. Those were not great days for Niagara South, but what a refreshing change today.

Most importantly, in Niagara South today we have reversed the flight of jobs. We have 100 new jobs coming into Fort Erie from the US for a change, not the other way around.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm pleased to rise to speak today about the importance of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to the people of northern Ontario. I'm sure I need not explain to the members of this House the realities that affect this special part of the province: our reliance on resource industries, our scattered population base, the significant distances between our communities.

While many of these conditions are simple realities of life in the north, much progress has been made in diversifying economic activities, developing stable networks and bringing northern Ontario into the global economy. Many of these gains can be traced directly to the involvement of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, particularly over the last 10 years of its present mandate. However, it is now increasingly clear that this government is prepared to strip away years of proactive ministry involvement and community support in the name of government downsizing.

This government promised greater consultation with northerners, yet it's provided little indication that this commitment will be met. This government has shelved, frozen, cancelled or spun into review limbo most ministry programs, including the northern Ontario heritage fund.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is a unique one and one that has traditionally functioned as a hands-on agency for and with the people of the north. This government's lack of consultation, lack of leadership on northern issues and lack of regard for the conditions that have made this ministry important are of serious concern to northerners.

I urge this government and this minister to work creatively with individuals, municipalities and others on this issue. The needs and passions of northerners are too important for this ministry to slip away --

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday I asked a question of the minister without portfolio responsible for WCB reform, if he indeed would commit to province-wide public hearings on the consultations that he's having. At that time he said, and I quote from yesterday's Hansard, "I'm surprised at the member opposite's suggestion."

If that's the case, let me say to the honourable minister that he has a much bigger surprise coming if he believes that he can just hijack the royal commission process that was public and upfront, that allowed everyone an opportunity to have input into important decisions that affect the lives of working people all across Ontario and not answer for that.

The fact of the matter is that as I travelled across the province in the last couple of weeks talking to hundreds of workers, one of the key issues that came up time and time again was, what's happening with WCB? There really is not a factual answer to give because the government's gone underground with the process.

Their pals and buddies are getting all the input they want in the back room, and maybe they're meeting with some labour groups, but nobody really gets to see what's going on, to hear the options that are available. It's all done in secret and he does that in secret because he knows that if the people of Ontario knew what he was contemplating, there'd be an outcry. They're trying to slam it through the same way they did with Bill 7. I'm here to tell him it's not going to happen.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): This summer the government held discussions on alternatives to the multiservice agencies. We were looking for ways to improve the access and coordination of community-based, long-term care services.

This is another example of our government doing what it said it was going to do. Because of the huge amount of opposition to the MSA model, we made a commitment during the campaign to change it, because it did not consider the community needs, it did not consider the volunteer network and it hurt the quality of care by driving the career providers and volunteers out of the provision for service.

This government met with many organizations representing the 1,200 agencies and they were invited to share their perspective with us. We also received over 50 different written submissions. These contributors included people who provided a variety of services, programs and facilities for elderly persons, adults with physical disabilities and people who needed health care services at home.

Any new model to improve access to and the coordination of long-term care, community-based services must meet six principles. It must have access, good-quality service, reduced duplication.

I am pleased to inform the House that we have listened very carefully to what we heard and we'll be acting on many of the recommendations provided to us during these discussions.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to bring a matter to your attention, part of which I think you're aware of.

This morning, outside my office on the third floor, I had called a press conference, a press availability session, to demonstrate for the gallery a children's petition of children in child care centres that had been brought to my office late last week and the beginning of this week.

The posters, which had children's handprints, were put on the floor and some on the wall for the purposes of demonstrating to the press the participation of literally thousands of child care students or children who had participated in this process.

Before we could even begin the press conference, security guards came up to the third floor, told me that they were sent up at your instructions, and I was told that I was not able to do this on the third floor, that the petitions could not be put on the walls, could not be put on the floors and that I had to take them down immediately or they would be taken down for me by security guards.

Then the Sergeant at Arms came up and he at least gave me 15 minutes to talk to the press. They then had to be removed. There were three MPPs who were participating: myself, the member for Riverdale and the member for Lake Nipigon.

What was even more offensive was the fact that there were four staff members, legislative assistants, who were there with me to assist, and a plainclothes security officer was there with a camera taking pictures.

Now, three MPPs and five legislative assistants and some members of the gallery, and this required a plainclothes officer to be up taking pictures? I think this has gone way overboard. I'm highly offended at what's occurred this morning and I want an explanation as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Thank you. I am aware of some of the observations the honourable member has made. I will be reviewing the policy that we have within the building. I want a copy of that to be distributed to all the members of this House so that all members know what's going on. I would anticipate having that some time this afternoon and I will be reviewing it and sending every member a copy so that we do know what we're allowed to do and what we're not allowed to do.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, during the election campaign, you said that your policies would lead to the creation of 725,000 jobs over the life of your government, a commitment that was repeated yesterday by the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

Premier, you will be well aware that Ontario has actually lost some 14,000 jobs, net, since the beginning of this year, and that we can trace thousands of those jobs to the cuts in capital spending that were included in the $1.9 billion in cuts that you announced in July. The cuts that your government is planning to announce tomorrow are expected to exceed some $3 billion, and that will lead to an additional job loss in the tens of thousands.

Premier, on numerous occasions when you were in the opposition, you asked the previous government to assess the impact of NDP policies on job creation and the economy, so I ask you today, on the eve of your financial statement, has your government done a job impact assessment of tomorrow's cuts, and how many jobs do you estimate will be lost by the withdrawal of more than $3 billion from Ontario's economy?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me say to the member that, yes, we are very concerned about the impact on jobs of actions of our government, both positive and negative, and yes, there will be some public sector job losses as a result of stopping the spending of the $10 billion a year that we don't have.

However, we are very confident that balancing our budget, moving in this direction -- I think in the red book you were quoted as saying it in the campaign -- the number one thing that the government could do for job creation would be to balance the budget and to get our affairs in order and to have a solid financial plan. That would be the number one thing for private sector job creation.

As you know, yesterday the minister responsible for Management Board announced that there would be some job reductions in the public sector and clearly, as the statement comes tomorrow and as we take a look at the impact, we freely acknowledge there will be a downsizing of the public sector, because we can't sustain those jobs and the size and cost of the public sector.

But as we indicated in the Common Sense Revolution, balancing the budget, reducing the tax burden, getting our legislative affairs in order, eliminating the red tape -- this package over five years, we believe, will create at least over 700,000 new jobs for the province of Ontario, and that's our goal.

Mrs McLeod: You know very well that nobody is disputing the need to get the financial situation in order, but the draconian level of cuts which you will be introducing tomorrow is being driven by one thing and one thing only, and that is your absolute determination to bring in a 30% cut in income tax for the most well-to-do in this province.

Premier, based on the estimates you've provided about civil service cuts, reductions in capital spending and the cuts that are coming tomorrow -- and all we can do is guesstimate if you have not done a job impact analysis -- we think it's safe to estimate that just the first two rounds of your cost-cutting will mean the loss of at least 80,000 jobs in Ontario, and that is just direct job loss as a result of your cuts. It doesn't even speak to the host of jobs that will be lost indirectly because of the economic effect of those kinds of draconian cuts.

Those kinds of cuts are coming, as I'm sure the Premier must know, at a time when every independent observer agrees that Ontario's economy is in a very precarious situation. We've seen that new home construction is at its lowest point --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put the question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- since the onset of the recession. We're seeing media reports that people are planning to spend less money on Christmas because they're concerned about keeping their jobs, and in this climate this Premier's prepared to sacrifice 80,000 direct jobs to pay for his tax cut.

Premier, these policies are a recipe for recession. I ask you, as you talk about the importance of creating private sector jobs as if they were somehow better than public sector jobs which you will sacrifice tomorrow, whether you do not agree that a nurse's job is important to the economy, that a firefighter's job --

The Speaker: Would you put the question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I'm asking the question, Mr Speaker. This is the question to the Premier: Does he not believe that jobs in the broader public sector, the job of a nurse, of a teacher, of a firefighter -- those jobs are all important to the economy, and will you acknowledge the drastic effect on jobs and the economy that you are going to create in the name of your income tax cut to the most well-to-do?

Hon Mr Harris: Perhaps what's been different about our campaign, the Common Sense Revolution, the election and post-election is that yes, we admit, and we were first to come out and say, we can't sustain the size and cost of government that we have today. Four years of $10-billion deficits simply are not sustainable, a run-up now to $100 billion of debt from $30 billion. That's just in the 10 years that you and the NDP, either jointly together or separately, have been running this province. We acknowledge that we have to change. We can't do that.

We do put forward that there will be some job losses in the public sector to get the uptake in jobs in the private sector. So I would ask the member this: In the red book, pages 7 and 8, it says, "We'll cut $4.1 billion in spending." Could you tell us where you planned to cut that?

Mrs McLeod: After tomorrow nobody's going to be talking about the CSR; it'll be the CCR, the Conservative-caused recession, because that's the impact of the kinds of cuts that you're going to announce tomorrow. I ask you to remember, Premier, the impact of what you're doing: $5 billion in cuts resulting in a direct loss of at least 80,000 jobs at a time when we can least afford it in this economy.

Do you not agree, at a time when our economy is in a precarious state by every assessment, that sacrificing 80,000 jobs is a grave error; at a time when middle-class people need confidence in the economy when they're not spending, massive cuts to pay for an income tax cut for the wealthy is a gross mistake; and at a time when you should be thinking of the entire province and all of its people and not just the most well-to-do, that the draconian cuts you're going to bring in are indeed a recipe for recession?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you will find that the reductions that have to be made in the size and cost of government are not far off the reductions that were proposed in the red book and that the member herself campaigned upon in the last election. I can tell you this: Given the mess we inherited, they're the size of reductions that need to be done to balance our books.

Now, if you want to talk about tax cuts, the member campaigned on $2 billion in tax cuts; we campaigned on $4 billion. I heard your campaign, that $2 billion in tax cuts will create jobs and stimulate the economy; $4 billion will create twice as many.

Mrs McLeod: There's only one party that campaigned on a 30% cut in income tax: this government and this Premier.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Wait till your local municipalities get hold of you.

Mrs McLeod: And when the laid-off people are coming into the constituency offices to express their concern.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The second question is to the minister of colleges and universities, because I'm sure, Minister, that your party remembers the campaign promise to see 725,000 jobs created in this province and that you might have some concern for the kinds of policies that will help to create jobs or policies that will in fact destroy jobs.

We remember the former Education critic of your party, who is now a minister, stating in this House on October 13, 1992, "Without the resources to produce a highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets." I think you would agree, and we would agree, that that's true.

She went on to say, "Ontario universities make a major contribution to this province's competitiveness and they play a vital role in the development of highly skilled human resources," and I think you would agree, Minister, as we would agree. Yet, as our economy continues to be plagued by high unemployment, it appears that you are prepared tomorrow to slash funding for our colleges and universities, and this despite the publication of a recent report for the Council of Ontario Universities that concluded that a 20% cut in grants to universities would translate into the immediate loss of 14,550 jobs in Ontario.

I ask you, are you willing to jeopardize the viability of our post-secondary education sector, the foundation on which we all agree we have to rebuild this economy, and are you willing to jeopardize thousands of public and private sector jobs and throw almost 15,000 people out of work simply in an effort to bring in a 30% cut in income tax?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): We share many of the sentiments that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed in the House today. I do believe that universities are part of the key to the growth of Ontario, to opportunity and vitality in Ontario, as is an economy that works in Ontario. But I can assure the Leader of the Opposition party that the way to that future, to have excellent universities and to have excellent post-secondary institutions in the province, is not through not changing those organizations. They are now going and will continue to go through a process of change and re-engineering, as every other knowledge-based organization on the globe is doing.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I find that very interesting as a response. I think what the minister is saying is that he's prepared to demolish universities and colleges in order to improve them; rather odd. Minister, let me remind you of your party's Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. It acknowledges: "In too many cases, classes are overcrowded, equipment is obsolete, library facilities are inadequate, and buildings are deteriorating. Ontario currently ranks ninth out of 10 provinces in operating grants per university student.... The need for increased funding for Ontario's post-secondary institutions is obvious."

Furthermore, on June 29, 1992, the honourable member for London North stated as follows: "What the universities really need is a long-term plan for reinvestment, rejuvenation and ongoing support for the most important institutions when it comes to training our young people so that Ontario and...Canada" -- as a whole -- "can be competitive."

I ask you, Minister, in light of the above, do you accept your colleague's conclusion, and what are your plans for rejuvenating and improving the universities and colleges of this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased that the honourable member brings up our 1992 report which looked at post-secondary education, in fact all education across the province. This party and this government have been concerned for some time about the quality of education in the province, and we understand its importance to the future of this province.

I'm very pleased that the honourable member opposite has raised the issue of changes in universities and colleges. Obviously there need to be changes in universities and colleges. Some of those changes we pointed to in 1992, and others have become evident now. We intend to work with our partners in universities and colleges to bring about those changes that will improve the quality of post-secondary education in this province.

Ms Castrilli: I didn't hear anything about a plan. I heard no details. So let me try to give the minister a sense of what people think the government is really doing. Your short-term plan is clearly to slash without any kind of concern for the quality that you speak so much of; without any kind of concern for access, which is critical to the success of universities and of this province. Your long-term plan, quite frankly, is to allow colleges and universities to increase tuition when students have already seen increases of 42% in this province in the last five years. All this, sir, is happening in order to be able to justify a 30% tax rate reduction to the wealthiest Ontarians.

This is a minister who is supposed to be fighting for colleges and universities at the cabinet table. We've seen no evidence of that to date. So I want to ask you very plainly, how do you justify the deterioration of our colleges and universities and the deterioration of our economy and an increase in tuition fees which will be the result of a tax cut?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The honourable member opposite, just to be clear -- let's be very clear about this -- while universities and colleges around the world face enormous changes now, our universities and colleges in Ontario are of excellent quality today, and it's our job to make sure they're of excellent quality in the future.

The member has quoted a number of 42% or so as a tuition increase under the previous government. My understanding is that number is closer to 50%. But the honourable member has forgotten that when her party formed the government in the province of Ontario it raised tuition fees 30%.

The honourable member wants to hear about planning for the universities and colleges sector. I think that's critically important for the future of this province. That's why we intend to enter into dialogue with those partners to create that future and to create that plan, not to do it unilaterally as a government.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. It follows from the exchange that we had yesterday.

The minister yesterday in his answer spoke with great praise of the views of the Dominion Bond Rating Service. In today's Financial Post, the analyst for the Dominion Bond Rating Service is quoted as saying: "It would be easier to balance the budget without the tax cuts. The cuts would not have to be as deep."

I wonder if the minister could comment on this view of the Dominion Bond Rating Service, since it seems to reflect -- what shall I say? -- common sense.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I can understand why the leader of the third party refers to the Dominion Bond Rating Service so many times; he probably heard so much about it in his term in office because our rating was downgraded four times while they were in office.

However, if this issue really concerns the leader of the third party, he should realize that our government is cutting regulation, cutting taxes, cutting spending, and we're going to create an attractive investment environment in Ontario so that all Ontarians will invest in Ontario and not look offshore.

Mr Rae: I have developed a very intimate relationship with all the rating agencies.

The question I keep coming back to is this one: Yesterday, the Chairman of Management Board was quoted outside the House as saying, "As a result of the tax cut, there will be a lower revenue stream" -- common sense -- "and that translates either into a higher deficit or more expenditure reductions." Let me repeat that: "that translates either into a higher deficit or more expenditure reductions."

I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism how this plan, so-called, of which he's such a strong advocate makes any sense when we're now being told that we're on a downward spiral in which either the deficit is going to go up, which is contrary to what he promised us yesterday, or alternatively, we're going to have even more expenditure reductions, more even than the $3.5 billion we're expecting tomorrow. Could the minister answer that?

Hon Mr Saunderson: In response to the leader of the third party's first supplementary question, I would like to remind him that economic studies show that while government spending creates more instant jobs, tax cuts create an equal amount of jobs over the long term. Furthermore, if matched with spending cuts, tax cuts create jobs without increasing debt, deficit spending and borrowing. If government spending created jobs, as I said a few weeks ago to the honourable member, we'd all have three jobs.

Mr Rae: Building a subway creates jobs; building hospitals creates jobs; building schools creates jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for London North is out of order.

Mr Rae: My good friends in the government are shouting at me, "With borrowed money," to which I would simply ask the minister one more time: If it is wrong, which you have been telling us with such vehemence and such Victorian morality, to borrow to build a hospital and to build a subway, can you explain to me why it is right to borrow to give a millionaire $50,000 in a tax break? Why is that right in our current system?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm always disappointed when I hear someone whom I respect and would think that he would know better than to start preaching after his record after five years as the leader of the government.

As I said earlier: our credit rating down four times; our accumulated deficit has gone from about $35 billion to almost $100 billion; 32 new taxes; 82,000 lost jobs -- I repeat, 82,000; our welfare rolls have tripled. His economic record as the Premier is a complete failure by any measure and any standard.

Mr Rae: That's the kind of personal attack that really hurts. Somehow I've still got it in me to ask three more questions.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I wonder if I could ask now a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the gallery today there are many parents of children who have very special needs, children who are severely disabled and who rely on extensive public support for their future.

The Premier seemed to imply yesterday in his comments that the people who were concerned or who were opposed to the government's direction were exclusively made up of powerful special-interest groups who were all being paid to demonstrate outside, and that he was not intending to cave into those people.

I want to ask the minister, there are 2,700 individuals who are described by his own ministry as unique, as needing very special and intensive care at all times. Many of these children are now being told by children's aid societies and others who have supported them that there no longer is the budget to support them, that there no longer are the supports in place that these children with very special needs require.

I wonder if the minister would not agree with me that these people are not a special-interest group, that they do not represent some powerful interest protesting outside, they represent people whose futures very much depend on our sense of justice and our sense of solidarity with them. I wonder if the minister can tell us, why are these people being affected by your cuts?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm not quite sure what the leader of the third party was getting at, because there were two matters that he brought up. In the first

part I think he alluded to the CASs, and I believe in the second part he was dealing somewhat with the disabled community, if I got the gist, because I think he was talking about children protection at one point in time.

It really is a matter, once again, of our government indicating what our priorities are, and our priorities are assisting the disabled community and certainly children in need of protection.

To that question, once again, I have to say again that in order for us to deal with this problem within the envelope that we have in which to deal, quite frankly, it's not like the good old days when the leader of the third party was in power, when all he needed to do to get more money was to send down another bucket into this well of taxpayers' money, forgetting of course that this is accountable somewhat and this is money that's not their money, it's the money of the taxpayers of this province.

In order for us to deal with this properly, I've already indicated some of the steps we are taking in order to consult with the disabled community to make sure that in fact they are serviced properly, that we are consulting with the service providers and the families.

Mr Rae: I wonder if the minister would just reflect on what he's saying and on the situation that the government has created.

There are 282 children on special-needs agreements according to the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. These are kids, one of whom, Jake Edelson's situation, has already been described in the Toronto Star. Jake's mother is in the gallery today. But there are many, many other children, the 281 other children who are also on special-needs agreements that have been negotiated between the government and the children's aid societies, in which the children's aid society agrees that it will take some responsibility for ensuring that Jake receives the kind of care that he needs.

He has been kept alive over the last five years by virtue of the care that has been provided. The children's aid society in this case has indicated to Jake's parents that they are no longer in a position to provide him with the support he needs and that they therefore have to look somewhere else for very intensive and special care.

There are literally hundreds of young people who are in this kind of situation, Minister. They rely on a government that has a sense of priority with respect to the most vulnerable to deal with them. I'd like to ask the minister again, why would you not fashion your savings and your cuts in such a way as to ensure that the most severely disabled among us are not affected by them?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I have to say, first of all, that I'm not saying that -- there are some people who have some difficult times for us to deal with, but what we are trying to do right now is to consult with the community. We have to find out what priorities the community actually has itself. We want to work closely with them to ensure that the priority of the disabled community is dealt with in a very caring way by this government because we feel that it is a priority for us.

Mr Rae: The problem with the minister's answer is that it doesn't fit the situation that we find. When the minister goes back to his office and asks to be briefed by his staff, he will find and he will be told there are hundreds of people who are in this situation and that children's aid societies, whose budgets you have cut by 5%, will say, "This is not part of our mandate; this is part of someone else's mandate." So they will say, "Oh, we're going to get back to our core service," and you're going to say you're going to get back to your core service.

The only problem is, hundreds of kids who are very severely disabled, who literally have no voice other than their parents and their families to speak on their behalf, are going to pay the price for these cuts which are taking place in a random, across-the-board and in many, many instances literally mindless fashion.

If we can all agree as a House, and I think we would agree in five minutes, five seconds, that the disabled should be given priority, why wouldn't you give that a higher priority than providing a $50,000 tax cut to somebody who's making $1 million a year? Why isn't that more important to your government? Why have you got things so wrong?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's very unfortunate that the leader of the third party is going through some short-term memory loss here. It's pretty evident, once again, and we've said this many times, that one of the reasons why we had to deal with the very difficult problem which we inherited was because of the mess that you gave us.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Oh, it certainly is true. In fact, if we did not address the extra $1.9 billion, which you somehow foisted upon this government, and you have the audacity to stand up and look at me and say why are we --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The big tax cut to the rich and famous, never mind the kids, that's your priority.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- the proper way. I think that this government is trying to deal with this in the best and most compassionate way possible by consulting with the disabled community to make sure we do make them our priority.

We do care about this, but on the other hand I think that the leader of the third party must certainly recognize the part he played in this play of the absurd.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Have her removed, please. Take her out.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): She's the mother of a child. The child is severely disabled.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): She's here because she's got a disabled child.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it's about the fiscal statement tomorrow. No doubt tomorrow we will see the very significant cuts that you've promised. Probably with tomorrow's statement at least $5 billion will be cut from the government's spending.

We know the justification will be that we face an enormous deficit and debt problem, and every one of the government members will be provided with all sorts of visual aids to demonstrate that we have a singleminded problem to tackle, the deficit and the debt, and that's why we're doing these cuts, the $5-billion cuts.

At the same time, however, you have promised a $5-billion tax cut. That's straight out of your Common Sense Revolution, a $5-billion-a-year tax cut to the best-off of the people of this province.

My question is this: If the deficit is such a huge problem that all of us have to suffer and tackle, how can it be that at the same time as we are forced to cut $5 billion in expenditures, the province can afford a $5-billion tax break?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am happy to answer the question and I'm glad to get the question. In the Common Sense Revolution, we talked about a $4-billion tax cut, 30% in the basic Ontario rate, which is about 10% of the income tax rate, to get us back to where we can be competitive with other jurisdictions, and, as you know, a fair share health care levy that meant at the high-income end the rate would not be 30%. In fact I think there are some economic -- I think Peter Cook's

article in the Globe and Mail says the Common Sense Revolution tax cuts will make the tax system more progressive. That was his analysis.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Oh, yes, progressive.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, talk to Peter Cook. I'm saying what he had suggested.

Clearly, up until you lost the June 8 election, the Liberal Party thought that a $2-billion tax cut would help create jobs and stimulate the economy. Maybe now you've changed. You've gone back into the opposition mode, you and the NDP, the way you joined in coalition to bankrupt the province over the last 10 years.

Maybe you've changed, but I want to tell the member, we have not changed. We have not changed. We agree with those economists: union economists, university economists and other economists who have said that the last 10 years of high taxation have destroyed jobs, have lost us jobs, have cost us opportunities, more than the government spending they've been able to create.

So we are going to take a different path from the last 10 years that led to record unemployment, record welfare rates, record loss of opportunity and we are going to proceed to make sure we move towards tax rates that are (

a) competitive and (

b) will stimulate the economy and create the jobs and growth that we all want.

Mr Phillips: Tomorrow thousands of people will be laid off. We understand that. That's what you say is the price of fighting the deficit. Those people in the gallery that you accused of being simply public servants were here to express their outrage at what you're doing. These cuts are impacting everyone in the province, Premier, and you are saying we have to do this because we are faced with a deficit. That's why all of this pain. That's why you have to do it.

I go back to my question, which you still haven't answered: If the deficit is that important that you are going to lay off 13,000 people, you are going to cut social assistance, you are going to slash support to colleges and universities to fight this dreaded deficit, if it's that important, how can you possibly afford a $5-billion tax break to the best-off in this province at the same time?

Hon Mr Harris: It's not our intention to give a $5-billion tax cut to the best-off in this province. It never has been our intention. It is our intention, and the Common Sense Revolution said it is the steelworker, it is the cab driver, it is the people who are out there working who are to receive the maximum benefit from our tax reductions.

Shortly, the Minister of Finance, the finance committee, will be having pre-budget considerations leading up to our first budget. I noticed in the red book you campaigned on a $2-billion tax cut. Maybe now you think we shouldn't do that. Maybe that was then and this is now. That's how you've campaigned traditionally, in the past. I had hoped maybe you had changed. I'm disappointed you have not.

Clearly, the answer, you know, is this: Our tax cut will be designed to put more money into the hands of the working people of this province, to give them more purchasing power so they can buy cars and create jobs, so they can buy houses and create jobs, so they can stimulate job growth and creation in this province of Ontario.

We tried your approach for 10 years; it was a disaster. Now we're embarking on a different approach clearly and we're proud of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would the House come to order, please.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): In the widely watched and well-regarded television program Focus Ontario -- I've got to get on that program somehow -- the Minister of Education and Training is quoted as saying, in answering a question about private universities:

"Well, we've said that's something that will likely happen. I believe frankly it's inevitable in Ontario, as the university structure changes, that some of that will come on. I have no timetable for that at this point in time, but my understanding of the university community is they expect private universities to become a reality as times change for universities."

Can the minister confirm that it is in fact now the policy of the government of Ontario to create private universities in Ontario?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Just to remind the leader of the third party, and this must have slipped his mind: Universities in Ontario are autonomous organizations that are publicly funded. It's the intention of this government to protect those autonomous organizations for all of the obvious reasons and for all the reasons that have traditionally been that way.

Mr Rae: No, but the universities in the province are autonomous organizations that are operated on a not-for-profit basis, that are operated on a basis of a fee structure that has a status in law and on a fee structure that is regulated by the province of Ontario.

Mr Davis's government, Mr Robarts's government, Mr Frost's government all made the clear decision that we were not going to go the way of the United States and have one university system for the rich and another university system for everybody else. I'm asking the minister whether that still is the basic policy of the government of Ontario.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to inform the leader of the third party that it's the intention of this government to ensure that quality, best-in-the-world, post-secondary education is available to every person in Ontario who would like to access it, to have an equality of access for the people of Ontario. That remains a priority for this government. It certainly has been a priority of this province for many, many years.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The city of Barrie is fortunate to have a new hospital under construction. The new Royal Victoria Hospital is creating many jobs for the region and will improve health care services in Simcoe county.

The continued construction of the new Royal Victoria Hospital is in jeopardy as the city awaits approval of the secondary plan and plans associated for the hospital. When can the city of Barrie expect to have these plans approved by the ministry?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank my colleague for the question. I know that the Royal Victoria Hospital is of great importance to all the residents of the Barrie area. Ministry staff are working with the municipality to finalize the secondary plan. This should happen very, very shortly.

I would like to assure my colleague that it has never been this government's intention to delay this project. In fact, this is exactly the type of scenario we've been trying to avoid. This process has been going on for far, far too long. It's caused too much conflict and concern for the residents of Barrie, for the municipality and for the provincial government, and we're going to make a lot of changes in this process.

Mr Tascona: The city has been told by your ministry that it opposes the city planning time horizons. As a result, approval of these and other plans and even the city's official plan have been delayed, the result of which is the potential loss of economic development in the area. I ask the minister if it is his intention to provide municipalities with more autonomy in the approval process as part of his planned changes to the Planning Act.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I can confirm that we do want to give municipalities more autonomy. We want to create a faster, cheaper, more understandable system, guided by clear and concise provincial policies that will deal with issues that should only be under the jurisdiction of the province. We also want to allow local planning decisions to be made by people who best understand local circumstances. That's the municipalities. The recently announced changes in the planning process include a fundamental review of provincial policies. We will be reviewing the planning time horizons that are currently in these policies.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. It was reported today, "Ontario Hydro says divulging reviews it has conducted on the performance and safety of its nuclear plants would alarm the public unnecessarily and undermine the utility's `economic interests.'" Also, "The request was denied `because release of the reports could generate unjustified negative opinion that would affect the economic interests of Ontario Hydro,' the corporation said in a letter," to the requester. Minister, do you believe the economic interests of Ontario Hydro should take precedence over the public safety interests of the people of this province?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the honourable member opposite for the question. Clearly, the safe operation of nuclear reactors in Ontario is important to this government, and we are concerned when any issues of safety are raised in any way.

I would remind the member opposite that the Atomic Energy Control Board is a federal agency and is responsible for licensing and regulating the safety of Ontario Hydro's nuclear reactors. I would also remind the member that this is a management decision for Ontario Hydro and it is standard practice across Canada not to release the results of peer reviews.

Mr Bradley: Madam Minister, I want to be fair to you.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): When did you change? No, no.

Mr Bradley: I really do. I want to give you a choice. I even put it down on paper for you and I'll send it across to you.

Do you believe that Ontario Hydro should hide the report on the safety and performance of its nuclear reactors the way it used to do in the good old Tory days, or do you believe that Ontario Hydro should share this vital and urgent information with the people of this province, and if so, what are you prepared to do to ensure that the report is released? You are the minister responsible for answering that question in this House.

Hon Mrs Elliott: The real issue at the heart of this question is the safety of the operation of the nuclear reactors of the province of Ontario. That is the issue that the people of Ontario are concerned about. The honourable member opposite, as do all members in this House, has my assurance that we are very cognizant of any issues of safety with regard to the operation of these facilities, are vigilant and will use these peer review reports to improve the efficient operation of these facilities.

CHILD CARE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware of the demonstration that took place out in front of the assembly and right across Ontario last week with regard to access to regulated child care in this province.

Last week, we were given a children's petition which I would like to demonstrate for the minister. This children's petition is only a small sample of thousands of expressions from children across this province who have demonstrated their desire and their parents' desire to maintain regulated, quality child care in this province.

I would like to ask the minister whether he can assure the parents and the children of this province that after tomorrow's budget there will still be regulated child care in this province and that he will not introduce a voucher system for child care which will destroy access to regulated child care in Ontario.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm not necessarily going to agree with the consequences of the honourable member's speculation. That's really all that is at this point in time: speculation.

I'd like to once again reiterate that we are undergoing a child care review under the leadership of Janet Ecker, my parliamentary assistant, and we're looking at a number of issues. Once again, I'd say to the member that his comments today are based on speculation.

Mr Cooke: Last week when the demonstration was taking place, the minister was quoted both on TV and in the print press across the province as saying that there was no reason to worry about the voucher system, that this was speculation, and he gave the impression to people that this was not going to happen.

Can the minister assure parents and children in this province that there will not be a voucher system introduced in this province? Does the minister understand that if a voucher system is introduced, this system will limit choice, not increase choice, to regulated and quality child care in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I also indicated before that we are looking at a number of issues with the child care review; a number of issues are on the table. Certainly we are looking to increase the access and the choice of the parents across this province and to improve the child care area, and that's the reason for the review.

HIGHWAY 416

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I see the Premier is still in the House. I wonder if he would entertain a question.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): He's hiding.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): You'll have to address it to somebody else.

Interjection: Goodbye, Mike. Nice little wave there, Mike.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I've got nothing to do with it; it's nothing to do with me. Ottawa Centre, who's this question to?

Mr Patten: In the absence of the Premier, on his departure with a wave of his hand, I will address my question to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, yesterday I observed in my riding of Ottawa Centre, obviously with some interest, a visit by the Premier. The media reports on his speech at the Chateau Laurier yesterday I found quite interesting, but it was interesting also for no report on an area that I know is of concern to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and southeastern Ontario as far as Highway 401. It's called the 416. Some of the members with the Premier yesterday may have heard him say something, but there was nothing reported.

Given the situation that we will hear about tomorrow, I ask if the Premier will stand by his statement -- I'm sure he's communicated this to you, Minister -- and if therefore you will, when on June 1 he said: "There is one specific issue which I know is of particular interest to the people of the Ottawa region, and it's Highway 416. A Harris government will honour our commitments: no ifs, no ands, no buts, no tolls. We will accelerate this project and we will finish four-laning Highway 416."

This project was first started by the Peterson government. I ask you, Minister, will you continue this project?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to say this: This particular project was started a long time ago, but it is going to be finished by the Progressive Conservative Mike Harris government.

Mr Patten: Thank you for the elaborate answer. I appreciate that you are committed to the project. During the election we saw many of the members of the Conservative Party beside a huge billboard. We have some members here in the House after that election. Will the minister acknowledge that the billboard said, "We Will Begin Now," and it had "now" underlined? Does "now" actually mean now, or when does it mean "now"?

Hon Mr Palladini: Since day one we've been working on 416. As a minister, I have certainly taken it upon myself to make sure things progress to the point we are basically at. The Premier did say, and this is not the first time -- the Premier has said on a couple of occasions and the minister has also said on a few occasions that we are going to go ahead with 416. We are in the process of finalizing the situation, and very shortly, I would like to say, the Premier will indeed be cutting the ribbon to get this project going.

COURT EMPLOYEE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General support and encourage government workers to perform the much-needed volunteer work his government has been promoting?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I believe the question is whether I in general support volunteer work, and the answer is yes. But obviously you have something coming in your supplementary, and I'll wait to hear that.

Mr Martin: If indeed the Attorney General does support volunteer work, then why is there a courtroom registrar in Sault Ste Marie being suspended for the second time for performing volunteer services? In fact, this individual established a volunteer program in 1987 which helps victims of crime and their families. On April 7, 1995, she was released from work because of a perceived conflict of interest. She subsequently returned to her job with full pay after filing a grievance. Three months ago she was released from work for the second time on the basis of conflict of interest.

Your ministry has forced her to choose between a part-time job and volunteering for the victim/witness assistance program. Would you look into this situation and offer an apology to this individual who has been publicly centred out? I have a letter from her that I will send over. I would also like to ask the minister --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Wrap up your question, please.

Mr Martin: I would also like to ask the minister if there are any plans to provide funding to the victim/witness assistance program in Sault Ste Marie.

Hon Mr Harnick: It would probably have been preferable to ask that in two questions instead of trying to get cute with the opener.

At any rate, the issue is one I am familiar with. It involves an issue as between the management of the court services branch and the individual involved. There has been a conflict of interest as between her duties to the court and her outside involvement. The court services management within the system is dealing with the problem, and I have every confidence that they are dealing with the problem appropriately and properly. That is the way I will leave it.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that recently you have begun to review child care in the province. Understandably, some of my constituents have expressed some concerns about how this is carried out and who is leading this review. Can you provide me with information that addresses their concerns?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's nice to receive a question from someone who may actually listen to my answer.

As many members might be aware, I've recently charged my parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker, with the responsibility of reviewing Ontario's child care programs. During this process, she will consult with stakeholders throughout the province with the view of bringing forward options for child care that both parents and taxpayers can afford. Following her review, she'll be making a recommendation on how to proceed with this most important issue.

Mrs Munro: I thank the minister for this answer. I would press him, however, that there has been considerable speculation in the press recently that these decisions have already been made. My constituents are concerned, and I would ask him, at what stage in his ministry is this child care review?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Again, I really do appreciate the question. It really does allow us, for a change, to actually get an answer out.

Contrary to speculation which has been fuelled by a lot of fearmongering by the members opposite, the child care review is in its very preliminary stages and no policy decisions have been made at this point. I've asked Janet Ecker in her review and her dialogue with the stakeholders to be open to options that use our resources as effectively as possible. This is intended to ensure that there is parental choice, a quality of service, affordability and a levelling of the playing field between the public and private methods of delivery.

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a real question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I'm continually astonished at your continuous attack on the disabled across Ontario. Last week we were advised that vocational rehabilitation staff who help disabled people get back to work have been cut by 50% in a Metro Toronto office and by 50% in the city of Windsor.

We've now been advised that your regional ministry offices have notified the Canadian Hearing Society in Hamilton and in Windsor that you will not fund sign language interpreters for job interviews and meetings with placement counsellors. In effect, you're prohibiting deaf individuals in Ontario from seeking employment by denying them this essential service. That has been confirmed by the directors both in Hamilton and Windsor.

Minister, can you explain to the House the rationale for denying this essential service to deaf people across Ontario, particularly as it relates to job interviews and meetings with their placement counsellors?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Once again, this really touches the crux of the issue in terms of the disabled community and how we're trying to address these items right now. Frankly, there's not a much better way in trying to decide which services the disabled community needs right now than to consult them, and that's the process we're going through right now. I think it's a very important process.

Mr Agostino: I'm not sure what the minister was answering. It's not a question of consulting the disabled community. The question and the issue is very simple: Vocational rehabilitation services in Hamilton and Windsor will no longer continue to fund sign language interpreters that the Canadian Hearing Society provides when individuals they are working with who are trying to get back to work have to either go to a job interview or meet their placement counsellors.

We have an example in Windsor where an individual could not have the service provided to him. He did not go to the interview. His supplemental benefits were cut -- he's under the Futures program -- as a result of that. It is very clear, Minister. This is not a question of sitting there and trying to justify some cut or some consultation process. It is simply a decision that those two offices, on your behalf as minister, have made and have notified.

Can you assure the House today that you will immediately move to ensure that right across this province deaf individuals can continue to receive those essential services that are provided to them, particularly as it applies to job interviews and job placement interviews they need in order to do what you've asked people to do, and that is to get back into the workforce?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, I believe that the honourable member is probably referring to a number of issues involved with the constraints of the 2.5% reduction for this year in which many organizations have been forced to make some very difficult decisions themselves.

Certainly, we do believe we should be assisting the handicapped and disabled community in as many ways as we can, and certainly there's no better way -- once again I have to emphasize this -- than to actually consult them. I can't see any other way we can approach this.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable James Downey, Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism for the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, in the absence of the House leader, I believe you will find that I have unanimous consent to pass the following motion:

I move that on Wednesday, November 29, the House shall recess immediately after routine proceedings; and

That the House shall reconvene at 4 pm for an economic statement by the Minister of Finance; and

That the House shall adjourn immediately following the Minister of Finance's statement that day; and

That on Thursday, November 30, and Monday, December 4, under orders of the day, the House shall consider replies to the economic statement.

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

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To Mr Harris:

"Please keep your hands off our child care."

It's signed by the children of the Dryden child care program at 113 Albert Street in Dryden, people like Danny, Katie, Shea, Ashley, Christa, Robbie, Merle, Adam and Matthew. Mr Speaker, you can see that they've all given me their signatures through a handprint. I'd like to present that to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have again today hundreds of names, people who have signed a petition which reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to abandon, reduce or delay the provincial government's proposed 30% tax reduction in order to maintain needed funding and services for the two million people of Metro Toronto."

These are all signatures, of course, from people who live in Metro Toronto, many of whom live in my riding.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition signed by over 4,000 constituents from my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We demand that the provincial government take a serious look at the idea of installing a safety median between the east and west lanes of the 401, from Highway 115 to at least Colborne in the east. Too many people are dying from vehicles crossing the median in this area compared to other areas with medians."

I add my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch General Hospital;

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I've affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition from my community, signed by over 500 citizens.

"Whereas the funding for social services in the centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara has been cut by 100%; and

"Whereas the French Language Services Act ensures the delivery of French-language social and health services to francophones in designated cities, such as Hamilton, Welland and Port Colborne; and

"Whereas the needs and feasibility studies carried out after the implementation of the French Language Services Act recommended the establishment of community health centres in the regions of Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara to ensure delivery of French-language services; and

"Whereas the health centres are the only organizations ensuring the delivery of social services in French, since there are no designated bilingual positions in the other organizations of these designated cities;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We demand that the Legislative Assembly immediately stop its attack on French-language services in Ontario. The Centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara are the only agencies offering French-language social services, because there are no bilingual designated positions in other agencies in our communities.

"We expect the Legislative Assembly to demonstrate clearly that Franco-Ontarians are an integral part of the province of Ontario, to immediately review the cuts which have affected those health centres and to re-establish the funding of social services and ensure the future of social services and health services in French in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara community health centres."

I add my name.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the city of London, and specifically at the University of Western Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary education is a critical building block of Ontario's social and economic fabric;

"Whereas the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of our colleges and universities depend upon the provincial government's true commitment to and financial support for these institutions;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government avoids direct consultation with the many stakeholders affected by these budget cuts;

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

My signature is affixed.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that has been signed by 94 people in Sudbury and area. It is being submitted on behalf of the People's Law and Rights Organization. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has decided to resubmit 30% of provincial income taxes to the general public; and

"Whereas this government has stated that its purpose for doing so is to improve the economic situation; and

"Whereas economists would agree that stimulation would be achieved by way of greater spending; and

"Whereas social and welfare recipients must spend all of their moneys in order to survive;

"Therefore,

be it resolved by this organization that the government resubmit 30% of the tax increases to social and welfare recipients, in order that they might stimulate the economy, all the while having the dignity in receipt of decent payment for themselves."

I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to it.

CHILD CARE / SOINS POUR ENFANTS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My petition carries over 1,600 names and there are more to come from my riding of Prescott and Russell. I invite my fellow members to use their earphones, since the text of my petition is written in both of the national official languages.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que des soins de garderie de haute qualité contribuent de manière significative au développement sain de tous les enfants ;

«Attendu que des recherches ont prouvé que les éducateurs d'enfants qui ont des bonnes conditions de travail fournissent des soins pour enfants de très haute qualité ;

"Whereas the best child care system for all Ontario is one that is accessible, affordable and regulated for quality; and

"Whereas recent cuts to child care are destabilizing the entire child care system in Ontario;

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

«Que tous les financements publics pour les soins de garderie soient remis en place, incluant les contributions, les fonds capitaux et les subventions opérationnelles ;

"That all existing commitments regarding wage subsidies, pay equity, grants and any other funding program and/or policies that help to stabilize high-quality child care for children and families in the province of Ontario be retained.

"Que des audiences publiques soient tenues dans le cadre de la revue des services de garderie."

Je suis fier d'ajouter ma signature à cette pétition.

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I want to mention that this petition is signed by 969 people from Windsor-Sandwich.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the 1970s, the government of the day developed measures that curbed the growth of government by involving local communities in the provision of legal services. The criminal justice field began to recognize the benefits of community-based justice options. Privatization was considered more cost-effective while strengthening government ministries through community participation in the justice system.

Since this time, non-profit agencies across Ontario have developed effective programs and present a strong local face to the justice system while supporting partnerships with an ever-widening community base. Community programs have proven to be cost-effective in comparison to directly operated government services. Community-based options reduce the cost of incarceration while promoting public safety;

"Whereas community-based justice programs such as diversion, alternative measures, bail supervision, community service orders etc have proven value; the screening and supervision of accused and offenders within well-defined programs contribute to public safety; for over 20 years community-based options have made a positive contribution to the welfare of communities in Ontario;

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

"We believe these programs must not be viewed as dispensable. As with many recent cuts, short-term fiscal expediency holds no long-term value. Credible links with the community and quality programs for the citizens of Ontario must be maintained."

I hereby affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I will affix my signature to this.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Another one of many petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas research and experience support that early childhood education programs result in children staying in school longer, improved reading, math and language skills, increased opportunities for future employment for youth, and a decrease in teen delinquency;

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

"Do not stop funding school boards for junior kindergarten programs. It saves society millions of dollars that would later be spent on remedial social programs. Our children's future is worth it."

I've proudly affixed my signature to it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas all students in Ontario deserve equal educational opportunities; and

"Whereas we understand the importance of controlling costs; and

"Whereas reductions to core grants severely impact assessment-poor boards;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to effect reasonable reductions in the education system and to ensure that the reductions are shared in a fair and equitable manner."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This petition is for Northwestern General Hospital.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council restructuring committee has recommended to close Northwestern General Hospital and merge all programs and services with Humber Memorial Hospital on Humber's site;

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

"That the recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close Northwestern General Hospital be rejected by the government of Ontario and that it keep Northwestern hospital open forever."

TTC SERVICE

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in Downsview.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Toronto Transit Commission is considering the elimination of the Calvington bus 120A, which serves over 500 residents of the Downsview riding who will be required to walk for as long as 35 minutes to the nearest bus;

"Whereas the Toronto Transit Commission's decision adversely and unreasonably burdens these residents, a large part of whom are senior citizens and high school students;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take the necessary action to not bring about the elimination of the Calvington bus route, 120A, or at least provide rush-hour service."

I have signed my name to this petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This is from the Ontario Catholic Teachers' Association and the teachers of Our Lady of Peace, St Raphael and Our Lady of Victory school in the Halton separate board.

"We, the undersigned, are writing to you as constituents in your riding to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed College of Teachers which your government is intending to legislate. As some of the 130,000 members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation we feel that the College of Teachers is the creation of another level of bureaucracy, the last thing the teachers of the province need.

"The government could be spending its time more productively on the real issues of education such as providing funding for junior kindergarten, a thorough investigation of the amalgamation of school boards and better vocational and technical programs for secondary school students.

"The proposed College of Teachers does not provide for a fair representation of teachers on its governing council. The proposed College of Teachers does not provide for a fair representation of francophone teachers on its governing council.

"The teachers of Ontario have never asked for a College of Teachers. The Ontario Teachers' Federation, with certain enhancements, could fulfil the powers and functions of the proposed College of Teachers.

"The proposed College of Teachers would impose an annual fee on teachers as well as certain user fees. Most teachers already follow professional development programs and do not need additional bureaucracy to mandate such programs.

"We ask you, the Legislature, to oppose the proposed College of Teachers and make all of your colleagues aware of our position."

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition sent to me by a single working mother in Thunder Bay, the parent of a three-and-a-half-year-old and a five-and-a-half-year-old, who is very afraid that she may be forced to leave her job if the feared child care cuts come into effect. The petition reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is apparently intent on replacing child care subsidies with a voucher system; and

"Whereas this voucher system will discriminate against families presently utilizing subsidies and child care centres across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these cuts to this critical economic investment in our communities across the province and to guarantee the current child care subsidy system remains funded and supported."

I'm proud to sign my signature to that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Boushy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day / Projet de loi 25, Loi prévoyant la célébration du jour du Souvenir.

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

Does the member have a short statement he'd like to make?

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Just a short one. The bill establishes November 11 as a provincial holiday, bringing Ontario in line with every other province except Quebec.

OPPOSITION DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms Castrilli moved opposition day motion number 4:

Whereas the Conservative policy document New Directions II, A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario reports that tuition fees should represent 25% of the operating costs of a post-secondary education; and

Whereas a recent Statistics Canada report shows that university tuition fees already represent more than 26% of the cost of education; and

Whereas the former NDP government was responsible for a 42% increase in tuition fees and the elimination of the grant portion of the Ontario student assistance program; and

Whereas Ontario ranks second-last when it comes to per-student expenditure on post-secondary education; and

Whereas the Conservative government has failed to act on their promise to establish an income-contingent loan repayment plan; and

Whereas it is immoral to force students to pay the price of Mike Harris's income tax cut to the wealthy through higher tuition fees;

Therefore this House calls on the Mike Harris government not to impose or allow any tuition increase without first demonstrating that students are not paying their fair share of education costs, which according to New Directions II, was set by the Conservatives at 25% of operating expenditure; ensuring that no student is denied access to a post-secondary institution as a result of their ability to pay; significantly expanding existing student aid programs; consulting with all stakeholders; and establishing an income-contingent loan repayment plan as promised.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Before we proceed with opposition day motion number 4, I'd like to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Hamilton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning funding cuts to the VRS and funding of sign language interpreters. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): We requested an opposition day on post-secondary education today precisely because of the critical importance of our colleges and universities to Ontario's social and economic wellbeing. We believe these institutions play a pivotal role in providing the economy with a skilled workforce that contributes directly to the province's and the nation's productive capacities and abilities to compete internationally. The Liberal Party believes it is necessary to ensure that our post-secondary education sector remains vibrant, innovative, accessible and competitive.

The world has been undergoing a transformation over the last couple of decades in which the barriers of distance have been obliterated, creating in many respects a much smaller and more accessible international community. This process has been spurred by a rapid advancement of high technology, particularly in the telecommunications and transportation industries, that has on its own wiped out the main significance of both geographical distance and international borders.

The result has been a continual movement towards a modern, globalized economy. Because the significance of distance has been reduced, many of the world's developing countries are now in a position to compete in the international export markets more than ever before. This has offered the developed nations a real economic challenge, requiring new and innovative philosophies, approaches and skills in order to remain competitive.

Our success at meeting this challenge will depend primarily on our ability to generate and sustain a highly skilled workforce that will ensure not only economic stability but indeed continued economic expansion. The vehicle by which we achieve this is post-secondary education.

A review of the Progressive Conservative Party policies and prior statements in this House would suggest at first glance that the new government fully believes in the pivotal link between post-secondary education, job creation and general economic prosperity.

In fact, the Tory policy paper New Directions, Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario acknowledges that by the year 2000 half the new jobs in Canada will require more than five years of post-secondary education. It states, "Post-secondary education has never been more important for the future of Ontario's young people." I couldn't agree more, and I would add that post-secondary education has never been more important for the future of Ontario.

The former Conservative Education critic and current member of the new cabinet explained to this House in October 1992 the real significance of our colleges and universities to the broader economic picture. I believe her comments are consequential, for they not only support my vision of the post-secondary education system but further strengthen the Tories' pre-election contention that the system requires increased provincial support.

The member stated, "Without the resources to produce a highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets."

She went on to argue: "We should be supporting competitiveness and commitment to a well-educated workforce through our universities. Ontario must remain in the forefront of scientific and technological development and educational achievement if it is to maintain its competitive position in today's global economy. Ontario universities make a major contribution to this province's competitiveness and they play a vital role in the development of highly skilled human resources."

The Conservatives have acknowledged that the key economic role of our colleges and universities is in jeopardy because of a lack of funding. Their document New Directions, Volume Two explains:

"...our colleges and universities have been weakened by a decade of underfunding. In too many cases, classes are overcrowded, equipment is obsolete, library facilities are inadequate and buildings are deteriorating. Ontario currently ranks ninth out of 10 provinces in operating grants per university student.... The need for increased funding for Ontario's post-secondary institutions is obvious."

As we have seen so often with this government, that was then and this is now. The Conservative record upon gaining power is a completely different story from its pre-election agenda. Now the Conservatives have made a complete about-face on post-secondary education policy.

The pre-election Tory expression of post-secondary education as the centrepiece of the economy now has been washed away. The pre-election Tory statement that our colleges and universities suffer from severe underfunding now has been wiped out. The pre-election Tory assertion that the system requires full moral and financial support has now disappeared.

In fact, it seems like both the Premier and the Minister of Education have disappeared when it comes to post-secondary education. There have been no major or even minor public announcements or discussions of this sector. There has been no consultation with the schools or the many stakeholder groups to discuss the future of the system or even the government's funding intentions. Where is the college and university component of the Education ministry? And where is the minister?

The only area within the sector in which the government has been active is funding. Shortly after taking office, the government departed with lightning speed from its former role as supporter of our colleges and universities in favour of its new role as executioner. The government's true views about education, its lack of commitment to education, innovation and skills development, were made immediately and abundantly clear.

Direct operating spending for colleges was reduced by $6.8 million while universities received $16.8 million fewer. Program spending was slashed, including the elimination of the high- performance computing commitment, for a total reduction of $149 million. Soon after, the province backed out of a prior provincial commitment to support the United Nations university at McMaster University, an initiative that would have focused the world's attention on Ontario.

Yet there are strong data in favour of strong government financial support for post-secondary education. Consider the facts.

Fact: Ontario now ranks ninth out of 10 provinces in its per-student spending and intends to spend even less. In comparison, public institutions in the United States receive one third more money than similar Ontario institutions, while 49 out of 50 states intend to increase university funding even more this year. At a point in time when competitiveness is so crucial to this country's ability to sustain our standard of living, it appears once again that we will choose not to compete, to make choices that will clearly place us at a severe disadvantage. If we choose not to compete with our closest neighbour, how can we expect to compete internationally?

Fact: The higher the educational level one attains on average, the more likely that individual is to gain employment and the higher that person's income will be. In real numbers, this translates into almost a 4% difference in unemployment rate and approximately a $17,000-a-year income variation between those who attained secondary school and those who have achieved university degrees. This means that a university degree improves one's possibility of finding a job by almost 50% over the rest of the workforce and by almost two thirds over those with only an elementary education.

It is also important to note that between 1989 and 1994 the employability of university graduates increased by 16%, while the employability of those without a degree actually declined by 4% during the same five years. But the government has apparently decided to overlook these facts. It pays mere lip-service to the importance of employment and personal income.

Fact: The Ontario government already underfunds post-secondary education. The Tories themselves have admitted that. To place this in context, though, even though student enrolment has increased by 40%, universities' share of the provincial budget has declined by one third during the last 20 years, falling far behind growth of the economy.

When one takes inflation into consideration, provincial operating grants to universities for each student have been slashed by roughly 25% during that same period, ensuring that institutions have much fewer resources in order to prepare students for the competitive world. This leaves Ontario, as I have stated, ranked ninth out of 10 provinces in terms of per- student spending.

Compare these figures with what has happened in other government sectors: Spending per persons served by hospitals over that period has gone up by 76%; spending for elementary and secondary students has increased by 42%; and spending for institutionalized adult offenders has risen by 9%. Thus, in terms of total spending per person, post-secondary education has been disproportionately attacked: 14% reduction for universities and 25% for colleges of applied arts and technology.

These data suggest that our post-secondary education sector is not only falling behind other sectors but also behind other provinces and other countries. This is a very dangerous trend that does not bode well for Ontario workers, employers or the economy as a whole.

As bad as this situation is, it will pale in comparison to what will develop after the funding cuts that the government is expected to announce tomorrow and after they take effect. Not only will the entire post-secondary education sector be thrown into chaos by these unilateral cuts, but the economy will also suffer very directly and immediately.

The Conservative government campaigned on the position that students should not be required to bear, through tuition, more than 25% of institutions' operating costs. Yet Statistics Canada reports that tuition already represents 26.2% of general operating income, and the government apparently is considering further substantial increases. This not only represents an additional burden on students but also a further drain on disposable consumer income.

Professor Atif Kubursi, a faculty member from the economics department of McMaster University, recently authored an economic analysis for the Council of Ontario Universities entitled The Economic Impact of a 20% Cut in Ontario Government Funding Grants to Universities. This report highlights the fact that our colleges and universities are themselves major net contributors to the economy, as both major employers and consumers.

Professor Kubursi concluded that a 20% funding reduction to universities, or $376 million, which is what that 20% represents, would translate, through the trickle-down effect, into a $1-billion reduction in the gross provincial product, a $1-billion loss to the economy.

This massive decline in provincial output would lead to employment losses equivalent to 15,000 person-years, 60% of which would be lost outside of the universities. This would have devastating results for all parts of the province, but particularly for those areas and communities that have few other economic strengths or that are vulnerable to economic fluctuations from reliance on the resource sector.

This process of jobs losses and consumer spending reductions would then lead to a decline in government revenue of approximately $317 million. Therefore, the total net saving to the provincial government would be at most $60 million, and could be much lower; that is, they are taking $376 million out of colleges and universities to at best achieve a real saving of $60 million. I therefore ask, is permanent damage to our colleges and universities, 15,000 lost jobs and $1 billion out of the economy, worth all this?

The government is attempting to convince the public that its 30% tax reduction will on its own create 725,000 new jobs. This is a farce. Because of the poor economy, a large portion of this money will not be used for consumer spending but rather will be saved, because people are worried about the future, they're worried about their jobs, they're worried about their children. This has been the experience in other jurisdictions that have tried this method, and there's no reason to believe that it'll be any different in Ontario. Therefore, there will not be a positive impact, nor will that impact be felt immediately.

Let us contrast this with the government's spending cutbacks. The billions of dollars the government is intending to pull out of the economy will have a direct and immediate impact on Ontario. There is no way this government will create 725,000 net jobs simply by providing a tax break to the rich while devastating Ontario's economic infrastructure. To believe otherwise is not only idealistic, it's foolish.

The people of Ontario expect a rational plan, a substantive strategy that will lead to an improved education system that will assist in creating a long-term solution to the province's economic difficulties and ensure that Ontario remains competitive in the global economy. So far, we have seen no indication that this government even intends to grapple with these critical issues, let alone solve them.

This government's plan for Ontario colleges and universities can be characterized as follows: Their short-term plan is to slash funding to colleges and universities, despite the fact that these cuts will damage the quality of Ontario's colleges and universities and make post-secondary education less accessible; their long-term plan is to allow colleges and universities to increase tuition when students have already seen tuition rise by 42% in the last five years. Beyond that, they have no plan. There is no indication that colleges and universities are important to the economy, that they're important to academic learning, that they're important to Ontario.

This is not acceptable. It's not acceptable to us as Liberals, it is not acceptable to colleges and universities and it is not acceptable to students, their families and their parents. It is not acceptable to the people of Ontario, and I urge all members of this House to support our motion.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I will be brief but I have a few comments with respect to this resolution today.

I first of all have to make a comment with respect to the Liberal position on this particular issue, especially with regard to the position just taken by the previous speaker, who I remember very well was chair of the board of governors at the University of Toronto at the same time that that particular organization -- and I assume that she supported the position that was taken by the president, because I know the president of the University of Toronto quite well and he would never take a position that was not supported by the chair and the board.

That university took the position that the Council of Ontario Universities always takes, and that is significant increase in tuitions. In fact, the COU took the position of a 50% increase in tuitions in one shot, which our government did not accept. The previous speaker, the Liberal spokesperson, will know that the University of Toronto took the position that tuition should be completely deregulated.

I certainly understand the view the Liberals take on these particular issues, but it's important that all of us in the Legislature constantly remind the Liberals and constantly remind the member for Downsview that her position has been terribly inconsistent. I really wonder how much credibility the former chair of the board of governors at the University of Toronto has, knowing her history of asking for massive, massive tuition increases when she served as the chair of that board of governors.

Not wanting to dwell on that particular issue any longer -- but I certainly hope other members will build on that thought -- I want to turn for a second to the comments and the question asked by my leader today of the Minister of Education and Training. I want to again read the quote from the program Focus Ontario. I remember watching this program and thinking to myself that the current Minister of Education and Training must have spent a fair amount of time talking to Bette Stephenson, the former Minister of Education under the Conservative government, because it's been almost a crusade of Bette's to push for private universities in the province of Ontario.

I want to read again the quote from the Honourable John Snobelen: "Well, we've said that's something that will likely happen," referring to privatization of universities. "I believe frankly it's inevitable in Ontario, as the university structure changes, that some of that will come on. I have no timetable for that at this point in time."

There is no confusion about the current public university system we have in Ontario, where a significant level of public taxpayer dollars, federal dollars and provincial dollars, go into funding our university system; that the tuitions are regulated by the provincial government; and that through organizations like the Ontario Council on University Affairs, advice is offered to the Minister of Education and Training and the government of the day. The institutions we have in Ontario right now are public institutions and there is public policy set by the provincial government of the day.

Private universities are quite different. The tuitions are completely unregulated. No public dollars go into those institutions. They would set all the criteria for their own universities and would restrict access to those universities.

There's no confusion at all on our part, but I certainly hope the minister today will explain what he meant. I think he would agree that it would be a significant and massive change in public policy in Ontario if we privatized any of the universities in Ontario. There are fundamental questions like, what would happen to the infrastructure that we as taxpayers have paid for? Those are institutions the public owns, not the individual institutions, not private investors. The public owns those institutions and that's been the commitment in this province for many, many decades. We've never accepted the privatization of universities.

I think it's absolutely essential, when we talk about the post-secondary education system, that we talk about our college system, fundamental to training, fundamental to the links between the private sector, to the needs of business and the training made available; fundamental if there's ever going to be the training that needs to be made available to the unemployed, to the welfare recipients who are employable and can get back into the workforce. There needs to be those training options and the college system needs to be a fundamental and major part of the training system.

We did some of that. I would suggest that we need to do more of that. We cannot reduce the amount of funding to our college system. We need to increase it so that more spaces can become available and more people in this province who need retraining and training can access that.

The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is also a post-secondary training system in Ontario. It's in its infancy stage, but there is a partnership in the way that organization is run, and for the first time it depoliticized the way dollars for training are allocated. It has in it the infrastructure to have a long-term training strategy in Ontario once and for all, with true partnership between business and labour.

Tens of millions of dollars have already been pulled out of that system by the current government. I say to the Minister of Education and Training that that cannot continue to happen, not if you're serious about getting the unemployed back to work.

When it comes to our university system, research and teaching are fundamental, and access to those institutions is fundamental. Currently, tuitions pick up 26% of the cost of a university education -- 26%. I repeat that number because I still hear Conservative members talking about tuitions picking up only 15% and 16% of the cost of a university education. Well, 26% is what tuitions now pick up in our university system. There's not much room for flexibility.

There is another option, the income-contingent program, but our government rejected that in the end because we looked at the long-term cost of an income-contingent program, and the long-term cost to the taxpayers was phenomenal. It was going to be a very expensive program, and we felt that to be fiscally responsible we could not put in an income-contingent program, even though philosophically I totally agree with it. The deferred interest, the deferred cost that the taxpayers pick up is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

In fact, when you look 20 and 30 years out, it gets into tens of billions of dollars in one model that was looked at by the ministry when we ultimately rejected the plan. Unless those costs were very much controlled and shared by the federal government, it simply would be unaffordable at the provincial level.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education and Training, from Mississauga South.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Mississauga North, Mr Speaker. Mississauga South is a fine riding and well represented, but I represent Mississauga North.

It's my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak about an important subject for the future of Ontario, the education system, particularly the post-secondary education system, in the province of Ontario.

I've taken note of the remarks of the honourable members opposite and I must say -- I don't think this will surprise the members opposite -- that I was particularly taken by the member for Windsor-Riverside's comments regarding the sudden transformation of the member for Downsview from being fully in favour of deregulation of tuition fees to whatever the current position is, although I wasn't able to discern completely what that position is.

In the past few months, our government has been moving quickly to make significant reforms that will enhance the quality of the education Ontario students receive and will make the system more accountable to the public that pays for it.

As part of our reforms, we established the Ontario College of Teachers to regulate the province's teaching profession. The college will develop and enforce rigorous standards for teachers and help to improve accountability to students, parents and, equally important, taxpayers.

We also introduced a comprehensive testing program to provide information on the students' performance to help them improve. Province-wide tests will be conducted by an independent agency, the education quality and accountability office, which will dedicate itself exclusively to the quality of Ontario's education system and will be able to respond to the public's demand for closer scrutiny and greater accountability.

Yet another of our reforms will better equip students to go from secondary school to university, college or directly to work. We have started to develop a more focused, relevant and meaningful four-year secondary school system that will be driven by rigorous standards, high levels of expectation, and better career preparation for all students. This new system will focus on the needs of all students, not just those going to university. After all, two thirds of Ontario's students take another avenue. My colleague Toni Skarica will elaborate on this later today.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to talk about post-secondary education. Post-secondary education has never been more important for the future of Ontario's young people. We know that by the end of the century, almost half the new jobs created will require more than five years of education beyond high school.

Our government has made a clear commitment to develop an education system based on excellence in student achievement, accountability to all taxpayers and affordability, and to have a training system that is geared to Ontario's needs for economic renewal.

The honourable member for Downsview has made reference to our policy document called New Directions, Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. I must point out to the honourable member that we're the only party to have put out such a thoughtful, detailed document long before an election. This was not a last-minute red book, but proof of our true commitment to education.

We've said that education reform is essential if Ontario's next generation is to find high-paying, productive jobs in an increasingly competitive world market. We believe this is true now more than ever before. Our priority is to prepare our young people for the future, but we must also prepare the future for our young people.

For too long, Ontario has been spending way beyond its means. An $8.7-billion deficit is not a sensible way to run a province. We are spending enormous amounts of money just carrying that debt. In fact, Ontario's interest bill translates into almost $800 a year for every man, woman and child in the province.

Let me put that in another context. Currently, this government's total debt is $100 billion, with interest charges piling up at the rate of more than $1 million every hour. That means that this year we'll pay out $9 billion in interest costs alone. That's a staggering amount of money.

The member for Downsview raised the issue of morality a few moments ago. I say it is immoral to force our present students to carry the burden of that huge debt into their futures -- immoral and unfair. Unfair because, if not reduced, in 10 or 15 years that huge debt would force the government of the day to eliminate social programs that we enjoy today. So they would be betrayed on two counts. We are not going to let that happen.

Our first priority, therefore, is to get our province back on track financially. We must reduce Ontario's crippling debt to improve the climate for job creation. Only with a healthy economy can we achieve the growth necessary to protect essential services.

My ministry spends nearly $9.2 billion a year to support education operating and capital requirements in this province. Of that $9.2 billion, almost all of it is paid out in transfer payments to colleges, universities and school boards.

We intend to make the education system more accountable, so we must ensure that our resources are well deployed and efficiently used.

The taxpaying public has told us they want better value for their tax dollars, and the education system can certainly improve in this area. They want to know that we're providing a first-class education to our young people, and they want and expect a highly educated, well-trained populace that is ready to meet the challenges of our new economy.

In the post-secondary sector, it's clear that the future fiscal environment is going to be quite different from what it has been in the past.

In 1995 the federal Minister of Finance announced a new funding model which will lead to a $3.6-billion cut in transfer payments to Ontario. Coupled with Ontario's need to reduce expenditures, this means our colleges and universities must look at restructuring. Like other educational institutions, they will have to come to grips with the reality that there is simply less money available and that there will continue to be less money available for the foreseeable future.

The challenge will be to keep in sight the fundamental goal of the post-secondary education system, which is to deliver education that meets the needs of today's students who will be shaping tomorrow's world. By restructuring, working cooperatively at local levels and streamlining operations, I am confident that the post-secondary education community will be able to reduce overall costs while maintaining and in fact enhancing high quality education for all students.

We need to enter into a real dialogue with the post-secondary sector to come to grips with the issues that are critical for the future.

In terms of program rationalization, for example, we will have to identify labour market trends. We'll have to work out a geographical distribution of programs that makes sense and make sure there's demand for our graduates.

Tuition fees will continue to play an increasing role in the funding of colleges and universities. In order to bring about a healthy economic environment in Ontario, we will have to make some tough decisions, including allowing flexibility in tuition fees so that they reflect a fairer share of the actual cost of education a student receives.

Let me point out, however, that over the last 10 years tuition fees have increased significantly. The member opposite has made reference to something like a 42% increase under the NDP government. My office tells me that it's actually closer to 50%, and the Liberals, as I said earlier in the House, raised tuition by over 30% when they were in government. I'm now led to believe that the member for Downsview would have had us totally deregulate tuition fees a matter of a few months ago.

With the staggering debt we have inherited from the two previous governments, along with cuts to federal transfers, our government is facing a financial situation much more critical than ever faced before. We believe tuition fees represent a real investment in the future, both from an individual and a societal point of view. Statistics show that those in post-secondary education are more successful in the job market than those without a higher education. They earn higher salaries and are less likely to be unemployed.

In the Common Sense Revolution, we proposed a partial deregulation of tuition fees so that students pay a fairer share of the cost of the education they receive. This is an area we'll explore in the upcoming months.

Currently, students in college pay about 19% of the total cost of their education, while students in university pay about 25%.

Tuition is an area which we will address with our post-secondary partners, including the students. As the direct beneficiaries of post-secondary education, students should be involved in decisions that affect the quality of their education.

We're also looking at ways to make post-secondary education affordable for everyone. We have a commitment in the Common Sense Revolution to implement a new income-contingent loan program similar to others being introduced around the world.

My colleagues and I were delighted when in September 1994 the Ontario Ministry of Education and the federal government, together with the Council of Ontario Universities and the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, cosponsored a national symposium on income-contingent loans. We were, however, greatly disappointed when discussions fell apart because the previous government backed away from this approach. We believe the approach can be made successfully.

Several months ago I met with the federal Minister of Human Resources Development, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. We agreed to start working on the feasibility of implementing an income-contingent loan program. We have initiated discussions with federal student aid officials to determine how the federal and provincial student loan programs can best be harmonized to improve services to students and also to eliminate existing overlap and duplication.

My caucus colleagues and I are supporters of an income-contingent loan program because students can repay their loans after graduation based on their income. For people who start out their careers earning very little or have difficulty finding a job at first, their loan repayment will reflect those circumstances.

There are obviously major issues that need to be resolved in income-contingent loans, not the least of which is how the overall program would work and who would deliver it, and how much it would cost and how it would be funded. But those issues can be addressed and can be overcome.

What is needed is a new framework for developing policy on post-secondary education to make sure that everybody's needs are met and that we have the best education and training system we can afford, and in fact the best in the world. Improving Ontario's education and training system remains a major priority of our government while reducing overall spending in this sector. There will be tough choices to make, because these tough choices were not made yesterday. In the end we'll have a better education system that meets the needs of the people it serves: the students and the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I am proud to rise in the House today to support this important resolution put forward by my honourable colleague from Downsview, and certainly saddened to hear some of the comments of the Minister of Education and Training, particularly when he talks about a consultation process that will potentially take place after the cuts have come down. That certainly does not seem the way to go.

The students attending Lakehead University and Confederation College in my riding of Port Arthur are more than concerned with this government's focus on cost cutting at all costs. There are some issues that are too valuable to the wellbei