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

March 18, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L042 - Mon 18 Mar 1996 / Lun 18 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH BICENTENNIAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

GOOD BEARS OF THE WORLD

LABOUR ISSUES

MARK FYKE

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

STATUS OF BILL PR24

BY-ELECTION IN YORK SOUTH

VISITORS

POLICE ACTION AT DEMONSTRATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

TAX REDUCTION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ESTIMATES

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

TAX REDUCTION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

TAX REDUCTION

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

TORONTO BEACHES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MILTON ACT, 1996

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED GRAPHIC DESIGNERS OF ONTARIO ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The people of Ontario, myself included, are becoming increasingly concerned by the way this government is handling the largest strike in Ontario's history, especially when the government holds the cards in settling this strike. There's a message here. When you see thousands of people demonstrating outside the Legislative Building to get your attention, Mr Premier, are you listening? They are telling you your process in dealing with this strike shows no justice and, as the picketers say, "No Justice, No Peace."

These are people's lives you are dealing with. These are the families and individuals who have children to feed, rent to pay, mortgages to pay, bills to be honoured. You must deal with the crisis in our province now in a sensitive manner. You must make every attempt to settle this. When I see Dave Johnson, the minister you have charged with responsibility for negotiating with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union saying he wants to wait and see and let the strike play itself out, I tell you, this is not a game to be played. He insults all of us who believe Ontario is worth standing up for.

Mr Premier, when you were in North Bay last week you thought offering the picketers doughnuts would appease the unrest on the line. The picketers that day didn't accept your doughnuts. I tell you, the province doesn't want doughnuts from you. What Ontarians need are dignity, respect, balance, fairness and good government. As I said, no justice, no peace.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This is not a red-letter day for Ontario. The Legislature is surrounded by ordinary citizens, as is every other provincial building in this province.

These are our friends and neighbours. These are our family members, the people who, up until a few weeks ago, delivered the services that all who live in this province rely on. These are your ambulance drivers. These are the people who clear the highways of snow in this province. We have people out there who do research, who manage our resources and who oversee our education and our health care systems.

And why are they there? They are there standing up for their rights to fair treatment and access to a process of just labour relations. They're not asking for anything outlandish, just that their severance, retirement and successor rights be honoured, but even more so, they are fighting for the jobs and services that are so valuable to the economic and social wellbeing of this province. They are putting their livelihoods on the line for each one of us in this province.

In this province this year, we've had people freeze to death on the streets of this city. We have disease beginning to rear its ugly head. We have TB in Toronto. We've had blood spilled on the steps of this Legislature. Mr Speaker, I ask you to call this government to account.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH BICENTENNIAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to celebrate 1996 as the bicentennial of the city of Scarborough.

It was in 1793 that Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe named Scarborough, based on a suggestion by his wife Elizabeth, who fell in love with the shoreline that reminded her of the town of Scarborough, England.

In 1796, 200 years ago this year, the first land patent in Scarborough was granted by the crown to David and Mary Thomson, thus opening the township to new settlement. The Thomsons became the first European settlers in Scarborough just three years later, in 1799.

Scarborough became a township in 1850 and Peter Secor served as the first reeve. By 1900, almost 4,000 people called Scarborough home. Today, Scarborough is home to more than half a million people.

Born and raised in Scarborough Centre, I have watched Scarborough grow throughout the years to become a city of great diversity in which to live, work and play. I am proud to call Scarborough my home. Scarborough has a strong and vibrant business community, a dynamic arts and cultural community, a variety of social, recreational and educational opportunities that are second to none and active community associations with many caring and hardworking residents.

A number of activities are planned in Scarborough throughout the year in order to celebrate Scarborough's bicentennial, and I extend an invitation to every member of this House to come out and experience Scarborough. I would ask the members to join me today in wishing a happy 200th birthday to the city of Scarborough.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On Friday, I attended a noon-hour march in downtown Sudbury. As we wound our way through the streets, we were joined by hundreds of people who spontaneously joined in. The people of Ontario and the people of Sudbury support the OPSEU cause.

It's not about money. It's about balance, it's about justice and it's about fairness.

That's why there isn't a teacher in Ontario who isn't thankful to OPSEU for their cause, that's why there isn't a power worker in Ontario who doesn't understand the importance of OPSEU's stand, why there isn't a CUPE worker in Ontario who doesn't appreciate the relevance of OPSEU's situation, why there isn't a doctor in the province of Ontario who can't sympathize with the sense of government betrayal felt by OPSEU, why there isn't a lawyer in Ontario who can't associate with the hidden agenda of this government, why there isn't a member of a private sector union who doesn't support and appreciate the significance and importance this job action has for the labour movement in Ontario, why the people of Sudbury want you, the government, to listen to us and restore balance, fairness and justice, why the people of Sudbury and Ontario want you to listen to us when we say there cannot be a vibrant Ontario as long as there is no balance, no fairness, no justice.

OPSEU's stand is not about money. It's about balance, fairness and justice.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Harris government continues to show complete contempt for its own employees. They don't seem to care or understand that these are real people with real kids to support, real mortgages to pay, and that they contribute real taxes to the Ontario economy and provide vital services to the people of Ontario. At the very least, they deserve to be treated with respect and to be given a well-stocked toolkit, to use a favourite phrase of the government, so they can try to get back on their feet.

It is completely unfair for any employer to lay off literally thousands of people and at the same time take away pension and successor rights. Mr Harris knows as well as I do that it wouldn't cost taxpayers a penny to be fair to workers whose jobs are being sold off to the highest bidder. If there is a cost, it would be to their Tory friends who are gearing up to make big profits on these services.

At least admit it, Mr Harris; you're beating up on the workers to pay for a tax cut that will mainly benefit your rich friends, a tax cut that the experts say will not do anything to create jobs and help the economy.

I know we're going to hear the mantra "a million dollars an hour" many times today as you try to justify your despicable behaviour. Have you thought how many million dollars an hour it's going to cost the taxpayers to pay for your irresponsible tax cut? Your government has a chance to finally show some competency and fairness for a change. Get on with it. You can end this strike by giving OPSEU workers back their successor rights.

GOOD BEARS OF THE WORLD

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): I rise today on a sad note in the wake of the unspeakable tragedy at Dunblane, Scotland. A group of community-oriented people in Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and the city of Kingston sent, through the courtesy of Purolator Courier Ltd, 16 teddy bears, one each to the families of every slain child, and a mohair bear made especially for the family of their teacher.

The idea for this compassionate action comes from an international charitable organization called Good Bears of the World. Good Bears are people who come from a variety of backgrounds, professions and ages, sharing a common interest in giving, aiding and comforting in a low-key fashion in times of need.

Limestone Teddies of the Greater Kingston Area is a group of volunteers who promote and do the work of Good Bears. It is important to show support for the families of the victims of Dunblane, the family of the Belleville youth killed in Florida and express our concern about violence in any form. I know I speak for all members of this Legislature as we send our deepest regrets to the grieving families and say that our hearts and minds are with them during this time of great pain and frustration.

We hope that the love we send with these bears and the concern we express will be felt by the entire Dunblane and Belleville communities. As we can't be in Dunblane to distribute them personally, these bears are taking our hugs with them.

LABOUR ISSUES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today I want to speak about labour harmony, investment and Tory mismanagement. Labour harmony is an essential component to a healthy and prosperous economy. Investor confidence will drop as a result of this government's policy of deliberately and unnecessarily provoking working people.

For 50 years, governments of all stripes have been adopting laws that improve the lives of working people and encourage a labour climate that enhances investment opportunity. The Tories continue to pursue their recipe for recession. They have demonstrated complete incompetence in the management of labour issues. The strike we're witnessing today was unnecessary. The government is being penny wise and pound foolish.

The strike is but the beginning. London, Hamilton and Kitchener-Waterloo are other examples of what the Tories have done to undermine the province's investment climate. How does the government think that pictures of riot police running through the halls of our Legislature is going to improve investment? How does the government believe that shutdowns of our major industrial centres are making Ontario a better place to invest? Incompetence, lack of foresight and a bullying mentality are the characteristics that best describe this government.

What about the investment in jobs they promised? They're stagnant. The only things that are more stale are the tired rhetoric and broken promises of the government's mindless ideology. No justice, no peace; no peace, no investment.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): We said in this party that when the government declared war on the workers of Ontario through their anti-worker Bill 7, it would leave workers with no choice but to fight back. The strike that we're seeing displayed outside today and across this province is workers having no choice but to do just that: Fight back against a government that has declared war on workers and their representatives.

One of the key issues in this strike is successorship rights. That's a right that workers had in the public sector along with those in the private sector for decades. It had nothing to do with Bill 40 and yet this government said, "When we privatize all those jobs, you as a public sector worker will have no guarantee of benefits, no guarantee of wages, in fact you don't even have a guarantee of being offered that job."

No wonder they're out there fighting for their survival. You've taken away fundamental rights that they were entitled to. It wasn't in the Common Sense Revolution. You didn't talk about it in the campaign. You brought in Bill 7, rammed it through, no public hearings, and then you wonder why people are fighting back.

Take a look at your own agenda. You brought this upon yourself. You've left these workers and tens and thousands of others no choice but to stand up and fight back. Look out the window. There's the Mike Harris Ontario and every one of you Mike Harrisites that played a role in this ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

MARK FYKE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I would like to take a moment to speak about a terrible tragedy that struck my riding on the past weekend. The life of Mark Fyke, a young constituent of mine, came to a violent end on Friday night when he was vacationing in Daytona Beach, Florida. The loss of this young man has shocked the country and our community.

Mark's death will be a personal loss for many in the community. I think of the pain his passing will be to his classmates at Nicholson Catholic College, some of whom were with Mark in Florida. Mark will also be missed by the guys he played hockey with in the Belleville Minor Hockey Association. Of course, his death will no doubt be felt by many people he came in contact with at his job at McDonald's.

I want to express our deepest sympathy to his family and to his classmates, particularly the ones who were vacationing with him in Florida.

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Today I bring to this Legislature for the Minister of Health some 2,740 clip and care coupons. The coupons signify the people's opposition to the proposed closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

These coupons were clipped from our local newspaper, the St Thomas Times-Journal, which has done an admirable job getting this message out. Hundreds of clients will be displaced, hundreds of jobs will be lost or sent to London. Rural communities are losing much of their infrastructure. Health services such as these are a valuable resource for rural communities.

I know, having had many discussions with the minister in the past and his being a rural riding as well, that he would take our concerns very seriously. I believe it is incumbent on both the ministry and the minister to understand the magnitude and potential tragedy of this situation and weigh any decisions carefully.

I would like to close by simply reading the card that I have here in front of me. It says:

"Save our Psych!

"Mr Jim Wilson,

"Minister of Health,

"I ask that you as the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario refrain from implementing a recommendation by the psychiatric hospitals restructuring committee to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital in order to allow for more public hearings into the matter. Because the closure of the STPH would have a negative impact on the community, it warrants further study by the government and health officials alike."

It's signed by a women named Ellen from London, Ontario.

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I have received a number of requests from the members pursuant to

section 30 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, to the Honourable Gregory Evans, Integrity Commissioner, for opinions on whether certain members have contravened the act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

These requests and subsequent opinions were received by me during the adjournment and can be found as sessional papers filed with the Clerk of the House.

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that on Wednesday, January 17, 1996, a special report of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on the Ontario regulation 482/95 and the Environmental Bill of Rights was tabled.

STATUS OF BILL PR24

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting TD Trust Company and Central Guaranty Trust Company.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(c), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

BY-ELECTION IN YORK SOUTH

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that during the recess a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Bob Rae, the member for the electoral district of York South, effective Thursday, February 29, 1996. Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

VISITORS

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 legislative interns from the province of Manitoba. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

POLICE ACTION AT DEMONSTRATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: as you know, there have been lawful picket lines here at this building as a result of the members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union being forced into a strike situation. This morning, as you know, that picket line was enhanced by members of the Ontario Protective Service employees' union and other trade unionists and members of the public who have joined them in solidarity, similarly in lawful picket lines. They were orderly picket lines, they were peaceful picket lines, and they were there for their precise and long-acknowledged democratic purpose.

I received a number of reports just within the last hour of what were described to me as riot-equipped police squads storming picket lines and attacking picketers, striking them to the ground, resulting in at least one person being sent by ambulance to a hospital and other persons receiving what were described to me as visible injuries. There may have been yet a second person sent by ambulance to the hospital.

Why I raise this as a matter of privilege is because it similarly was reported to me that the reason for these riot-equipped, baton-equipped, helmeted, shielded police barging and attacking lawful picket lines was to facilitate the entry of Conservative government MPPs into at least one area, if not two of these parliamentary precincts.

I submit with respect, Speaker, that is very much a matter of privilege pursuant to rule 21. We are seeing here and witnessing here within the scope of your jurisdiction, I submit, a most undemocratic and violent utilization of police power to obstruct and interfere with lawful picket lines, resulting in not just the disruption of the picket line -- I suppose that would be an unfortunate but recognizable side-effect -- but in literal physical attacks on people lawfully assembling for a very lawful purpose, and very specifically to facilitate the entry of Conservative MPPs into these buildings.

I am calling upon you, Speaker, as you have been called upon in the past, to make appropriate inquiries into this matter. I must tell you that if indeed those reports are factual, it's repugnant and certainly to be condemned that lawfully gathered people would be subjected to violent attacks of that nature. It's similarly repugnant that members of this Legislature, and it's reported to me that it was Conservative members, would avail themselves of that type of violent attack on lawfully assembled members of the public so that their whims and fancies -- I was speaking of the Conservative members -- could be accommodated.

I am asking you, Speaker, to make inquiries into this matter. I submit it is within your jurisdiction, within your responsibility. This should be extremely disturbing. We are witnessing and others have witnessed events out there this very morning which reinforce events of days gone by that are very much not resembling the Ontario most of us believed existed. If this is the new Ontario, then let's string up the barbed wire right now and put in the anti-tank barriers.

I ask you to make those inquiries.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I have asked for a report on the activities of today, and I expect to receive that shortly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, for the last 21 days, this province has witnessed the largest labour dispute in its history. In the months leading up to this strike, you used your legislative bullying power to strip your employees of their rights, and for the past three weeks you have simply let this strike drag on. The message I bring you today from the men and women outside this building and on picket lines across this province is that they will not be bullied into submission.

My question to the Premier is about jobs, because that is really what this strike is all about. In the past, Premier, you have said, and said in writing, that about 13,000 people would lose their jobs, would be fired. You have also said, or your ministers have said, that there could be a lot more, but you won't acknowledge just how many. But your economic statement shows that over the next two years you are planning to cut one third of the government's salary budget. Now, that doesn't mean 13,000 jobs, as you've stated, Premier; it means more like 27,000 jobs will be lost. Will you confirm today that you are planning on firing as many as 27,000 people after this strike is over?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Chair of Management Board could answer that.

Interjections.

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

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I'd like to react to the statement in the question from the leader of the opposition party that we have allowed this strike to drag on. First of all, again I would say that it was the union that called the strike, not the government that called the strike. We have put a fair and reasonable offer on the table. There is a media blackout that is under way at the present time, so I'm not going to speak to any of the details that have transpired recently.

But I will say that it is the objective of this government to reach a settlement at the earliest possible date, and that's how we've been acting over the course of these labour relations: a settlement that is fair and affordable to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario and a settlement that is fair and reasonable to the employees of the province of Ontario.

In terms of the jobs, we speculated through the Common Sense Revolution that this government would certainly have to be downsized, that we would need restructuring. Certainly other governments are going through this. The business community is going through this. We have to be able to deliver better services at a lower cost. We said probably about 13,000 people would be laid off through the Common Sense Revolution. Those numbers are being fine-tuned. The various ministries are going through their business plans. The estimates procedure is under way. There will be announcements by the Minister of Finance.

Certainly through the budget process, there will be announcements leading up to the budget, and then we will know precisely what the size of the civil service will be.

Mrs McLeod: I cannot believe, although I should not be surprised, that this Premier sees his only responsibility to deliver some doughnuts to people on the picket line. In the absence of any accountability from the Premier of Ontario, I will, of necessity, redirect my supplementary questions to the Chair of Management Board and say to him that all of us -- all of us -- including every person on that picket line, would like to see this strike resolved through an agreement at the bargaining table. We all hope that, for the first time, you and your government may be prepared to engage in some serious negotiations at the bargaining table.

But, Minister, I say to you that it is very difficult for real, good-faith bargaining that leads to a resolution to take place if you keep misstating the facts. The difference between the 13,000 fewer jobs that you said in writing you were going to bring in and the 27,000 fewer jobs that your 33% cut would mean is not a fine-tuning, Minister. It is offensive to every person out there for you to call that a fine-tuning. That is taking a broad axe and a blunt axe to your entire workforce.

It is completely misleading, Minister, for you to say, as you have day after day, that this is all about the taxpayers' interest and balancing the budget. It doesn't take an analysis of that economic statement to know that you're talking about 27,000 jobs and to know why it is that you're looking at cutting those kinds of jobs like there is no tomorrow.

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mrs McLeod: It is the $5-billion tax cut, Minister and Mr Speaker. That is what is driving the agenda. It is about the most irresponsible and cynical campaign promise that this province has ever seen.

Minister, I ask you, if balancing the budget was truly the reason for your actions of the past weeks and months, will you tell me how you can possibly justify adding more than $20 billion to the province's debt while you lay off thousands and thousands and thousands of workers, just to give the richest Ontarians an irresponsible tax cut?

The Speaker: That question's been asked.

Hon David Johnson: I want to give two numbers, if I can. The head count in March of 1985, the head count in the Ontario public service, was 80,371. Five years later, by 1990, the head count in the Ontario public service was 88,267. There were 8,000 more people employed in the Ontario public civil service through the term of the Liberal government.

So if we have a problem today that we're trying to come to grips with, a problem of doing better for less, a problem of restructuring the civil service so that the civil service can give the services to the people of the province of Ontario, the health services, the education services, the Leader of the Opposition should look in the mirror. This is the problem that we are trying to address that gained momentum under the Liberal years from 1985 to 1990. That's when the problem was created.

What we are trying to do, our objective, is to be fair and reasonable to our employees -- that is the offer we have put on the table in terms of our final offer -- and to restructure the civil service. That's what we are trying to achieve.

Mrs McLeod: The difficulty with this minister and the difficulty with this government is that they give us one number and then two numbers and then three numbers, and all of them are inconsistent with each other. They talk of 13,000 people being laid off and then it's 27,000 people. They talk about a 20% cut and then it's a 33% cut. They talk about balancing the budget, and then they bring in a tax cut that is going to add $20 billion to the deficit and the debt.

Surely, we're all concerned about balancing budgets. That's why we're so concerned about adding $20 billion to the debt and why we're so concerned about eliminating thousands of jobs to give that tax cut to the most well-to-do Ontarians.

I say to this minister again, be factual. This strike is not about balancing the budget. Put the numbers on the table. This strike is about 27,000 people losing their jobs, and the fact is that as a result of your tax cut, which is driving those layoffs, 12 months from today, the deficit -- let's put real numbers on the table -- is still going to be more than $8 billion. Be honest with the people of this province, Minister. Admit that this strike has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is about firing thousands of people.

It is about privatizing government services, which is why you need to lay off so many public servants. It is about political profit, not the public interest. It is all about keeping an irresponsible campaign promise no matter who gets hurt.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, I want to say that that 27,000 number is not a government number. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. It's some sort of speculation in one newspaper. It is no number that's been put out by the province of Ontario.

I want to tell you one more number. I have a document that the Leader of the Opposition may be familiar with. It's the Liberal red book plan, and in this plan it calls for the Ontario public service to fall by 12,000 people. There it is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I find --

Interjections.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There are over 100,000 in the public sector.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines is out of order. Could we have some order.

Hon David Johnson: I find the line of questioning somewhat insincere and somewhat inconsistent in view of the red book.

I will say again, if the honourable member wants to know what the government is trying to achieve in terms of the negotiations with OPSEU, with the union, we are trying to achieve a settlement that's fair and reasonable for employees, a settlement that is fair and reasonable to the taxpayers of the province and the ability of this government to restructure and to deliver services on a less costly basis, better services to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I would be happy to bring Conservative government documents into the House; in fact, I'd bring two documents in. One is the Common Sense Revolution, which talked about 13,000 jobs -- indeed it did, in writing. The other was the government's economic statement, which the minister simply does not want to address today, which talked about a 33% cut, which means more like 27,000 jobs, which at one point months ago the minister at least made some allusion to.

I will again attempt to address my question to the Premier, futile as it may be. I say again that this strike is not about balancing a budget and reducing the size of the public service to help you with that. This is about a government that wants to look tough while it delivers its tax cut to the most well-to-do. This strike is not about restructuring the public service so that it will be more efficient. It is about making your job cuts fast and not caring who gets hurt, and this strike is about selling off government jobs to the private sector because of your ideology and it's about being able to make a profit while you do that. This strike is certainly about what is fair and reasonable.

Premier, you are all set for a massive privatization of public sector jobs, whether it is in the public interest or not. You are going to make that fire sale more appealing to the private sector by offering them a pool of cheap labour, labour that has no protection because you stripped these employees of their successor rights. Where is the fairness in literally selling your employees to the private sector as a cheap source of labour?

Hon Mr Harris: I would like to make a couple of comments, if I might, on the context of the question. First of all, this government is committed to privatizing nothing -- absolutely nothing. We have clearly gone on the record saying that what we think has to happen when you have 10 years cumulatively of Liberals and NDP running up $10-billion deficits -- it might interest you to know, Mr Speaker, that today the per capita deficit in Ontario is higher than even the federal government per capita deficit after their latest projections. This is what we inherited.

What we committed to do was to look at government's role, what is the most effective way, the most efficient way --

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Why borrow money for the tax cut? You've got to be crazy to be borrowing money for the tax cut.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood.

Hon Mr Harris: -- to deliver the best-quality services for the best price.

If that means that some things would be better left to the private sector, we're prepared to study that. We've indicated a number of areas where we're looking at that. If, on the other hand, it can be proven that the public sector can deliver better quality for a better price, we're all for that. You see, we're not for any ideology that government has to do everything. We're not for any ideology that it has to be this union that delivers this service, or this crown corporation. In fact, we're for the taxpayers and we're for the citizens of Ontario: best quality, best price.

Mrs McLeod: There is nothing I might like better, other than a resolution to the strike, than to see this government's privatization plans. Then we might have some idea of just how many of those 27,000 jobs are about to be lost in the next two years. But Premier, that was not my question.

My question is about, where is the fairness for your employees when you do privatize their jobs? I say to you there has been no fairness at all in what you and your government have put on the table for these employees during these negotiations. I say to you there was no fairness at all in the preparations you made deliberately for this strike using your legislative bullying powers to strip away first successor rights and then pension rights in Bill 26, Premier, you may remember, when you took away the rights of your employees to fair treatment on pensions that any other employee in any other sector, public or private, would have.

Premier, I hope you know that under your proposals it is now possible, for example, for a 55-year-old employee who has 22 years' experience in government service, who is three years away from retirement, to lose his job under your layoff provisions, and to lose his right, at the same time, to continue to make contributions towards a full pension, that full pension he's worked towards for some 22 years. Premier, where is the fairness in that?

Hon Mr Harris: I have to tell you that I believe, as does our cabinet, as does our caucus, as does the vast majority of Ontarians, that nobody has been fairer than the Chair of Management Board, Dave Johnson, in dealing with the employees of the province.

In reaching our ultimate goal of significantly lower unemployment, of significantly more jobs, of competitive tax rates, of Ontario becoming known as a friendly jurisdiction to invest and create jobs, and our ultimate long-term plan, to deliver services efficiently and effectively, we up front acknowledged that the public sector would be downsized. We publicly acknowledged that pre-campaign, during the campaign and post-campaign.

The challenge, then, is to be fair, to be compassionate, to be generous. By any measure, including the settlement we have tentatively reached with AMAPCEO, with offering severance benefits far in excess of any of those in the private sector who have lost their jobs, who are paying the taxes to support this $1 million an hour more going out than we get in, Dave Johnson, representing the government, has been more than fair, in putting forth, given our financial situation, an increase -- if you can believe that with a $10-billion deficit -- in the total package that was put there.

While we can't talk about the details of negotiations right now, that is a matter of public record, as is the fairness of our position and our negotiating position and our negotiator.

Mrs McLeod: How can this Premier talk about fairness and compassion?

Laughter.

Mrs McLeod: The members on the government benches may laugh at this, but I can tell you that the people out there on picket lines are people with families and homes and mortgages to pay. They're people who worry about their jobs. They're people who worry about what's going to happen not just to them, but to their colleagues when some 27,000 of them get laid off in the next two years because this government wants to move so fast to deliver its tax cut.

I ask the Premier, where is the fairness, before negotiations ever begin, in taking away successor rights, in taking away the right to contribute to your pension, in taking away even the right to arbitration? Where is the fairness, when you sit down at the negotiating table, in saying that the people whose job you sell to the private sector won't even get your generous severance offer, and that senior person won't get a chance to keep his job and work towards his pension while a more junior person could hang on to his because it is a management right to keep that junior person in his job? Where's the fairness in all of that from a government that is ready to lay off as many as 27,000 people?

Premier, this strike could have been ended much earlier. In fact, this strike didn't need to take place if there was any interest on your part or the part of your government in what was fair and reasonable. If your goal, Premier, was to reduce the size of the public service by 13,000 positions, as you said it was during the election campaign, you could have done that and you could have done it through attrition.

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mrs McLeod: You could have done that through the natural process of attrition and get to your goal long before you have any plans to balance your budget. But this strike is not about fairness. It is about a bullying government that wants the maximum flexibility to do whatever it wants to do when it wants to do it and how it wants to do it, and it doesn't care who gets hurt.

The Speaker: Are you putting your question?

Mrs McLeod: Premier, is it not true that this has nothing to do with making a fair and reasonable offer to your employees? It is just your government carrying out its very deliberate plans and driving a steamroller over anyone or anything in its path.

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Harris: No. As with most of the statements you make, it's not true. You ask me, is it not true? It is not true. Not only that, a lot of the statements -- the 27,000 figure, the other figures thrown out by the Leader of the Opposition -- are not only not true, they are irresponsible and they're not productive in the middle of these negotiations.

We talked about offering double severance from what was there from the NDP; we talked about offering pension bridges; we talked about committing the employer to make reasonable efforts; we talked about, in the final offer, a cost of $150 million to $200 million to the beleaguered taxpayers, deficit-ridden Ontarians, of the mess that we inherited. That, we believe, is fair and generous.

The Leader of the Opposition said, "Why don't you use attrition?" Well, we will use attrition and we will use retirement packages and we will use incentives. But I'm going to tell you that it would have been --

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You can't do it in two years.

Hon Mr Harris: We can't do it in two years. That's right. And do you know why we can't do it in two years? Because of the irresponsibility, particularly between 1980 and 1985.

Let me ask you this: Does it sound like attrition? You hired 8,000 people; 8,000 you hired. We had a chance to use attrition from 1980 to 1985. Had the Liberals particularly not been so irresponsible, we wouldn't be in this mess today. Even the NDP might have been able to handle it.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I didn't realize the Premier felt that way about the Davis government.

I have a question for the Premier. In light of the comments the Premier has just made in answer to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition re the fact that the government, as he says, is not committed to privatization at this point, that the government wants a fair settlement and is trying to be fair, why has this government provoked this strike? Why did you take the approach of bringing legislation before the House last fall that stripped workers of their pension rights in Bill 26 and their successor rights in Bill 7? The people who are facing loss of jobs no longer have any opportunity and protections that people in the private sector have.

Recognizing the fact that this would not cost the government money and would be seen as a substantive move, is the government prepared, in the attempt to reach a settlement and to bring an end to this dispute, to restore successor rights to the workers who are out there on the picket line? We're not talking about numbers. We're talking about people and their families who provide services to the people of this province. Are you prepared now to say that you will restore successor rights to the people who are out there on the picket line?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As the newly elected leader of the New Democratic Party has indicated -- and let me offer my congratulations for his position -- as he pointed out, and I will correct the record, as it is my right to do and I'd like to do that, it was 1985 to 1990 when the Liberals added 8,000 employees.

In response to the leader of the New Democratic Party, I want to be very clear. There's been a lot of talk bandied about about pensions, or stripping of pensions or using these kinds of words. I want to reiterate, and I think that the public clearly needs to understand, that the members of OPSEU, the members of AMAPCEO, every employee working for the government of Ontario is privy to a defined-benefit, fully indexed pension plan and there is absolutely nothing in legislation or negotiations that takes a cent away from that.

Mr Wildman: The Premier did not respond to the specific question I raised, which was the issue of successor rights. The fact is, if the government is not committed to privatization, why on earth did you bring in Bill 7 in the first place? And are you prepared now, since it will not cost the government and the taxpayers anything, to move and to restore successor rights, or are you determined to have the people out on the picket line and to have a confrontation instead of a settlement?

Hon Mr Harris: Now that we've settled that intact and in place is one of the most generous, fully indexed, defined-benefit plans that compares with all the other provinces and the federal government -- I just wanted to get that behind us, because that was in the

preamble -- in successor rights we have indicated we are not committed to privatization but we are not committed not to look at privatization. We've said that. We're committed to finding the most effective way to deliver the best quality services for the best price to the people of Ontario.

So we did make some changes. We did make some changes that had been brought in by previous administrations, paralleling the similar changes that were brought in by the Liberal government in Ottawa, that allowed it the flexibility and the opportunity to see, who are the best people? Is it the employees? Is it government? Is it perhaps the employees taking it over, giving them an option? Is it the private sector? Now we can do that, as can the federal government and other governments across the country.

Mr Wildman: Perhaps the Premier could explain, now that he has indicated privatization if necessary but not necessarily privatization, why it is that people in the public sector, employees of this government, should be treated differently than people who work in the private sector who do have successor rights. Why is it, if the government is truly interested in fairness, that it is taking this approach and determined to deny rights to these workers that other workers across the economy have?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know if the member is suggesting that we change the legislation for the private sector so that we're all the same. We're prepared, actually, to take a look at that. We're prepared to take a look at that, now the leader of the New Democratic Party has suggested that that's what perhaps we should do.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Oh, get off it. Take this seriously. This is about people's lives. It's about families.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, now the potential leader, used to be leader, leader, leader of the day, wannabe leader, interjects, "Be serious." You measure fairness. What's in the private sector? What's in the public sector?

Ms Lankin: Everything is a joke to you. It's not a joke to the people out there on the picket lines. It's not a joke when they can't pay their mortgages.

Hon Mr Harris: The point of the matter, I guess, from the interventions from the member for Beaches-Woodbine, is that the public sector's not the same as the private sector, and she's right. It's not the same.

We actually inherited a $100-billion deficit. In the private sector, they're bankrupt, out of business, nobody has a job or any protection because that was it. We are a little different. In the public sector, if they run a million dollars an hour more money going out than comes in, they're bankrupt, no jobs, everybody loses their job. So we are a little different.

In the public sector, if they run $1 million an hour more money going out than comes in, they're bankrupt; no jobs; everybody loses their job. So we are a little different.

I've got to tell you something else. After the last five years of the NDP government, we're very different in the public sector and it's a heck of a mess to clean up, but we're doing our best.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's exactly that kind of flippant, arrogant response that is going to make it very difficult to get a settlement in this dispute.

The Premier knows full well that I was not suggesting that private sector workers should be denied rights. He knows full well that what I was suggesting was that public sector workers be treated fairly. The Premier goes on to say that this is about cutting the deficit and resolving the problems of the deficit, when in fact we know that the level of the cuts in the public sector that he's talking about are related to a tax cut that is not going to produce anything in terms of economic development in this province.

The finance committee report that you announced today, Mr Speaker, indicated to all of us here and to the public that every expert who appeared before the committee said the tax cut would be taking money out of the economy and would not restore the economy as the government intends.

Can the Premier explain why he is so determined to go ahead with this tax cut when every credible witness before the committee said that it would take money out of the economy, would harm the Ontario economy, not do what this government claims it would do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The cost of the tax cut is this: It will take us five years to balance the budget instead of three years, as you campaigned on. That is the cost of the tax cut. Now, what are the advantages of the tax cut?

You campaigned on no tax cut, "We're going to carry on the highest taxes virtually, among the highest in North America." You campaigned on that and you said you could balance the budget in three years. You might be able to do that. If you're prepared to make the same kind of reductions we are, you might be able to do that. But the penalty for it is over 10% unemployment, 1.3 million on welfare, $10-billion deficits, a $100-billion deficit overall, a whole litany and tyranny of unemployment, of loss of hope.

So we believe very strongly that just as your tax hikes killed jobs, destroyed jobs, ruined the Ontario economy, that we're better to wait five years to balance the budget and have lower unemployment, over 725,000 new jobs, fewer people dependent upon welfare. The price is prosperity and jobs for Ontario. We think it's a pretty good price.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to restore order in the Legislature. Could I restore some order, please.

Mr Wildman: The Premier has said that the purpose of this is to produce 725,000 new jobs. Can he please explain how laying off somewhere between a little more than what the Liberals promised or up to 27,000 from the public sector plus the teachers, perhaps as many as 15,000 teachers are going to be out of work, the hospital workers and all of the municipal workers across the province because cuts in your transfer payments -- how is that going to add to consumer confidence? How is that going to produce more spending that will stimulate the private sector?

Can the Premier please explain how it is that this tax cut is going to produce consumer spending when in fact in order to do it he's putting thousands of people out of work in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member knows quite well that the spending reductions called for by his party and the Liberal Party and our party were to deal with the deficit. That was to deal with the $10 billion of spending each year that we didn't have or the million dollars an hour we didn't have.

Then you had some stimulative programs, "tax more, government spend," to try and create jobs. They were an unmitigated disaster, a job-killing failure, so we are scrapping those programs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: Everybody knows by delivering services more efficiently, more effectively, in conjunction with having a more competitive, regulatory and tax climate, we will create far more jobs in the private sector than are lost in the public sector. Clearly, some will be lost in the public sector. Many more will be created in the private sector. It's already working today. We are on track for over 725,000 jobs, and by the time we go back to the people, we will exceed it.

Mr Wildman: There is absolutely no evidence for what the Premier just asserted. There is absolutely no evidence that there has been stimulation in the economy today as a result of the policies of this government.

Can the Premier please explain why he is prepared to stand by this promise of a 30% tax cut, even when he recognizes that the experts before the committee made it very clear that the cuts in public services and expenditures will result in less consumer confidence in the economy, not more?

Hon Mr Harris: The reductions in the public sector -- I guess maybe when we campaigned we were the only party that acknowledged there's a drag on the economy when you do that. But then there's a plus for balancing the books and getting your affairs in order that are there, you see.

We acknowledge that. It is the stimulative effects of electing a Progressive Conservative investment climate here in Ontario -- tax reductions, a more competitive regulatory climate -- that will create the private sector jobs. So how are we doing?

Here's how we're doing. Over the last six months, Ontario has gained 76,000 jobs, net. Employment rose by 31,000 in February. We're on track the last six months: 13,000 jobs a month. Our projections -- our own government projections -- are 81,000 net new jobs in 1996, 100,000 in 1997. Data resources, if you want independent data, say 150,000 in 1997. On that track, we're in excess of 725,000 jobs over the next five years.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): It's obvious that the Premier wants to look like this fair guy, and his Chair of Management Board certainly has that look of fairness. I can tell that you when you scratch beneath the surface, there is no fairness there.

My question is for the Premier. Premier, the daily commerce of the province is steadily and daily being slowed down: Potential home buyers are being hurt by the slowdown in land registries; small meat processors may be faced with bankruptcy; birth registry and renewal are slowing to a crawl. How in the world can a poisoned labour climate, in addition to all of that, help attract more investment to Ontario? I ask you, Premier, when will you put the public interest ahead of your own narrow political interest and start negotiating in good faith?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Chair of Management Board does that every day, and he'd be pleased to answer the question.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'd be pleased to indicate to the member for Lawrence that the government has been negotiating through this whole piece in a fair and reasonable way. We put an offer on the table in the first instance, a final offer, involving an increase in compensation of between $150 million and $200 million.

Most of the people I talked to in the province of Ontario feel that is a fair and reasonable amount. As a matter of fact, I would say that to some degree we are getting criticism, that some people feel that's too much money that we're putting on the table, but we have looked in other areas as well. We've looked at severance payments for those who will be leaving, doubling the severance payments. We've looked at pension-bridging mechanisms. As a matter of fact, we've looked at restoring the social contract, so the take-home pay of the members will be increased, which was taken away by the previous government.

So there'll be about a 2% increase in compensation, total take-home pay to the members, plus the merit increases will click back in. So this government has put a number of different proposals on the table in an effort to be fair and reasonable to the employees of the province of Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious that this government has used every chance it has, including the strike, to drive a wedge with the people of Ontario between the rich and the poor, to have a division between the employed and the unemployed, workers and management. When will this government realize that the people of Ontario want fairness, not more division, not more conflict, not more alienation -- fairness. When will you get back to the negotiating table with fairness in mind, Mr Minister?

Hon David Johnson: We are at the table in the sense that the mediator is very actively negotiating between the two parties. The blackout, of course, is in place so I can't give you any details of anything that's taken place under the blackout. Fairness is what we are trying to achieve: fairness for the employees, fairness for the taxpayers, fairness for the citizens of Ontario in that we need to restructure this government to be able to do better with less, to be able to deliver the services to the people of the province of Ontario. That's what we're trying to achieve.

I might say that in an effort to kickstart that, we put forward on Tuesday of last week amendments to our proposals, such as the job-matching scheme which would include a further element of fairness, and that's I think why we were in active negotiations over the last weekend. So I'll assure the member one more time that we are attempting to be fair to all concerned: to the employees, but also to the taxpayers.

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Premier. In light of his comments and the comments of his colleague the Chair of Management Board, and the determination, it appears, of the government to make these cuts to help to finance the tax cut, could we refer to your promises in the campaign. In the campaign, you said your plans included $600 million for severance payments. Now, apparently in the negotiations you're saying you can only afford $150 million to $200 million in the OPSEU agreement.

You also said in the document the Common Sense Revolution that, "Where possible we'll make reductions through attrition and retirement packages." Why are you breaking this promise and why are you not prepared to meet the commitment you made of $600 million in the campaign?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The commitments that were quoted in the Common Sense Revolution will be met or exceeded.

Mr Wildman: Does that then mean that the commitment for $600 million to finance severance packages is again on the table?

Hon Mr Harris: The commitments that have just been repeated in the supplementary, as well as the commitments in the question, as well as those commitments dealing with downsizing in the Common Sense Revolution, will be met or exceeded.

MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. As members know, the ongoing strike of the civil service union is creating severe hardship for the owners and employees of provincially inspected meat processing plants. Virtually no meat is being processed in provincially inspected plants at the present time and many of these businesses are in very deep trouble because for the past three weeks they've been unable to operate and serve their customers.

In recent days I've heard from a number of my constituents who are affected by this strike and I view the present situation as being totally unacceptable. Can the minister advise the House of what actions the government is taking to resolve this problem?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The government is concerned about this situation. It's unfortunate because there are some 300 small meat processing plants across the province of Ontario. They are small business people. They struggle. They work hard to make a living and this government is very concerned about them. I will say that they employ a great number of people across the province of Ontario and unfortunately -- those employees are important -- as a result of this strike the plants have essentially been closed down. There are about 2,000 people who have been put out of work and I'm very concerned about that.

The government took this matter of the Ontario Labour Relations Board last week. The government feels that these meat processors should be in operation. The union's position is that the services are not essential. The government's view is that the services are essential and the government wished to have essential service workers so that the plants could be opened. But the labour relations board has ruled against the government and ruled that the meat inspectors should not be essential, and unfortunately, as a result, the plants are closed down.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for the actions he has taken to date, but we must acknowledge that in spite of the government's best efforts the problem is not yet solved. There's a concern that some processors, in desperation to save their businesses and their livelihoods, may process illegally and unsafe meat may reach the supermarket counter. What assurances can the minister provide the House that the meat being sold in Ontario is safe for people to eat?

Hon David Johnson: Again to the member for Wellington, we will certainly be continuing to monitor this situation. It's not a situation that we're happy with. I'll assure you that we would immediately negotiate with the union in terms of having essential service workers in these plants so that they could operate, so that they could process meat properly, so that there would be no danger at all to the health and safety of the people of the province of Ontario.

The government is continuing to collect evidence. To the degree that there's evidence that would support a further review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, I'll assure you that we will be more than willing to go back to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to rectify this matter. Of course, the government is continuing to negotiate on a broader scale, and if we can reach an agreement on a basis that's fair and reasonable to the taxpayers as well as to the employees, then this whole matter will be resolved as well.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the OPSEU strike and how the government is dealing with the OPSEU members.

The Premier will remember that during the campaign his document on the Common Sense Revolution said, "We will trim the cost of the direct provincial government workforce by 15%, the equivalent of some 13,000 employees, returning the system to the approximate size it was in 1985." That was your first promise; you would return it to 1985 levels. We've heard today, however, that we're actually already at the 1985 level. The Ontario public service already is at the 1985 level.

The second thing we've heard is this -- and my leader pointed this out. These weren't her numbers, these are your numbers, Premier. You have said that you are going to cut the payroll by one third, 33%. That's how much money you're going to cut out of the Ontario payroll. Because OPSEU is essentially two thirds -- or actually three quarters -- of the payroll, we can only assume that when you're cutting the payroll by 33%, you are going to cut 33% of the jobs.

My question is this: Knowing what OPSEU is facing at the table, can you confirm that you have changed your commitment from the campaign? You are no longer committed to returning it to 1985 levels, but you are planning to reduce it at least 20,000 and perhaps as much as 27,000 jobs below the 1985 levels?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Chairman of Management Board --

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I can confirm that this government is committed to its Common Sense Revolution approach, that we will downsize and restructure the government to deliver better with less.

In terms of the job count, at this point it's all speculation. The 13,000 is the number that was contained in the Common Sense Revolution, but the ministries are looking at their business plans, the ministries are looking at their estimates procedures, and this will all become clear over the next couple of months in terms of what will be required to deliver the services in the province of Ontario in a manner consistent with what we said would happen in the Common Sense Revolution. The people of Ontario are expecting us to downsize, restructure and do better, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Mr Phillips: I think you begin to see the problem OPSEU faces trying to deal with this government. You have said publicly you are going to cut one third of the cost of the payroll out of the budget. Those are your own numbers, and the Premier's shaking his head. You have said that. You said that publicly and you said that in private briefings. That's what OPSEU is facing, a government that is trying to hide the facts from the public. You said you're going to cut one third out. In the campaign you said we were going to return to the 1985 levels. You've already broken that promise. You've already said you're going to get at least 13,000 below it.

I want you today to confirm that you have said you are going to cut one third -- it's in your own document, right here -- of the payroll out. If it does not come from jobs, where in the world else are you going to cut payroll, Mr Chairman of Management Board?

Hon David Johnson: What I announced in the Legislature last fall was that the operating and administrative expenses of the province of Ontario in those areas that were not exempted such as health and classroom education etc, those areas would be reduced by about 33% over two years. That was clear.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You stuck to that one.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, if I'm allowed to respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East is out of order.

Hon David Johnson: There are a number of ways of reducing administrative expenses. For example, you will see quite a lowering in terms of the cost of property leases of the province of Ontario.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's not payroll. He' talking payroll numbers. Answer the question.

Hon David Johnson: Well, I'm telling the member opposite the commitment this government made, and the commitment this government made was to reduce operating and administrative expenses. That will be accomplished through reduction in lease costs, through consolidation, for example, of computer leases -- in many, many different ways. Yes, there will be reduction in the payroll costs as well. All taken together, that will be one third, roughly, over a couple of years, of the expenses that have not been exempted.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. It seems as though I need to remind him of a commitment in the infamous Common Sense Revolution, a commitment that is worded as follows: "We will not cut health care spending."

Outside on the picket lines today there are many, many health care workers, because they know that after you've finished savaging OPSEU, they're next on the line. They know that. You've already broken a promise that you would not cut health care. They know that the promise in the Common Sense Revolution is at best a sham and at worst an outright lie. There have been thousands and thousands of layoff notices already issued by hospitals. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows you cannot effect those levels of layoffs without affecting the level of services in the health care system.

At the Toronto General Hospital there have been 1,300 workers already receive layoff notices. At the Parry Sound hospital, every health care worker in the hospital below the level of chief executive officer has received a layoff notice. In Hamilton Centre, St Peter's Hospital has already notified 230 people of layoff. And as a matter of fact, St Joseph's Hospital will be closed and there will be up to 4,500 jobs there.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Laughren: I'm asking the Minister of Health, will he finally lay to rest that big lie in the Common Sense Revolution and admit there are going to be cuts to the health care system?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Perhaps the record of this government speaks for itself in the area of health care. The budget was $17.4 billion when we arrived in office. It's $17.4 billion today. It will be $17.4 billion when we go into the next election.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member's out of order. Sit down. You're out of order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, the Minister of Finance, in his November statement, made it clear that $1.3 billion will be the amount of money reduced in transfers to hospitals over the next three years. I know the honourable member told the Ontario Hospital Association that he agreed with hospital restructuring. That's the money we anticipate will come out of hospitals.

Unlike other governments, when we actually see that money -- and don't forget, those fiscal years haven't even started yet and we've already made investments in kidney dialysis and paramedics and ambulance services around the province and a 20% increase in cardiac surgeries, and we've not seen one penny of hospital restructuring savings. When we see the savings, though, that money over the next few years of the government will also be reinvested into health care, into long-term-care services, into things that his community needs, and the envelope sealed at $17.4 billion.

I don't understand how you can't get that through your heads and understand that is a sealed, protected envelope as per our campaign promises.

Mr Laughren: That response would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. The minister knows he's already cut the money out of the hospital budgets before the restructuring has taken place. He knows that full well. As a matter of fact, his own government, his own ministry, through the health sector training and adjustment program, has announced for the year 1996-97 that there'll be the following layoffs in the hospital sector in the province: for Metro Toronto, 2,550; for the northeast of the province, 350; the northwest, 65; eastern Ontario, 820; the southwest, 1,315; central west, 460; central east, 175 people.

Those are layoffs that are coming, according to his own ministry, this year in the hospital sector, and he wants us to believe that will not affect services and that does not represent a reduction in funding to the health care sector.

So I'm asking the Minister of Health to do two things: to convince his colleagues that the tax cut must not go and that that money be used to maintain spending in the health care sector and to get the deficit down.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member was the Treasurer of a government that closed over 6,000 hospital beds during the five years that you were in office. The only thing you forgot to do, I say to the honourable member, was to actually reduce the overhead costs. On a proportional basis, Ontarians pay today more for bricks and mortar than we do for actual services in those hospitals compared to other provinces and other health care systems, and that's a real shame. So everyone, I say to the honourable member, in the health care sector agrees with restructuring, and all three political parties here.

Yes, there will be a dislocation of jobs in the hospital sector. We will see a beefing up of services and an increasing number of jobs created in the long-term-care sector. We know that adjustment policies have to be in place. One of the Health Services Restructuring Commission's first priorities is to establish that human resources plan. The remnants of the plan that the NDP left -- they spent tens of millions of dollars studying this problem but didn't have the courage to move forward and do the restructuring -- did put in place the health sector training and adjustment program.

That money is still there and that money will be available to help retrain people so they'll get jobs, the new jobs in health care that aren't necessarily in the old hospitals but in the community.

We'll see an increase of health care services in the province. In fact, all of the studies to date, some 33 coming into the ministry, indicate we will have better health care services -- highest quality, best price -- and it's a pretty exciting time in health care in the province.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Solicitor General. Ontarians across the province are deeply concerned about the rise in the number of crimes committed by youths in our society today. Criminal habits developed by these young people may stay with them all their lives, with long-term costs to themselves and to the people of Ontario as a whole. While our party was in opposition, we advocated getting tougher on young offenders. Recently the Solicitor General announced the formation of a Strict Discipline Task Force. I would like to ask the Solicitor General, what progress has been made in this area since the creation of the task force?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. I know there have been a number of incidents in her own riding in the last little while with respect to young offender crime and I appreciate the concern of her constituents which she is voicing in the Legislature today.

When our party was in opposition, we toured the province listening to people with respect to concerns related to the justice field. One concern is in the young offender area. We have acted upon that concern as a government. We're limited significantly in what we can do because, as members are aware, the Young Offenders Act is a federal piece of legislation. But we are moving in the strict discipline area. We have established a task force which will be reporting back by mid-April and we hope to move very quickly in this area this year.

They have met with over 40 stakeholders, they have visited a number of young offender facilities in Ontario and have also visited Manitoba to take a look at the strict discipline program in Manitoba.

I can indicate to the member and to members of the House that we will move quickly with respect to implementing the recommendations of the task force. We see a strict discipline facility, at least one, perhaps more, in establishment before the end of the calendar year and certainly the implementation of strict discipline programming throughout the young offender system in Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing orders 8(

a) and 96(a), the House will not meet on the morning of Thursday, March 21, 1996, to consider private members' public business; and that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 15, 16, 17 and 18.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Agreed? Agreed.

ESTIMATES

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I think you will find there's unanimous consent to consider the estimates concurrences together and to defer all votes to the end of the six hours allotted for estimates concurrences.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it agreed? It is agreed.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's my privilege today to add another 3,200 signatures, which now makes it I believe in excess of 11,000 signatures collected by Rose Kulimouski and Mae Mussolum with regard to cuts in health care. I will dispense with the reading of the petition, but it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly and I'll file that with the clerk.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): "Whereas the Ontario government plans to sell off public services to corporations which will run them for profit; and

"Whereas corporate takeover will be strictly user-pay for services we now depend on; and

"Whereas our clean air and water standards and worker safety rules are being relaxed because corporations don't like rules that interfere with profits; and

"Whereas privatization is being sold as a way to save tax dollars, even though large companies pay little or no taxes while individual Canadians pay most of the total tax bill; and

"Whereas Bill 7 was introduced in the interests of facilitating its privatization agenda by stripping public sector workers of their rights to retain fair working conditions when services are transferred or privatized;

"We, the following citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to abandon the sell-off of Ontario public services and reinstate successor rights for public service employees."

I'm affixing my name to this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

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

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with efficiently and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their right to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

I hereby affix my signature.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition, without attacking basic rights and dignities of hard-working people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

This is signed by more than 70 people, and I'm proud to affix my signature.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): By coincidence, this is a petition from the member for Simcoe East.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

It's signed by some 21 persons. It appears to be in order.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given full power to close or amalgamate hospitals and to terminate services that individual hospitals provide; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given the power to take over the operation of a community hospital by appointing a hospital supervisor who will have all the powers of the hospital board; and

"Whereas $225 million in new user fees under the Ontario drug benefit program will be imposed on seniors and others most in need; and

"Whereas drug costs under the Ontario drug benefit program will no longer be regulated, leading to sharp increases in the price of prescription drugs; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given the power to unilaterally remove health care services from OHIP coverage, meaning these services will have to be paid for by the public; and

"Whereas the government is given the power to unilaterally close down the public service pension plan and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union pension plan; and

"Whereas Bill 26 restricts access to freedom of information requests by implementing new fees and providing greater powers to the government to keep files secret;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Mike Harris's undemocratic omnibus Bill 26."

I affix my signature to this petition as I agree with it.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from people who are very concerned about the treatment by this government to workers.

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

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition, without attacking basic rights and dignities of hard-working people,

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate reasonably and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I agree with this petition and I will affix my signature to it.

TORONTO BEACHES

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Pleading with this government to do what the former Liberal and NDP governments would not do -- that is, to help restore clean water and clean beaches to west Toronto -- I present to the Parliament of Ontario a petition signed by thousands of residents of Parkdale and High Park and York South asking the government to give speedy approval to the construction of the western beaches tunnel, which will make a major contribution to the improvement of our environment, improve water quality, create thousands of construction jobs and return our western beaches to safe, pristine conditions for our children and our future.

I proudly affix my signature.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario public service employees union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I affix my signature along with the hundreds of others who have signed this petition and submit it to the House today.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government plans to sell off public services to corporations who will run them for profit; and

"Whereas after the corporate takeover it will be strictly user-pay for services we now depend on; and

"Whereas our clean air and water standards and worker safety rules are being relaxed because corporations don't like the rules that interfere with profits; and

"Whereas privatization is being sold as a way to save tax dollars, even though large companies pay little or no taxes while individual Canadians pay most of the total tax bill; and

"Whereas Bill 7 was introduced in the interests of facilitating the privatization of the agenda of the government by stripping public sector workers of their rights to retain fair working conditions when services are transferred or privatized;

"We, the following citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to abandon the sell-off of Ontario's public services and to reinstate successor rights for public service employees."

I agree with the petitioners and I affix my signature to this petition.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition dealing with Ipperwash Provincial Park and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Ipperwash Provincial Park was occupied by aboriginal persons on September 5, 1995; and

"Whereas there has been considerable property damage resulting from this occupation; and

"Whereas there is speculation of a possible burial site on this deeded property;

"We, the undersigned residents" -- and there are 5,000 of them -- "of Ontario petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) To undertake to reopen Ipperwash Provincial Park and restore the park for public use before the regular opening date of May 1996.

"

(2) To ensure the integrity of all of our provincial parks to remain open for continued use for tourism and the enjoyment of the public.

"

(3) To define the status of any burial site and protect any such site under the direction of the Cemeteries Act."

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas community-based justice programs such as diversion, alternative measures, community service orders, bail supervision etc have proven value; the screening and the 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 that 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 affix my name to this petition as well.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I also have petitions here in support of the OPSEU strikers.

To the honourable Lieutenant Government and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them, and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition, without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I'm proud to affix my signature also.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario,

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

"That the Liquor Control Board of Ontario remain a crown corporation because we fear that the privatization of that organization will lead to an increase in crime, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and its health costs as well as loss of control over availability to minors and the quality of product."

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given full power to close or amalgamate hospitals and to terminate services that individual hospitals provide; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given the power to take over the operation of a community hospital by appointing a hospital supervisor who will have all the powers of the hospital board; and

"Whereas $225 million in new user fees under the Ontario drug benefit program will be imposed on seniors and others most in need; and

"Whereas drug costs under the Ontario drug benefit program will no longer be regulated, leading to sharp increases in the price of prescription drugs; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health is given the power to unilaterally remove health care services from OHIP coverage, meaning these services will have to be paid for by the public; and

"Whereas the government is given the power to unilaterally close down the public service pension plan and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union pension plan; and

"Whereas Bill 26 restricts access to freedom of information requests by implementing new fees and providing greater powers to the government to keep files secret,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Mike Harris's undemocratic omnibus Bill 26."

Hundreds of people have signed this, and I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Martiniuk from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 19,

An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters / Projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report, as read, be adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 19 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Gilchrist from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 20,

An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à promouvoir la croissance économique et à protéger l'environnement en rationalisant le système d'aménagement et de mise en valeur du territoire au moyen de modifications touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement, la mise en valeur, les municipalités et le patrimoine.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 20 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Pursuant to the order of the House of December 14, 1995, Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fourth report.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Pursuant to the order of the House of November 16, 1995, Mr Curling presented a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Reading dispensed with.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MILTON ACT, 1996

Mr Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the Town of Milton.

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

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED GRAPHIC DESIGNERS OF ONTARIO ACT, 1996

Mrs Marland moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr56,

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario.

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

1092040 ONTARIO INC ACT, 1996

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr43,

An Act to revive 1092040 Ontario Inc.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Mr Eves moved concurrence in supply for the following ministries:

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Education and Training, supplementary

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ministry of Housing

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Transportation, supplementary

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Health, supplementary

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the 1995-96 estimates. At the outset, though, I do believe it's important to note for everyone's information that the 1995-96 estimates that we're going to be discussing today reflect the previous government's way of doing business. This government is in the process of rebuilding the foundations of the province's fiscal and economic policy.

One of the issues we're debating is the Ministry of Housing's estimates, which were reviewed last month. One veteran member of the standing committee on estimates told our committee that landlords have failed, that he had failed when he was a landlord, that as a former Minister of Housing he had failed. He said, "We have not brought decent and affordable housing to the people of this province and we must fix that." He went on to say about this government's actions, "I commend you" -- the government -- "to looking with respect to fixing the rental housing aspect in our province."

Do you know who said that? It was the former Minister of Housing, Alvin Curling. And I couldn't agree more with Mr Curling on this issue. We need fundamental change in this policy area.

We learned a great deal from the estimates process with respect to the Ministry of Housing. We learned that taxpayers are subsidizing non-profit units to the tune of some $10,000 a year; that's this year and every year. If we had let this boondoggle continue, there would have been 132,000 units under subsidy by 1998-99. This would have cost the taxpayers of Ontario, the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario who are suffering under one of the highest tax burdens in North America, brought about by 65 successive tax increases -- half from my friends in the Liberal caucus and half from my friends in the New Democratic Party --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): How come you are reading your notes?

Mr Baird: My friend from Ottawa West will be pleased to note that I carried every poll --

Mr Chiarelli: They all go to Ottawa for the housing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Ottawa West will come to order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was trying to listen carefully to what the member said, and I wondered if he mentioned the 172 tax increases under the Progressive Conservative government previous to that. I didn't hear it. Did he say that or not?

Mr Baird: My friend from St Catharines can review Hansard and make note that I, on a number of occasions, said that government was certainly not perfect prior to 1985.

But going back to my friend from Ottawa West, he can take some pride in looking at every single co-op and non-profit housing project in my constituency, and I was elected by a plurality in every single one of them. I know my friend from Ottawa West will appreciate learning that.

These hardworking taxpayers are forced to pay a $10,000 annual subsidy, each and every year, to these units. It's simply unsustainable. This would have cost the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario more than $1 billion a year. Again, this is not just a $1-billion, one-time cost. This is $1 billion this year, next year, and forever. This simply is unsustainable to the taxpayers. If we continued with this type of spending strategy it would end Ontario in the bankruptcy court.

The non-profit program was a badly conceived and badly mismanaged project. Even the neutral Provincial Auditor would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The Provincial Auditor found huge discrepancies in the non-profit housing sector, such as unsatisfactory control to ensure that projects were built only where needed and at a competitive price. That would seem only logical to the people of Ontario that you build housing only where it's needed and when it's needed. But the Provincial Auditor found that there were unsatisfactory controls to ensure that basic concept was satisfied.

Twenty-five per cent of the projects looked at by the auditor lacked approved operating budgets, something that's just absolutely outrageous.

It's that type of mismanagement that put this province at a competitive disadvantage. It's that type of mismanagement and excessive government spending that is the reason why this government has to take control of what is a very difficult situation. We can look at the roots of this problem in the Provincial Auditor's reports and in the way housing has been dealt with over the last five and 10 years particularly.

Mr Chiarelli: What about rent controls?

Mr Baird: The Provincial Auditor went on -- and my friend from Ottawa West will be interested to know this -- to note that project costs were going up despite large declines in land prices and construction costs. When construction costs went down, when land prices went down, it's only logical that the cost of building these non-profit units would go down. But regrettably, under the previous two administrations the Provincial Auditor found it actually went up, which is quite outrageous.

Finally, he noted that the average costs came in even higher than those at the peak of the housing boom in the late 1980s -- last year and the year before, the non-profit housing projects were coming in even more than they were at that boom.

If you go around Ottawa-Carleton, my home community, you'd see that housing prices have fallen in each of the last three or four years. People who bought their homes in 1990-92 find that their homes are depreciably less. It would come as quite a shock to the hardworking taxpayer to note that even with this reality, even with the decline in housing costs, the government-owned and -operated and -constructed housing units were going up in price.

It's that type of mismanagement, it's that type of excessive spending that's put Ontario at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners. It's put Ontario at a competitive disadvantage when dealing with job creation. It's why the tough actions, all designed to create jobs and hope and opportunity in Ontario, are needed. It's why we simply can't wait. At $1 million an hour going into debt, we simply can't wait. We've got to take action. This government fully accepts the heavy responsibilities given to it by the people of Ontario to make such real change.

We had a very good debate during the election campaign. The government of the day put forward a very clear strategy on where they wanted to take the province. The current government put forward an equally clear strategy on the direction we'd like to take the province in. My friends in the official opposition put forward two very clear strategies on the directions they'd like to take the province in, and we learned about some of them in question period when we heard that the civil service reductions proposed by the official opposition were only 1,000 less than the government's. That's something important to note.

I've learned from my colleagues in the Liberal Party that they stand by the numbers; they stand by both of them.

I recall Bill 15, the reform to the Workers' Compensation Board. We learned that during the reign of the previous government, the Liberals were in favour of scrapping the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Then we waited until after the election and they changed their minds. Now they like it. So they had one set of policies before the election and another set of policies after the election. Regrettably, my colleagues in the third party only have one set of policies.

The committee also heard from the Minister of Housing that the provincial government and his ministry were phasing out funding to a number of interest groups that the previous government funded. It's important to note that. People in my riding, in my constituency, feel very strongly that hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't be given to special-interest groups to lobby their own government to spend exceedingly more money. It's inflationary to simply say, "We'll give money to this group and not that group, and then this group will use that money to lobby us to spend even more money."

I suspect if you knocked on doors in the great city of St Catharines or in Ottawa West, you'd find that nine out of 10 would wholeheartedly agree with the concept that the government simply should not be funding special-interest groups. If interest groups truly represent the large constituencies they purport to represent, surely they could collect a very modest membership fee of as little as a few dollars to support that worthwhile cause they hope to represent.

The people of Ontario have solidly spoken in favour of the government getting out of the advocacy business, of the government getting out of the special-interest-group financing business. They believe the people of Ontario will make the very wise decision to support those groups which they choose to support, not those groups which the government of the day chooses to support through their hard-earned tax dollars. It's simply unsustainable. To ask taxpayers to fund special-interest groups is something that is simply abhorrent to the vast majority of hardworking people in the province of Ontario.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out some news that we learned in the deliberations of the committee with respect to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, something we were very concerned about. In reviewing the estimates, as each member does before the committee meets, you could go through and find large discrepancies, sometimes double-digit discrepancies, between what was budgeted and what was spent, what was estimated to be spent and then what in fact was spent.

There was one remarkable discovery that members of the committee made in the course of our deliberations on the estimates. Now, it would have been helpful had this House debated these estimates last year when these estimates were first drafted, but they didn't. They were being debated some 10 or 11 months too late, which I think is something unfortunate. I think the most basic tenet of democracy is the 1:30 to 3 o'clock window where members of the cabinet are accountable to the citizens of Ontario, where the estimates could have been tabled in this House and referred to the appropriate committee.

It's remarkable that the House didn't sit for a spring session last year, not even for the month and a half preceding the call of the election.

I think the public was denied what we would call accountability on this side of the House, and that's very regrettable. In fact, in the last year they sat only a few weeks, which is simply not --

Mr Bradley: Twenty days.

Mr Baird: Twenty days, my colleague the member for St Catharines says. That simply is inappropriate. It speaks volumes to the degree of accountability that the previous government sought.

In the 1995-96 estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the government of the day, my colleagues in the third party, said that a program was in existence that would find $611 million in savings from the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- $611 million would be saved. When my colleague the member for Nickel Belt presented his budget forecasts last year, this $611 million was a budgeted saving, that they brought down the deficit by $611 million.

In the estimates committee we noticed that this $611 million hadn't been saved. When you go through the books -- we saw some 11.3% discrepancy on that vote which we were all very concerned about, so we went to the estimates committee and we had the good fortune to have the minister spend a number of days with us to question him about that. Of course, this minister was there to answer questions on behalf of the previous government, so these figures weren't his.

When we asked the minister why this program -- this program designed for saving $611 million, this program which got the deficit down $611 million conveniently, just a week before the election was called -- why this program saving hadn't been realized, we found out that the program was never implemented. We found out that the program they said existed never was implemented.

We were all very surprised, and it's no wonder that the deficit went up by such an incredible margin between the day of the calling of the election and the Minister of Finance's financial statement of July 21, 1995; it's no wonder there was a huge discrepancy. Here's $611 million we found out about. Not even my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon could get away with that type of disappearance of saving plan.

We asked the minister, could he and his officials table the spending reduction program, their plan to save $611 million, with the committee. To our great horror, when we requested such from a ministry official, a senior official at the ministry was able to report that the previous government, my friends opposite, had no plans to realize the $611 million in savings. There simply weren't plans.

Is it any wonder that governments in this province brought in deficits over the last number of years of as high as $10 billion, and that we have a $100-billion deficit in this province, when $611 million just simply disappears in the estimates book, and that the government of the day would not call back the provincial Legislature for a spring session last year before the election was called so that these accounts and these estimates could be tabled with this Legislature, so they could have public review and scrutiny at the most relevant time, before the money had even begun to flow?

I think it's a real disgrace that that never happened. In going on, we found that this $611 million simply hadn't occurred.

I wonder over the last 10 and, to be fair, even 15 years, how many decisions like this were simply made: "We'll just say let the next generation pick up the bill. We'll just put a $611-million accounting trick into the books and we'll let the next generation pay. We'll let the young people of this province take out a mortgage on their future and they'll pay the bill, because we simply don't have the courage of our convictions to stand up, to make the tough decisions," the tough decisions that the people of Ontario sent each and every member of this Legislature to address, and that's a great concern to us all.

I also would take note in this discussion of the report of the Provincial Auditor. He said in his report, "I'm pleased to note that the new government has taken action on many of our recommendations." The Provincial Auditor, a neutral third party of this House, is someone who has served admirably and well in the last number of years, someone who in the dark days of the previous government was the best friend the taxpayers of this province ever had, by the way.

He goes on to state that the government is finally accepting the advice by him and his officials at the Office of the Provincial Auditor that the government shouldn't keep two books. That's something that we on this side of the House in successive caucuses have spoken about for many years. I think that's something very important to note.

Having said that, I think the endorsement of the Provincial Auditor that this government is addressing and taking action on many of the recommendations that he has made in subsequent years is good news for the finances of the province of Ontario. That, coupled with addressing the real spending concerns in this province, I believe will create an environment that will encourage job creation, encourage investment, will encourage consumer confidence.

My colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party presented a plan during the election campaign with billions of dollars in tax cuts. They don't talk about that now. They were going to cut billions of dollars in taxes and balance the budget in four years. My colleagues in the third party had a plan to balance the budget in three years. We know we're already $611 million off just from the estimates in this one ministry. We find out that they wouldn't have made those savings and delivered Ontario with a balanced budget in three years.

What we on this side of the House said is that waiting an extra year, balancing the budget in five years, was worth the issue of addressing job creation and the urgent need for employment in this province. When I went door to door, and I know my colleagues from all sides of the House would have got this, the number one issue of the people of Ontario was job creation, spurring economic growth, and we put forward a concrete plan to deal with that.

Having said that, it meant we would have to balance the budget one year later, but we simply couldn't look at the people of Ontario and say to the unemployed, to those working families struggling to bring up a family in a high-tax environment, "No, you'll have to wait for five years; you'll have to wait until the fifth year before we address the problem of unemployment and job creation."

The people of Ontario told us that job creation, economic growth, creating an Ontario that encourages investment and job creation is key, that it should be the top priority of the provincial government. We have taken some actions to get government spending under control and when we do that and bring in lower deficits and eventually, in five years, a balanced budget -- that's already had a tremendous effect. We learned from my colleague the minister of industry and trade today that there were 33,000 jobs created in February, the highest job creation for any February since 1981, that better economic times are already beginning to be fostered.

We also know from the statistics released by the federal government that 33,000 of the 44,000 jobs created in this country were created here in Ontario because of the climate that this government is setting, the climate that this government is encouraging for job creation, and I think that's good news for the people of Ontario. For my colleagues opposite who say to tell the unemployed to wait, that they should wait for an extra year, they should wait until year five of this government's mandate for job creation and major government initiatives to deal with job creation, it is simply too much.

We learned from the experience in other jurisdictions; we learned from the federal experience, the federal Liberals. We learned they would borrow $6 billion and spend it on infrastructure. What did infrastructure mean? We found out what infrastructure meant after the election.

Mr Chiarelli: Highway 416.

Mr Baird: My friend the member for Ottawa West talks about infrastructure and Highway 416. The money that the federal Liberals put up for Highway 416 did not come from the infrastructure program. They had to find the money elsewhere because they had --

Mr Chiarelli: What did they spend in Nepean?

Mr Baird: Do you know what they had spent it on?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Ottawa West.

Mr Baird: The federal Liberals had spent the $6 billion infrastructure program on a golf course in one constituency. They had spent it on a museum celebrating the industrial heritage of Shawinigan. I wondered, where was Shawinigan? It's in the constituency of the Prime Minister. They're building a museum to celebrate the industrial history of Shawinigan when, regrettably, there's no job creation program to give it industry today. That's just simply outrageous.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Is that like the millions of dollars spent on Mulroney's old riding?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): So's Mulroney.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Baird: My colleague the member for Essex South is comparing the actions taken by Mr Chrétien to the previous Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. I'm sure his colleagues in Ottawa would be abhorred to learn that members of the Liberal caucus are comparing Mr Chrétien's actions to Brian Mulroney's.

I go on to point to examples where the federal Liberals' job creation strategy included bringing cable television into a rural community. I don't think when the people of Canada voted for a federal Liberal government, their idea of job creation was to say, "Listen, you're going to have work harder and longer, and we'll take tax dollars" -- and the federal Liberals have of course increased tax rates in this country. They increased taxes, and they take that money and they spend it on cable television for some communities. They spent it on a canoe museum in one constituency. That was a good one.

They spent it on I think a curling rink in the north end of Toronto, or some sort of recreational sports facility --

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Bocce ball.

Mr Baird: My colleague from Northumberland says it's bocce ball.

I don't think the job creation programs announced by the federal Liberals are what worked. Clearly, we've had them in power for some two or three years, and the job creation numbers that they promised just simply haven't arisen.

What we say is cut taxes to create jobs; cut regulation to create jobs; spend appropriately, which deals directly with this estimates process, to create jobs. When we cut government spending, interest rates have already fallen some 2%, and that makes mortgages, consumer loans and car loans, loans for small business to start up and create jobs, more affordable for the people of Ontario. That's what the people of Ontario elected a government for: to take real action to create jobs and an environment that will encourage job creation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the estimates. I'll start off commenting on the accountability that the member mentioned. The public may not be aware, but for the first time in the history of the province, the first time ever, we have a government that has not presented a budget. We will have gone a full year with no budget. The government, for the first time in history, refused to present a budget. The members may say, "Well, we just got elected in June." There have been lots of governments elected in June who then moved to present a budget.

Mr Bradley: Why wouldn't they present one?

Mr Phillips: My colleague says, "Why wouldn't they present it?" In my opinion, because you did not want to reveal to the people of Ontario your fiscal plan.

I comment on this because the member just talked about accountability. Frankly, if I were in the back bench of the Conservative Party, I would not have let them get away with it. They may have said: "Well, we just want to do this because we're a little bit disorganized right now. We don't have time to prepare a budget." But I find it objectionable, really objectionable, that for the first time in the history of this province of Ontario since Confederation, we did not have a budget. We did not have an opportunity for this Legislature to debate the budget.

The government wasn't required to lay out for the people of Ontario their fiscal plan. So what we've dealt with is what's called warrants, where the government has gone to the Lieutenant Governor and said, "Please give us the money to operate," and we're dealing now with estimates, but no budget. I simply find that unacceptable.

But I wanted to touch a little bit on some of the issues that have been raised around the impact on jobs. I think the first thing that the people of Ontario should recognize is that -- this is the government's document. They prepared a fiscal statement: instead of a budget, a fiscal statement. No opportunity for debate on a budget but simply a fiscal statement.

But one of the very interesting pages in here, Madam Speaker, outlines the job situation for the province of Ontario. Would you think, would anybody believe, that a government that says it has a program for seeing job creation, that "We have an idea of how we're going to see jobs created in the province of Ontario," the government itself predicts that there will be more people out of work in Ontario in 1996 than there were in 1995. And then the government predicts that in 1997 the number of people out of work will be higher than it is in 1996.

So two a half years -- 1997 is two and a half years into this government's mandate -- we find by their own admission that there are more people out of work in 1997 than there were in 1995.

I find that frankly a disgrace, that the government is accepting, planning, that there will be more people out of work in 1997 in the province of Ontario than there were in 1995. I don't know whether you find that acceptable --

Mr Baird: Thirty-three thousand jobs. Come on.

Mr Phillips: The member is saying 33,000 jobs. The Premier today acknowledged that you will not see jobs created in Ontario fast enough to absorb the people entering the job market. There are going to be more people out of work in 1996 than there were in 1995. That's not me and the opposition speaking. Get this document, which you all have, and look at it.

I would also say that there is a provincial disgrace around youth unemployment. Frankly, I don't pretend to blame the Conservatives for this. Frankly, I find it unusual you are taking credit right now because if I were you, I would say, "We're just beginning to implement our plan," but you're trying to take credit for the job creation that might have occurred in February. The youth unemployment in the province of Ontario is between 25% and 30%. That is a disgrace that none of us should live with, when our young people between the ages of 15 and 24 have unemployment rates I think very close to 30%.

The reported rate is lower than that because a huge number of them have simply dropped out. I truly don't blame the Conservatives at this stage for it, but it is a problem that all of us are going to have to tackle, and tackle with vigour.

Frankly, I believe you are a government that is fixated on cutting expenditures. This is your mission right now: cut expenditures. Your second mission is to cut taxes. I will just say to you that in my opinion neither of those things are going to begin to tackle the provincial disgrace of youth unemployment. I raise all of this because we are facing it right now. Summer's coming up and our young people are going to be even more frustrated.

Your program calls now for tuition increases, as you know, a 15% tuition increase for colleges, 20% for universities, and we're now finding in certain programs -- dentistry and I gather medicine -- huge increases. I might say personally I worry about that. If your access to a profession like medicine, or dentistry, or pharmacy is going to depend on the size of your wallet, we have a problem in this province. I'm just saying that I guarantee you that this is a major problem that none of the estimates we're dealing with begins to address. I've heard virtually no talk from the government about it.

The talk is all around cut, cut, cut. We are sowing the seeds, in my opinion, of a very significant problem if we don't begin to deal with and understand the size of the problem with our young people.

I wanted to touch a little bit on the job area around the OPSEU strike, because it is impacting on this year's fiscal statement. I think it's undeniable -- when you ran you did say, "We are going to cut the level