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

May 17, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HARRIS LODGE 216

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PUBLIC SAFETY

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

SMALL BUSINESS

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

WASTE REDUCTION

VISITOR

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

VISITORS

ASSISTED HOUSING

PURCHASE OF LAND

YOUNG OFFENDERS

HEALTH INSURANCE

POLITICAL STAFF

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

FOREST MANAGEMENT

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

TOBACCO PACKAGING

HEALTH LEGISLATION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

EDUCATION FINANCING

TOBACCO PACKAGING

NAMDHARI SANGAT CANADA (SOCIETY) ONT. ACT, 1994

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

WASTE DISPOSAL

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Nepean.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you very much, in particular for giving me the epithet honourable. Its time will come.

Last Friday the Liberal MP for Leeds-Grenville, Jim Jordan, received written confirmation from the Honourable Art Eggleton that the federal government will contribute one third of the cost for the completion of Highway 416. This is great news indeed for all of eastern Ontario, and I thank Jim Jordan for his untiring efforts in this regard. The ball is now squarely in Bob Rae's court.

On November 20, 1990, the then Transportation minister, Ed Philip, assured me personally in this House that Highway 416 would be completed on time as planned by the Peterson government. The NDP's promise was broken without any advance warning a short year later. Now is the time to put this commitment back on track.

With the federal contribution, the Ontario government will save at least $60 million. Hence, there's absolutely no reason why we should have eastern Ontario taxpayers pay tolls on top of the federal moneys, as suggested by the current Minister of Transportation.

The NDP can't have its cake and eat it too. The federal government has made a strong commitment towards eastern Ontario. Let Bob Rae and his cabinet members do the same. Eastern Ontario deserves no less.

HARRIS LODGE 216

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the Freemasons of Harris Lodge 216 in Orangeville on their 125th anniversary. The Orangeville Masons were formed on May 26, 1869, and it is the oldest fraternal organization still in existence in Orangeville today. The Harris Lodge in Orangeville has a membership of 175 men who believe in brotherly love, charity and truth.

The aim and objective of the Harris Lodge has always been to promote goodwill, charity and benevolence among its members. There are approximately 250,000 Masons in Canada, 80,000 in Ontario.

The history of Masonry traces its roots to the early 13th century in England when stonemasons required freedom to travel from city to city. From its humble beginnings, Masonry has spread worldwide. There are Masons in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Holland, Germany, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Men from all walks of life and religions have been members. Kings and prime ministers, factory workers and labourers have all been Freemasons.

The Harris Lodge 216 has been active in our community by raising several thousands of dollars which have been distributed to the various charitable organizations within the town of Orangeville. Their participation in various community activities includes the annual Christmas parade and sports tournaments. While much of the charitable work of the Masons has been anonymous, their fund-raising efforts have benefited burn units and orthopaedic hospitals. They have also participated in the county of Dufferin drug awareness program.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to once again call on the government to reform the property tax system, to make it fairer and more affordable by basing it on ability to pay.

Of all the taxes, it is the property tax that is raised and continues to be raised by my constituents as being the most difficult to pay. If you're unemployed, on fixed income, a senior on a basic pension or a young couple on a moderate income struggling to pay for a home and raise a family, this tax becomes a tremendous burden.

The NDP has long maintained that the education portion of property taxes be removed and relocated to a more progressive form of taxation. Successive reports commissioned by several governments have all said the same thing, primarily that our property taxes are extremely unfair.

On November 19, 1992, I introduced a resolution, which passed in this House, that asked that priority be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation. This view was again supported, more recently, by the Fair Tax Commission's report, a report which was commissioned by this government and which recommends that the education portion of property taxes be eliminated.

I call on this government to make property tax reform a priority.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Yesterday the Solicitor General announced with great fanfare a three-month gun amnesty for Ontario citizens to voluntarily turn in their guns with no questions asked.

Although we welcome this announcement, it does little to prevent violent crime and the Solicitor General even says he would be happy if only one gun per police station were turned in. This standard is not acceptable. It indicates that his government is still not prepared to deal with substantive initiatives. It indicates that his government is not interested in improved enforcement and prosecution of violent criminals.

The Attorney General appears quite content with the current Young Offenders Act. All her public statements show that she's soft on toughening up the act. What does her government say to the innocent victims of a gun-happy Etobicoke 17-year-old whose identity is protected under the act? She also refuses to take strong action on plea bargaining and sentencing in gun-related offences in Ontario courts.

As well, the Rae government can immediately refer Bill 151,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition, to committee of the whole House for quick passage, but as with all enforcement issues, this government continues to waffle.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): For over three years our party has called on the NDP government to spearhead a school-based nutrition program in Ontario. To date, nothing has been done.

Yesterday the Common Sense Revolution travelled to the Holy Angels School in Sault Ste Marie. Mike Harris met with volunteers with the May Court Club, who run a junior snack program at the school. The dedicated volunteers of May Court also provide an emergency snack box program in eight other Sault Ste Marie schools.

Mr Harris met with students in a grade 1 and 2 class who were enjoying juice and trail mix. He was very encouraged to hear one young boy tell his teacher, "I'm full."

Studies have shown that children who go to school hungry tend to do poorly in class, are more disruptive and suffer more health problems. With leadership from the Premier and with private sector and volunteer support, a breakfast or nutrition program can be implemented at little or no cost.

We have been urging the government to act on this initiative and have included it in our Common Sense Revolution plan.

On behalf of Mike Harris and our caucus, I want to thank the May Court Club of Sault Ste Marie and the students and teachers of Holy Angels school for sharing their success story with us.

We encourage the Premier and his ministers to visit schools where nutritional breakfast programs are already in place so that they too will realize the importance of ensuring that no child in Ontario has difficulty learning because he or she is hungry.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to take this opportunity to direct the attention of this House once again to the problem of access to capital for small business.

We are all aware that small business plays a critical role in employment growth, yet we see increasing evidence of the neglect of small business by our federally chartered banks. Canada's superintendent of financial institutions reports that banks were making fewer small business loans last year than in 1989. In fact, our banks are closing viable businesses.

Let me cite just one example. Several months ago, my riding's small business group intervened on behalf of Argord Industries, a company forced into receivership by a Canadian bank. Argord had work orders in excess of half a million dollars and 45 employees. Our group succeeded in delaying matters while Argord's owners sought new investors. CBC TV's Venture program reported this case in a national broadcast.

Where is Argord today? The company is doing very well indeed. They have not laid off workers and added to our social assistance rolls. Instead, without bank assistance, Argord has been thriving and hiring additional workers.

I would like to thank the members of the Fort York Small Business Working Group for their work with Argord and their ongoing efforts to protect Ontario's jobs. I would also like to thank the Premier, Minister Laughren and Minister Lankin for listening and for taking important steps in the recent budget to open the door wider to small business.

I will be rising in the House once again to raise this issue, because there is much more that needs to be done.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): During the 1990 election debate Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris called himself the only honest politician in Canada. Mr Speaker, you will understand me when I say that the so-called Common Sense Revolution is showing Mike Harris's true colours, and I do not mean red, white and blue.

This morning Mike Harris and the American Revolution stopped by the studios of CITY-TV here in Toronto. When asked point-blank whether or not he made a mistake in hiring Americans to direct his campaign, what did Mike Harris say? Did he tell the truth and admit that hiring Americans was the political mistake of his life? Did he come clean with the Ontario public and say that his $600,000 campaign is a complete disaster? Did he say he would never again hire Americans and take jobs away from qualified Canadians? No.

Mike Harris's only response was that he should have checked their passports. Checked their passports? Ontarians will remember that originally Mike Harris said there was only one American involved in his campaign. Later he admitted there were two. Now he's saying he didn't know they were American and he should have checked their passports.

Give me a break. If we can't trust Mike Harris with something simple like the number of Americans working on his campaign or whether or not he knew they were American, how is anyone ever going to believe him when he says he'll cut taxes by 30%? It appears that Ontario's own Honest Abe, Mike Harris, is anything but, according to the newspapers and the people of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am pleased to stand up and endorse once again our Common Sense Revolution document, immediately following the member for Mississauga West, who has indicated a great deal of chagrin about this policy, and we see some interesting pictures across the floor.

But it's interesting and I think we should observe that this plan has come under some degree of scrutiny and observation by some of the other caucuses in this Legislature, yet they refuse to discuss the merits or in any way debate the issues that are outlined in this policy.

In the time I have left, I'd like to talk about how our Common Sense Revolution will help culture in Ontario. As the Culture critic for our party, I have given a great deal of study to this commonsense document.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Arnott: One of our recommendations is that we should explore the sale perhaps of TVOntario, which is of course an excellent feature of our provincial cultural scene. We look at the operating budget of TVOntario and we wonder if that money could not be better spent directly on programming that would be generated out of the private sector and through private sector involvement.

We question the NDP government's cultural priority which at the present time appears to be its effort to move the head office of Culture to Niagara Falls. I had a meeting with many cultural representatives. They're looking forward to meeting with the Premier to discuss that particular issue.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I was sitting in front of this member during his statement. There was so much noise in this House that I cannot tell you what he was talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Mississauga South indeed has a good point. It would be most helpful, particularly when members have only 90 seconds within which to make a statement, if they would be afforded the courtesy of being able to make that statement without interruption.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Like the member for Wellington, I too want to talk about garbage.

Recently a constituent of mine in Oxford was honoured for his waste reduction efforts. Stu Shouldice of Woodstock spends about a half-hour each week sorting through his household garbage. About 95% is either recycled, composted or returned to the manufacturer. Yard and vegetable wastes are diverted into two composters in the backyard. Meat scraps are buried to deter wildlife or pets, while plastics, papers and metals are sorted into groups.

Most of these recyclables are taken to the Oxford 3Rs resource depot, a community recycling centre which Mr Shouldice helped established. This depot is in addition to the city's blue box and green box recycling programs.

He sends some materials that are difficult to recycle back to the manufacturer with a note stating that his house is a garbage-free zone. In the end, there are a few small bags of unrecyclables which he reluctantly puts out at the curb every few months for disposal at the landfill site.

It was because of his diligent efforts that this avid recycler was nominated for an award from the Recycling Council of Ontario and inducted into the council's Waste Reduction Hall of Fame.

Stu Shouldice sets a high standard that all of us should endeavour to follow, which is to remember more than just the 3Rs but the fourth R, which of course is rethinking.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and seated in the members' gallery west, a former minister of the crown from the province of New Brunswick, Mr Bob Jackson. Welcome.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Again I have to rise and advise you about the number of absentees from today's events. They all know that we're supposed to start question period at this time of day; they're just not showing up. So we're left with very little opportunity again.

I understand that the Premier is now away on an extended trip. The Minister of Finance is not in his place again.

I know I've raised this issue with you before, but it is frustrating our attempts to do our public business. I don't understand how you could ask for question period to begin until at least the complement of people who have been advised are actually in their seats.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the frustration which the member expresses. He can anticipate the reply, since he has brought this matter to my attention on other occasions. There is nothing in the rules which will assist me in trying to accomplish what he would wish to have accomplished. All I can do is to offer my understanding.

The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

VISITORS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I know the House would like to welcome Mr Lou Younge and Mrs Iris Younge, who are here visiting all the way from Australia. They are sitting in the private members' gallery with their niece Mrs Pat Leavers. It is a very special visit for them, their first time to Canada.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order. However, the guests she introduced are most welcome from another Commonwealth country. I hope you enjoy your stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Housing. Minister, yet another non-profit housing allocation has come under question. The latest story we've seen involves the recent allocation for the expansion of the Main-Gerrard co-op in the Beaches area of Toronto. It may in fact be only coincidental that this particular co-op houses the party headquarters for the Ontario New Democratic Party, but be that as it may, clearly that coincidence leads to questions about the basis on which the decision for the allocation was made. I would simply ask you today, on what basis was the allocation for expansion made to the Main-Gerrard co-op unit?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The allocation for the expansion of the Main-Gerrard co-op was done in 1991 under the very poetically named P-10,000 non-profit program that was initiated by this ministry at that time. It would probably be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition to understand that the co-op is a federal co-op and that the lease arrangements with the New Democratic Party, to my personal knowledge, extend back as far as 1981. The allocation was based on the same kinds of program allocation requirements that were in effect for all the allocations under the P-10,000 program.

Mrs McLeod: We learned this morning, and I'll ask the minister if this is accurate information, that the co-op applied for funding for the expansion under a federal-provincial program in 1991 but that application was rejected; that it was a year later, in 1992, that the application was made again and was accepted, this time by a provincial program. Is that correct, and if so, can you tell us why the project was rejected by the federal-provincial program and then a year later accepted by a provincial program?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. The initial request for the allocation had been in 1991 under the federal-provincial program, and I'm not certain of the reasons at that point. The federal-provincial program is one which requires a very quick commitment because of the nature of the program. The next opportunity was under the P-10,000 program, which was initiated by this government in 1991. The allocation was given in 1992, as were 10,000 other units of allocation.

Mrs McLeod: Then if I understand that correctly, although you had responded to my first question by saying this was a federal project and therefore a federal landlord for the New Democratic Party headquarters, when the application for expansion was made to the federal-provincial program, it was rejected. It was subsequently approved by a program which is a provincial program. So the fact that it is a federal project is less than relevant in terms of understanding the issue of the expansion.

We're also aware, and I think you would agree, that you are looking at a waiting list for non-profit housing projects. We know, for example, that Cityhome has a number of projects that are ready to go and it can't get its funding approved.

We also understand that this particular project, the Main-Gerrard project, has at least three major zoning issues that will have to be addressed: that the project does not meet density requirements, does not meet height requirements and does not meet parking requirements for current zoning. We also learned that the plan calls for the expansion to be built on an industrial site. We're all well aware that in the past the costs for cleanup required on old industrial sites has been prohibitive and it has contributed to many housing projects being cancelled.

Considering the number of problems that seem to be associated with the Main-Gerrard project and the fact that there are other projects waiting to go, why would this project have been not only considered but approved in spite of all the problems and ahead of other projects?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It was in no way ahead of other projects when it was selected for an allocation. The problems associated with that proposal are the ones indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.

I referred to the existing co-op as a federal co-op because it is a federal co-op. And it is with that federal co-op and only with that federal co-op, and nothing to do with the provincial housing program, that the New Democratic Party rents space and has for at least 14 years, to my knowledge.

The problems she has indicated are part of the reason the commitment has not been made on this proposal. Like many hundreds of other units in other proposals that were initially allocated development moneys under the P-10,000 program in 1991-92, it has not proceeded to a final commitment and therefore final approval hasn't been given by the Ministry of Housing. It will, along with the others, be reconsidered within the next few weeks in terms of whether it will go ahead at all.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who I understand today is acting Deputy Premier and who I understand is prepared to answer questions about Ontario Hydro in the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy as well as of the Premier.

Minister, you will be aware that for the past week we have been raising concerns about the kinds of deals that Ontario Hydro has been making. We have raised particularly our concerns with the multimillion-dollar deal that Hydro has made with Suncor. Yesterday we learned about another deal in the making, and this one none of us would have known about if it hadn't been for the member for Etobicoke West's Costa Rican connections; we're grateful for those. We are genuinely concerned about how we can find out what other deals the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Maurice Strong, might be making.

What does this particular deal, a deal to buy rain forests in Costa Rica, have to do with supplying electricity at reasonable price to the people of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I hope the member opposite will bear with me. This is not my portfolio area, but I received a briefing this morning in order to try and answer the questions in the House. I just want to say that the minister is absent, as he indicated yesterday he would be, because he is in Quebec City for federal-provincial meetings with aboriginal leaders in his responsibility as the minister responsible for aboriginal issues. It's unfortunate, but in his absence I will try to assist the member in an understanding of this issue.

You have said several times "the deal." I want to assure you right up front, and hope you will change your language, that there is no deal.

Apparently, as the member for Etobicoke West indicated -- I'm surprised he reads Costa Rica Today, but it's great. We only found this out yesterday ourselves; we knew nothing about it either. There have been discussions, I'm told low-level discussions, about the possibility of purchase of land that would have rain forest. No deal has been arrived at.

I think the question should be, why did discussions even take place, and would we support any sort of deal? The reason for this, I am told, is that the task force on sustainable development did recommend that Hydro, along with other polluters, take responsibility for these kinds of greenhouse offset programs by purchasing and protecting the kinds of rain forests that reduce CO 2 emissions from generators, that Hydro as a generator should do that.

Let me say that having heard all of those answers, while there may be some nugget of environmental reason behind it, I find it astounding that we would be considering, particularly in these times, to spend ratepayers' moneys in that way. This is an issue that should be taken up with the head of Ontario Hydro, which will be done as soon as the minister is able to meet with him directly. As one minister of the crown, my advice to the Premier and the minister would be to say that we wouldn't support this kind of expenditure.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's answer. I can assure her, as a former Minister of Energy who was minister at the time when Ontario Hydro made the decision to plant trees in Ontario to counter global warming, that I'm aware of the theory behind it. But that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about Ontario Hydro making deals to buy rain forest in Costa Rica. And I did use the term "deal-making." The deal with Suncor that we've been concerned about in the past is a deal that was made. This deal is in the negotiating stage, and I find it hard to believe it's a low-level negotiation if the chairman of Ontario Hydro is involved in discussing the deal.

The problem is that it's not only the minister and your government that weren't aware of this. Nobody knows what the chairman of Ontario Hydro is doing, nobody knows the kinds of deals he is negotiating, whether with Suncor or with purchasing rain forest in Costa Rica, and nobody knows how this fits with any sense of direction at Ontario Hydro. The members of the board of Ontario Hydro did not know that their chairman was out negotiating offshore land deals. Clearly, this is a case of Maurice Strong, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, pursuing his own agenda.

Can you explain why the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro is out pursuing his own agenda without any discussion with his board and with no clear policy and no clear plan to guide his deal-making?

Hon Ms Lankin: I thought that if I said directly to the member and assured her that there was no deal and asked her to correct her language, perhaps she would; it didn't work. Actually, I'm not surprised.

There is no deal on this. What I have been advised is that the discussions have been at a low level and that Maurice Strong has not been involved in these discussions and that negotiations aren't under way. I say that only as I have been advised, and I'm sorry I can't bring more clarity to that. Direct questions to Maurice Strong and Ontario Hydro, or Maurice Strong's direct statement on that, will be required to either satisfy the member or to bring surety to what I have been advised.

With respect to the member's comments that she was Minister of Energy and that she certainly knows of the theory with respect to sustainable development and the greenhouse gas offsets, and why would we be looking at doing this in Costa Rica, those are very good questions. The answer comes back from people within Ontario Hydro that investment in that kind of quality of rain forest is 20 times more effective than planting a pine tree here in Ontario. My answer would be, plant 20 pine trees here in Ontario, because it's good for the environment here.

I think there isn't a difference in our approach on this, and I've indicated I would undertake to make the minister and the Premier aware of my comments and thoughts on this, but I'm sure they are ones that are shared by the minister as well.

Mrs McLeod: By the way, don't plant pine trees; plant the broad-leaved ones. Those are the ones that actually deal with global warming.

I may have misunderstood yesterday, but I accepted the information presented to the House by the member for Etobicoke West, who indicated that a spokesman for Ontario Hydro had confirmed the fact that indeed there was a deal being discussed to purchase the rain forest and that the chairman of the board was very directly involved in it. I think it is quite clear -- we all know -- that the chairman of the board has been reshaping Ontario Hydro. The issue today seems to be whether he is reshaping it as the Maurice Strong foundation, and that gives us a great deal of concern.

This is a public utility that has a debt of some $34 billion. Ontario Hydro has just laid off thousands of workers as part of a restructuring it's been going through to get its rates under control. We've already seen that Mr Strong is prepared to enter into multimillion-dollar deals just to keep major power users buying its electricity, and now it would appear that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is out to save the world.

Should he not be at home saving Ontario Hydro? We're pleased to hear you agree that this is not an appropriate project, not within the mandate. Will you assure us that direction will be given to Mr Strong, as chairman of Ontario Hydro, to concentrate his resources and his energy and the resources of Ontario Hydro to solving Ontario Hydro's problems?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member started off her comments by saying she had accepted the statements yesterday of the member for Etobicoke West at face value. That's not a leap I'm prepared to take.

However, I understand that the spokesperson for Ontario Hydro will be here and available and can confirm or deny some of these things. I am told that the statement he is reported as making, that Mr Strong was directly involved in these negotiations, was incorrect information on his part. I can't do any more than tell you what I've been told on this, and I don't think we can clear it up until we speak to Mr Strong. I'm sorry I can't be of more help with respect to that.

I would say that it is passing strange for the party opposite to be critical of attempts to restructure Ontario Hydro, which certainly has a legacy that none of us in this province can be proud of. Having someone of the stature and the environmental reputation of Mr Strong come in, and the restructuring that has led to a commitment of keeping rates below the cost of inflation over the next decade, are all positive steps.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I would say to the member that there is an opportunity for the public and for others to ask those very questions of Maurice Strong and Ontario Hydro, as they are about to appear before the Ontario Energy Board. It would be an appropriate place for those kinds of questions to be placed and answered.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. On Saturday night a Mississauga man went out for a walk and he was murdered. Two teenagers, young offenders, have been charged with the murder of Brian Baylen. Could you advise the House and the people of Ontario under what circumstances you feel it is appropriate to try a young offender, who is charged with murder, in a youth court?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Obviously, it all depends, in these circumstances, on the particular case facts. As this is a case that is pending in front of the court, I obviously wouldn't be making any comment in this place on this particular case.

In general terms, what is required is for the crown to have reason to believe, first of all, that the young offender was clear in his or her understanding of the consequences of the act. The case facts would have to be taken into account, any previous circumstances involving the young offender would have to be taken into account, in terms of previous incidents or that sort of thing, and all that would be brought to the court for a judge to decide. It's not for me to decide.

Mr Harnick: What you are saying, in effect, is that in your view there are circumstances where it is appropriate to try someone for murder in a youth court, where the maximum sentence is five years for taking the life of another individual. I can't abide by that, assuming that the person is 14 years of age or over.

Quite frankly, I really don't know what you're saying, because the answer you just gave me is contrary to what you were telling us just the other day when you answered a question from the member for Bruce. At that time you said you believed that longer sentences "might be better accomplished through a presumption that people be tried in adult court, where a variety of sentencing might be available."

I don't understand where you're going with this, but surely you as the minister have to give direction to those who work for you, to those who prosecute these cases. Is it proper for someone 14 years of age and older who has committed murder to receive only a five-year sentence, or do you stand by what you told the member for Bruce and believe that those cases should automatically go to the adult court?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I answered the first time, the circumstances of the particular incident and the particular circumstances of the accused are the important issues. The member is well aware that under the current law, we have a youth justice system that was set up 10 years ago in this country which took into account the fact that the issues that involve young people when they commit crimes need to be looked at within the context of their youth and their circumstances.

We are in discussions, and the federal government has made clear an intention to change some of the sentencing practices under that youth justice system. We in Ontario are saying that it may be that there are a number of ways to accomplish the same thing. One of those ways would be to change what is currently a difficult process to get a youth dealt with in adult court and instead have a rebuttable presumption that in certain very serious crimes they would be tried in adult court where a range of sentencing might be available.

I don't see any contradiction in what I'm saying at all. At present, we're working under the law as it is now, and we are working with the federal government to look at possible changes of that law.

Mr Harnick: In response to that answer, I say to you: Why don't you do it? You have the jurisdiction to do it. You have the jurisdiction to say it is going to be the practice of your ministry that where a murder or a very serious violent offence occurs there will be a trial in adult court. That will be the position you will take in each and every prosecution.

I'll read to you what you said on May 12:

"The clear view that is held by Ontarians and Canadians in general is that the Young Offenders Act at the present time does not offer clear deterrence for these very serious crimes. We are very clear that we support in every way the necessity for the Young Offenders Act to achieve deterrence of these very serious crimes. We will work with our federal counterparts, whose responsibility it is to make a determination on the Young Offenders Act, to try and support the accomplishment of greater deterrence, through the use of longer sentences, through a transfer to adult court" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please?

Mr Harnick: -- "whatever means is going to be most effective in achieving that kind of deterrence."

Minister, you can do it and you can do it now. Why won't you do it now?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We do, and in fact, if the member looks at the statistics, he will know there are cases that indeed in Ontario do come before the adult court. But at the present time, until we do the work that we need to do in looking at all the aspects of the Young Offenders Act, looking at how we will achieve the goal we clearly want of deterrence, we don't believe you take a blanket approach. You look at the facts of each case, you look at the circumstances of each case, and the person who is prosecuting that case, the agent of the Attorney General, makes a determination as to the appropriate action in that case.

I would also remind the member that it is only in the last couple of years that the sentencing for those cases has increased and that there is some scepticism and certainly no evidence at this point to show that longer sentences are necessarily more effective. Those are the kinds of issues we need to look at in these cases. Is there a difference between a 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 16-year-old? We need to be very careful that we don't fall into the trap of believing there is a simplistic solution that resolves all these issues, and we can do that without in any way backing off from our commitment to achieve better deterrence in these cases.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Representatives from the Canadian Snowbird Association said earlier today that your slashing of out-of-country hospital coverage represents a new $250-to-$400 user fee to seniors who travel out of Ontario for health reasons. This change is a clear violation of the portability clause of the Canada Health Act. The association also said that, despite repeated requests, officials from your ministry have been unable to document how you intend to save the $20 million which is the rationale for these unilateral changes.

Minister, given that you can't even document any savings you'll receive from this change, what is the reasoning behind your decision to break our country's health care law?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me say that, unlike the party of the member opposite, we do not support user fees. We do believe that anybody who leaves Ontario for any period of time needs health insurance and I know full well the snowbirds, who are here in the gallery today, always do that when they leave Ontario.

As we looked at ways to better manage our health care system and how we could maintain many programs that we offer in Ontario that are not covered in any way by the Canada Health Act -- and I'm referring to the Ontario drug benefit plan, which makes sure that seniors in this province are the only seniors in the country who don't have to pay a copayment for their drugs. The Canada Health Act is silent on that. We would not be violating the Canada Health Act if we in fact eliminated the Ontario drug benefit plan, something we have no intention of doing.

But in order to be able to maintain those programs, we needed to look for savings. We recognized that in many other provinces the amount paid for a hospital stay -- not the physicians, because we pay 100% of the physicians and will continue to do so -- was much less than we were paying here in Ontario. So we are asking seniors to take that little extra bit of insurance if they are going to leave the country in order to reduce the amount that we spend in recompense for private hospital accommodations south of the border.

Mr Runciman: The minister says her government opposes user fees, but in reality it's implementing them through the back door. The Mike Harris Conservative Party's opposition to user fees is not mere rhetoric. We're very much opposed to user fees and we make that clear in the Common Sense Revolution document, if the minister would like to take a look at it.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Durham East please come to order.

Mr Runciman: My supplementary: Minister, any savings you allege to receive from these changes will be offset by the promise made by the Canadian Snowbird Association to sue the government over its ability to levy personal income tax against those seniors who are about to lose their right to health care services. This loss of revenue will be combined with the court costs the government will incur to fight this lawsuit. There will also be the added cost to our health care system from those seniors who are forced to stay home and are hospitalized as a result of our harsh winter climate.

A working group of provincial deputy health ministers is bringing in recommendations on the out-of-country issue next month. Minister, in the interest of fairness, will you agree to delay the slashing of out-of-country hospitalization coverage until we fully review the findings of this critical working group?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad that the member is aware of the deputy ministers' task force, which was appointed last November precisely because of the inconsistent

interpretation of the Canada Health Act across the country. As I have said on many occasions, if the findings of that task force are that Ontario is in violation of the Canada Health Act, then we will change our policy.

But let me say to the member, who says that the revolution that his party is promising will not put user fees or tax on seniors, that in that document it talks about "fair share" health care. It says, "'Fair share' will generate $400 million in revenues for the health care system" by taxing everyone earning $50,000 a levy of $100. Is that a user fee or is that a new tax?

Mr Runciman: That's a progressive levy based on fairness. We're quite up front about it. What the minister conveniently neglects to mention is that under our policy, people earning $50,000 or less will pay absolutely zero.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You've got a revolution all right; it might not be the sort you want.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Runciman: Anywhere from 18,000 to 35,000 seniors will be placed under a form of house arrest if you follow through with your out-of-country cuts. These changes bring in new user fees, they violate the Canada Health Act, they place thousands under house arrest, they will increase hospital costs and the demand for hospital beds here in Ontario and they will force precious taxpayer dollars to be spent fighting a lawsuit that should never see the light of a courtroom.

You are profoundly affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents in this province without ever asking them how they feel about these changes. Minister, can you explain or even justify this arbitrary, unforgivable imposition of out-of-country user fees?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member of the Progressive Reform Party for his explanation that in fact a levy is not a tax, is not a user fee. It sounds to me as though one is trying to have it both ways.

As I have explained to the member, as we have looked at how to contain a health care system that is one third of our provincial funding -- 32 cents on every tax dollar goes to maintain the health care system in this province and to keep it one of the best in the world and one of the most generous in the world -- looking at programs that are not covered by the Canada Health Act, such as long-term care reform and the Ontario drug benefit reform, we have of course looked to where we can make some savings.

We recognize that everybody travelling as part of the snowbirds association is already paying insurance, because they know, as we know, that a hospital bed in the United States is not the $400 we were paying before; probably it's $2,000. Yes, we are suggesting that for those people who already have insurance to pay the difference between $400 and $1,000, or $500 or $2,000, to now pay some extra insurance, from $100 to whatever the actual cost of the hospital bed is, it is a fair way of --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- attempting to protect the open-ended programs that we believe are critical to maintaining a health care system that meets basic health care needs as well as catastrophic needs in this province and meets the needs of everyone in this province.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me remind the member, in one more sentence, that this year alone we've expanded $15 million for cancer care in this province, we have expanded immunization for children to protect them from hepatitis B and we have expanded long-term care.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: We can only do that by managing the system more efficiently.

POLITICAL STAFF

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board and it concerns the question of ethics in the government. The first part of my question about ethical standards in his government is this: The metropolitan press today reports that a former chief of staff to a minister, in this case the former chief of staff to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, within days of his leaving that political post received a very lucrative government contract in the amount of some $85,000 a year.

I'm just interested to know if the Chairman of Management Board is aware of that situation, and what does he think of a situation where a political chief of staff leaves a minister's office and within a very few days glides into a very substantial government contract?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am aware, as the member across the way is, from the media of the case, but I'm not familiar with the background. I will refer the question to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm perfectly comfortable with this issue from the perspective of ethics, of competence and of financial integrity of this government. The hiring of John Klassen for this job was one of the best hirings that you could make. If you have any question about that, go and talk to the people whose advice I also took before I made the appointment, which includes the regional chair of the municipality of Niagara and the mayors in that area as well.

If you have any question about how that area felt about who would be the most competent person for that job, ask them, because they were delighted before the appointment and they remain to this day delighted with the wisdom of the appointment that we made for the facilitator of the Niagara Gateway project.

Mr Conway: My supplementary then is to the responsible minister. I don't know Mr Klassen. I have to pay attention, obviously, to what the minister says, but what does this look like? I just ask everybody in the House to think about what this looks like, particularly at a time when we're imposing a social contract and other understandable restrictions on our own public service.

We have here a political chief of staff who leaves his previous role and, however competent, glides immediately into a very substantial, government-supported contract. Quite apart from the fact that Mr Klassen may be a fine fellow and wonderfully well supported by everyone down in the peninsula --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Because they're going to get a grant.

Mr Conway: -- because of course they're going to get this big grant in which he's going to play an important role, and he has just come from the minister's office, does not this case make the argument for a cooling-off period for senior political staff, and would not the minister who has answered the previous question agree to make that recommendation to her colleagues in council?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I was interested in the most qualified person for the job and I got a person who is most qualified because he not only knows the Niagara Peninsula area tremendously well from past experience; he comes from a history, not only in the Ontario public sector, of experience that was very valuable for this position; also experience from the private sector that was tremendously valuable for this position; tremendous knowledge of the subject area involved, namely, tourism and its significance in that area; and tremendous facilitation and negotiation skills. He was absolutely the right person for this job.

In addition, if one looks at the salary areas, and I think the public is quite interested in knowing just how much people are paid for jobs, and we look at the fact that Mr Klassen was hired to do this job as by far the most competent person around, he's paid $48 per hour for this job. If you go to any private sector organization and ask them what their consulting fees would be for a project manager for this position, you'd find that their fees would be anywhere from $100 per hour up to $2,000 per day. We got the most qualified person for that job.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Unfortunately, my question is not about the Common Sense Revolution --

Interjections.

Mr Arnott: -- I regret to say to my Liberal friends. It follows up on the member for Renfrew North's question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Arnott: I would like to ask the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, if she was indeed sincerely interested in getting the best person for the job, as she says, how many résumés did she receive; was the competition open; were there advertisements published in the newspaper to get the best person for the job?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Part of the process that I followed in proceeding with the Niagara Gateway project was to go down and meet with all of the appropriate parties in the area of the Niagara Peninsula. I met with the regional chair, I met with all of the mayors, and the fact was that nobody could come close to John Klassen for the competence, the skills, the abilities that we needed for that job. In fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat. Minister.

Mr Conway: Is he Canadian?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: He is Canadian, 100% Canadian.

I think what the people of this province want is competence in government. They want the right person to do the job and they want it done in the most cost-effective manner possible. That's exactly what we're doing and that's exactly the feedback I get to this day from the regional municipality of Niagara.

Mr Arnott: The minister has indicated by her response that there was absolutely no open competition for this extremely lucrative job; it was available only to an NDP member. I'm glad he's a Canadian, but unfortunately the taxpayers have not been well served in this instance.

Can the minister indicate exactly what the taxpayers have received for this $86,000 contract to engage the services of Mr Klassen?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: They've got a plan proceeding well towards the development of one of the most priceless parts of this province, a drawing card that attracts 10 million to 12 million people per year in this province and that so far, to this date, has languished under past governments. Past governments, as people in the Niagara area tell me when I go down there, have done practically nothing -- nothing -- to develop the Niagara Falls gem in this province. This government, I'm told, is the first government ever to spend the time, to spend the money to develop this gem in Ontario's tourism basket.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Of course, the Whitby GO train station, which was built under the previous government, did not have access to the handicapped and there was a great deal of inconvenience and expense put forward by our ministry and our government in making it accessible. I understand it cost quite a great deal and it certainly was inconvenient for the many users of that system.

Minister, we are expanding the GO train system to Oshawa. Will that new GO train station in Oshawa be made accessible to the physically handicapped or will we have to relive the mistakes of the past?

Hon Mr Pouliot: By September, a matter of four months, one car per train will be fully accessible. The stations at Pickering and Union Station, right downtown here, will also be fully accessible, and by 1995, between 10 and 12 stations will be accessible for the physically challenged.

We mean what we say. It's a commitment that we have, and we will honour the commitment.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I'm sure you are well aware that every college board across the province has expressed concern about the new direction that is being given by the Council of Regents to the appointment of college board members.

Traditionally, the boards of our community colleges have been very broadly representative of members of the community who have given freely of their time and their expertise in serving the colleges.

The Council of Regents is now recommending that this tradition be significantly changed. They have called for people to be appointed to college boards to represent not broad community interests, but very specific interests. This amounts essentially to a quota-based system for appointment to college boards. Minister, do you intend to accept the recommendation of the Council of Regents that we move towards a quota-based system for making appointments to college boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The Leader of the Opposition is totally and completely incorrect. There is nothing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Has the minister concluded his response?

Hon Mr Cooke: I haven't. First of all, there is no policy decision by the Council of Regents, and the member --

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): They never had a policy.

Hon Mr Cooke: You're right. The Council of Regents hasn't had a lot of policies, especially when your leader was the Minister of Colleges and Universities and there was no leadership provided at all.

The Council of Regents has taken specific recommendations that were made in the Lewis report and has put out a consultation document on the makeup of boards for colleges. The feedback from the boards, from students and teachers and from the public will inform the final recommendation of the Council of Regents, as I have said here before. But there's nothing in the draft document that suggests there should be quotas. There's nothing in the document that says there should be representation from constituencies, where board members would actually represent individual constituencies.

The board's basic suggestion is that local boards should represent more adequately the community in which the colleges exist, and that's something that I thought the Leader of the Opposition had supported for many years.

Mrs McLeod: We are reflecting the concerns that are being expressed by boards of colleges across the province about the directions that are proposed by the Council of Regents, which not only include specific designations but which also are recommending identification "of other designated seats for providing source organizations and for determining target lists of particular skills and representatives to fill future vacancies."

We are concerned about any approach to appointments which is based on predetermined quotas. We are also extremely concerned about the way in which this particular approach would be implemented by this particular Council of Regents.

A number of weeks ago, Minister, I asked you about comments made by Jim Turk, who is a member of the Council of Regents, about appointments to college boards. You will remember that he said that women and visible minorities who are currently serving on college boards as representatives -- and there are a great many of them -- are remarkably like the white men they have replaced.

You rejected those remarks, Minister. You took the step of writing to the chair of the Council of Regents to state that Mr Turk's comments were not representative of your views, and yet Mr Turk has now been appointed chair of the committee that is making changes to the way appointments are made to college boards. This same individual, whose views on appointments would seem to be to put special interests and very biased views about who can represent these special interests ahead of qualifications and merit --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- is now in charge of deciding who should serve on college boards.

Minister, given your own concern and your own indication that Mr Turk is not representative of your views on college board appointments, will you ensure that the Council of Regents removes Mr Turk from this particular position?

Hon Mr Cooke: While I don't agree with the comments made by Mr Turk, an appointment to the Council of Regents made by your government, I would also indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that I don't think it would be appropriate for everybody who disagrees with my point of view to be fired from boards that advise the government. That would be terribly unfair and would result in a completely and totally different set of questions coming from you, attacking the government from another point of view.

The fact of the matter is that you were wrong when you made the point that he's chairing the committee that will make a decision. You know that's wrong if you remember from when you were minister. The Council of Regents will make a recommendation to the government on policy for board appointments. We will make the decision and we will take responsibility for that decision. You know the process. You should; you used to be the minister.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I read with interest and approval your press release last week about the forest sustainability act. In it you said, "I believe our sustainable forestry agenda is crucial to the future economic health of communities that depend on forest industries." You went on to talk about your objective for the ministry. "We also want to prove to the world that forest products from Ontario come from sustainably managed forests."

Mr Minister, as Natural Resources critic for my party, it's a very important issue to the people of Ontario, and particularly the people of Victoria-Haliburton. I find rather inconsistent with this release what you've done in the last year with regard to private forest lands. Little more than a year ago, you discontinued the managed forest tax rebate program, which encouraged sustainable development of private forests. As you know, approximately 40% of the timber coming out of central Ontario is from private lands.

How can you reconcile these conflicting policies of your ministry with your stated objective to show the world that all forest products coming out of Ontario come from sustainable forests?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for his question and I welcome him to his new job as the Natural Resources critic for the Conservative Party.

The member should know that 80% of Ontario is crown land, and the crown land in Ontario is responsible, by and large, for the timber which is the natural resource for many of our mills: sawmills, manufactured wood products mills, pulp mills and paper mills. We are working now as hard as we can, with the cooperation of the forest industries in Ontario, to put in place a sustainable forest agenda with respect to crown lands.

The member brings up the issue of private lands. We have known for some time that Ontario's private forested lands require some attention. We know that some of that attention must be dealt with by means of regulation, some by means of public information and education and some by means of tax incentives. We are working with a number of interest groups to do that. But if the member is suggesting, as I think he is, that all it requires is greater tax incentives and that we should throw money at the problem, he should talk to his leader, who advocates a 20% cut in what the Ministry of Natural Resources would get for its budget.

Mr Hodgson: It's all in how you cut. If the object is to have sustainable forests -- and this government is more interested in looking at $10 million for sustainable forestry in Costa Rica instead of sustainable forests in Ontario -- that's what we should be looking at as priorities of the government.

This is not only inconsistent with the Minister of Natural Resources's stated objective to have sustainable forests -- we agree with that -- but it also shows that there's little consistency in the course this government is taking.

The Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation has poured millions of dollars into developing trail networks throughout rural Ontario and all of Ontario to help the tourism industry. This is a worthwhile program.

Because of the assessment situation in Ontario, where there was a mistake made in the 1970s which recognized forested lands as residential lands, not agricultural, the rebate program was put in to encourage sustainability. It's been improved over the years and includes the managed forest tax rebate program.

Management plans were under way, and with no consultation they were ripped out. The savings are minuscule when you take into account the economic impact of sustainable forests and also the tourism initiative. There are hundreds of people who work in small business and tourism across our riding and across the province.

Mr Minister, will you commit today to reinstating the managed forest tax rebate program -- it's not a question of just throwing money at it, but the managed forest tax rebate program -- as an interim measure until forest lands can be given fair treatment under Ontario's tax structure?

Hon Mr Hampton: The Ministry of Natural Resources has a limited capacity to control what people do on their private land. We will work with any bodies and organizations that want to work on this issue with respect to all aspects of the issue: the public information aspect of it, the issue of generating some management plans, the issue of better regulation, and finally in terms of tax rebates.

If the member is suggesting that the answer to this is simply to reinstate the tax rebate and increase the tax rebate, that may help generate some funds for some land owners, but it will not generate sustainable forests on private lands. There's got to be a far greater area of cooperation. When we see the willingness to work towards that cooperation, then I think we will begin to make progress in the area of private lands.

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Attorney General. Madam Attorney, there's been a great deal of concern in my riding about the new Substitute Decisions Act. I know you have done your best in terms of trying to get information out there, but just one more time, could you please explain for my constituents how they will be affected by the new Substitute Decisions Act?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I thank the member for her question. In direct answer, the law has not changed with respect to the intervention of the public trustee, who continues to manage the financial and personal care affairs of a person who has become incapacitated without a power of attorney having been signed.

The new Substitute Decisions Act makes the process for a family to regain control of an estate quicker and less expensive. It provides a way for family members to take over the guardianship by applying directly to the public trustee rather than going through the court, as is the current practice. If a spouse, a partner or a family member is willing and available to make decisions on the incapacitated person's behalf, or if a power of attorney has been assigned, there would be no need for the public trustee to act.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Madam Attorney. I appreciate that.

The second part of the concern that constituents had expressed had to do with that guardianship. The concern was that information had come, and I'm not even sure from where, that in order for a family member to indeed be a guardian, that family member had to have assets equal to those of the person for whom they were taking over that trusteeship. Could you explain to me if that is in fact the case?

In terms of this misinformation, I know your office has made a great effort to try to turn that around. It's been somewhat successful, but not as successful as I had hoped. Have you any figures connected to how much it has cost this government, your office, in order to correct that blatant misinformation that seems to be out there?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In answer to the last question, I can get those figures for the member, I don't have them with me. It certainly has been disappointing that this campaign of misinformation has in fact resulted in a great deal of effort by members on all sides of this House to try and correct an impression of a bill that was passed unanimously in this House for the benefit of people.

In answer to the first part of the question: If a person holds the power of attorney for an individual who becomes incapacitated, then there's no reason to provide security, because that person has had the ability to choose before becoming incapacitated and, of course, chooses someone they trust to act in good faith.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: But if the person becomes incapacitated without a power of attorney, then it is the responsibility, as it has always been, to ensure that the guardian is someone who will in fact be very clear about maintaining the trust of the person who is involved. The court can reduce or waive the requirement for a security if it decides to do so, but it needs to be very clear that the best interests of the person involved are being followed by the guardian appointed.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains provisions that the Ontario government reserves the right to regulate labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed a desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting Canadian public health;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the Canadian government to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

You see by today's front-page news more women are dying of lung cancer today. Thank you.

HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition signed by 18,000 people, who write as follows:

"The Canada Health Act is perhaps the most important social legislation in our country's history. As such, it is a contract between the people of Canada and their governments, and between themselves, to foster and protect the health of all Canadians with fairness and equity.

"The Canada Health Act also serves to draw our diverse peoples in regions together and to bind us cooperatively in the protection and fulfilment of a truly national objective, mutual good health and wellbeing;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge and demand that you:

"(1) preserve and protect the intent and integrity of the Canada Health Act as it was originally envisioned; and

"(2) do so within the framework of fairness and equity combined with fiscal prudence and responsibility."

I could not agree more with the content of this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Hundreds of petitions continue to come in on this subject.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45, and supported by his leader, Lyn McLeod; and

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

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

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

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

"I, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I submit this, I've affixed my signature, and may the government do something about it rather than just continuing to ignore these people.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public,

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

I affix my signature to that.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"We believe there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I've also signed my name to this petition.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from various churches in my constituency signed by over 500 members. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas spousal benefits have been given to husbands and wives because the marriage of one man and one woman is the biological, psychological, legal and spiritual foundation of society; and

"Whereas the recognition of the marriage of one man and one woman and the support of such marriage is in the best interests of society because of its contribution to a stable society, including the most effective rearing of children and provision for the most health-promoting emotional and social networks of our citizenry and workforce,

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

"Oppose and defeat Bills 45 and 55 regarding same-sex spousal benefits and future legislation of a like nature so that marriages of one man and one woman and like traditional family values may not be weakened and their real contribution to society may not be undermined, diluted, confounded or lost because of confusion created by promoting inferior alternatives and values which have no proven contribution to the welfare of society."

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, when you receive this petition, don't worry about the red substance on the back; it has already dried. The petition reads:

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not the education and child care providers, and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have more petitions that I would like to read into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another adult person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on whether the individuals are of the same or opposite gender;

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes;

"Whereas Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I've affixed my signature.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I have a petition here and it reads:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public" --

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: He says that 2,000 jobs would be lost.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Read your petition.

Mr Perruzza: I'll continue with my petition.

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

I'm going to affix my name to this petition, which is signed by a number of people from Ontario.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of my constituents from places large like Pembroke and small like Calabogie and La Passe. It reads in part:

"Whereas all students are entitled to the same educational resources regardless of where they live or which school they choose to attend; and

"Whereas most Catholic school boards and rural school boards do not have the assessment base of their urban school board counterparts; and

"Whereas these assessment-poor school boards are forced to spend far less on each of their students than assessment-rich boards;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and to restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's schools are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here that was unfortunately given to him by the many women of Mr Cousens's riding that he has passed on to me. It's a petition in support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario's plain packaging legislation.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use, some 6,000 women; and

"Whereas Bill 119, the Ontario tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and being held up by a few Tory members; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven" -- proven -- "that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people and, of course, to their eventual death therefrom; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than to act on its own; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

I affix my name thereto in support of the member from Markham, who was unable to support his constituents.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NAMDHARI SANGAT CANADA (SOCIETY) ONT. ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr110,

An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ont.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a point of order under subsection 97(

d) of the standing orders of the assembly. I raised this point of order on another occasion when Mr Speaker was in the chair. This point of order is with respect to written questions that are placed to the minister and the rule which requires responses within 14 calendar days or an indication from the minister as to the length of time that it will be available to present those responses.

There are numbers of these that are outstanding, but on March 28 -- the one I'm referring to is order paper question 103 -- I placed an inquiry to the Minister of Health with respect to the disposition of the $640 million which she continues to discuss as being available for long-term care. The answer I received was that a final answer could not be made available in the normal time period, but a final answer would be available on or about April 22.

We are close to a month after that date now, Mr Speaker, and I think you would agree that this ought not to be a difficult question to answer. The minister has spoken for several years with respect to the $647 million available for the reform of long-term care. We'd like to know where that money is, how it is being used, to what ends it's being put, over what time line that money will be dispersed. I have not received the answer.

The minister is in clear violation of the standing orders of the House, and I'd bring this matter once again to the Speaker's attention.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Your point was made very succinctly, very clearly, but unfortunately the Speaker cannot do anything in these circumstances.

OPPOSITION DAY

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Ramsay, on behalf of Mrs McLeod, moved opposition day motion number 2:

Whereas 590,000 men and women in Ontario are currently unemployed and

whereas we have seen record levels of unemployment in the last three years of NDP government;

Whereas Ontario's young people are now facing a real unemployment rate of 30% amidst the worst economic conditions since the Depression;

Whereas Ontario suffered the majority of Canadian job losses during the recession, and while once an economic leader in Canada, now lags behind the recovery seen in the rest of the country;

Whereas the NDP have killed jobs by raising taxes by $4 billion, the largest increase since the Tories were in office;

Whereas for every 27 people who went back to work in the rest of the country, only one person went back to work in Ontario in the first four months of 1994;

Whereas the NDP are content to allow unemployment to remain at 9% until 1997, an unacceptable level;

Whereas at a time when the people of Ontario are looking for bold new ideas and leadership, the NDP have decided to throw in the towel and accept high unemployment levels as part of Ontario's future for years to come;

Whereas NDP government policies, such as their anti-business legislation, have only made the employment outlook in Ontario worse;

Whereas the NDP budget is almost as full of more empty rhetoric and as unable to put people back to work as the Tories' economic framework;

Whereas Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party have put forward an unrealistic plan that simply won't work;

Whereas the plan of the Progressive Conservative Party is based on unachievable promises, unsound calculations and flagrant contradictions; and

Whereas Lyn McLeod and the Ontario Liberal Party have set a target of reducing unemployment to 6% in five years and have put forward the only realistic plan for getting Ontario working again, which includes:

-- Reducing taxes by 5% over five years;

-- Reducing the paper burden by cutting the cost of doing business with government by 50%;

-- Balancing the province's operating budget within the government's first mandate without hiding debt off-book;

-- Scrapping programs that aren't working or are hurting business, including the failed $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program, the job-killing sections of Bill 40, the $30-million bureaucratic advocacy legislation, the $30-million Interim Waste Authority, and over $5 million spent for increased NDP political staff;

-- Special help for small business such as examining the establishment of tax credits for new hiring and for venture capital companies and more help for small and medium-sized companies to tap into export markets;

Therefore, this House resolves that the recommendations contained in the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs be immediately adopted and implemented.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before the member proceeds with his comments, I believe we have an agreement among the three parties to split the time equally this afternoon, and I seek the consent of the House for that understanding.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It's already registered in the rules that it is divided equally.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to have moved the motion today on behalf of our leader, Lyn McLeod, and to stand in my place as the member for Timiskaming to speak to this motion and also to speak to some of the ideas that we have in our Lyn McLeod task force.

When I look at the task force report, Getting Ontario Working Again, which Lyn McLeod asked several of my colleagues to put together, notably the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who is also our Finance critic, and the member for York Centre, who were co-chairs of this report, I and many of my fellow colleagues were privileged to be part of this.

It really started from what the very beginning of this motion reads today, that there are 590,000 people in this province who can't find work at this moment. We see that as a tragedy of unemployment. Like other tragedies in our society, it has touched just about each and every one of us these last few years. Thousands of men and women have lost their jobs and, more important, are finding it very difficult to support their families. That's why it is a tragedy.

We are very much aware of this in our day-to-day contact with our constituents and other Ontarians as we travel the province. To give a particular note, our young people -- many of us, as parents, have young people in our families -- have a particular sense of hopelessness right now, as about 30% of our young people between the ages of 18 and 24 are unable to find full employment.

That is a tragedy, because in my generation and all the generations before me we always had a very profound sense of hope, a great sense of confidence in this country; that while this country was a good place to work and to live, we always knew it would be even better for our children.

Now my generation is starting to question that and wonder about our children. I've got two daughters attending university right now and they're also questioning that. I hope that through a change of government in this province, we could get that hope back and get the economy rolling again.

With all that in mind, our leader, Lyn McLeod, decided we should gather our caucus members together in a task force to go out across Ontario and find some answers; not just to find out what some of the problems are, because I think those problems have been evident to us in the last few years, but also to find some creative solutions. In this report, Getting Ontario Working Again, I think we have found those answers, and today I'd like to talk about some of those solutions.

The important thing that differentiates our party from the other two parties -- the governing NDP and the third party, the Progressive Conservatives -- is that we have a vision. We have a sense from the people of Ontario, through the thinking and the hard work of our caucus members, of where this province should be. Unlike the American Revolution, the so-called Common Sense Revolution of the third party, we have what we believe is a vision of where Ontario can be and should be, and we believe we have the ideas to implement that vision.

That vision is enunciated in a plan. The vision is to get the people of Ontario working again. The vision is to have North America's leading workforce, leading economy, developed right here in Ontario. Why shouldn't Ontario be the workforce of the 21st century around the world? Why shouldn't Ontario have the best-trained men and women in the workforce?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that this is an opposition day and given that the member is reading his leader's resolution, and given that there are only two Liberals in the House, I don't believe there's a quorum in this place to listen to them and their resolution today. I would ask you to call for a quorum, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify whether there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: I'm glad to be back after being so rudely interrupted. I will try to continue.

What's important is that we bring forward some very positive ideas that are part of a vision of making Ontario the very best workforce in the world. We think the people of Ontario have contributed to the Lyn McLeod task force those very ideas, and I'd like to talk a little about them.

One of the main concerns we heard when we were out talking to the people of Ontario in January and February of this year is that people in business, who want to create the jobs, who want to make some money, who want to do business in Ontario and invest to create those jobs, have said to us that they'd like to have the government allow the economy to breathe a little. They have a sense that government regulation and taxation is suffocating entrepreneurial activity in Ontario.

In fact, those who are thinking of expanding business opportunities in Ontario or who wish for the very first time to invest in Ontario are now starting to look at other jurisdictions, and this really hasn't happened before. They have a sense of a stifling, suffocating economic climate here, and that's not conducive to good business.

What they'd like, first of all, is some certainty. They'd like a government in place that they understand would be consistent with their thinking about developing and nurturing a very strong and vibrant business climate. That's what the business people in Ontario want, and the business people are the ones who really create the jobs.

And it's not the big business people, it's the small people in business, the women and the men who start the small business or the corner store or small service industry or start to sell a product. It's those people who create the jobs, and we need to get off their back. We have to start to develop a more employer-friendly, and therefore I believe employee-friendly, government in this province. If we do that, I think we'll start to see the business opportunities grow and develop and therefore employment pick up.

One of the things we could do directly to get out of the hair of business, if you will, to get out of their face, as my teenage family would say, would be to reduce the government red tape paper burden that we as government impose upon business.

I just received a call today from one of my constituents who again has received his corporate filing application. Year after year, he has to send in $50 and say: "Yep, my company is still named Doc's Place, and I still reside on Whitewood Avenue in New Liskeard. Here's my phone number, and oh, by the way, Bob Rae, here's my cheque for $50. Yeah, I'm still in existence. Thank God, I'm still in business."

We would eliminate that. To have an annual corporate filing and charge $50 for that is wrong. What we would do instead is say to business that once you are in business, you notify us when you go out of business or when there's some change -- no cost. That's the way that should happen.

It's the accumulative impact of all these sometimes minuscule little bureaucratic bugbears, requirements that the government imposes upon business, that just really start to frustrate.

The other thing is the whole tax regime, and of course the tax regime is getting large now. We have $4 billion in new taxes that this government has brought on personal income tax and corporate income tax in this province. Business is starting to look at Ontario and say, "This is a very expensive place to do business."

The approach we would take as a new Liberal government in the future would be to redesign how government operates. Why is it we still have people lining up to get their driver's licence, having to use the mail to file their corporate filings, when we could be using modern technology?

I think of other institutions, some very traditional institutions in our country, like the banks, that have completely modernized themselves in customer service delivery. The automatic banking machines are a prime example of how a very traditional institution in our country can start to service its customers. You know something? Government should do the very same thing. Why don't we start thinking like the private sector and start using modern technology and equipment such as that, so you could go in after hours to the same banking machine, after we cut a deal with the banks, and get your Outdoors Card, get your driver's licence renewed and do that sort of thing?

I'm just starting to talk about a lot of the different ideas we have, and I know many of my colleagues want to talk about this today, so I will take my place, but I've been very pleased to be part of this debate today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I didn't expect that the Liberals would be quite so short, and I expected that the leader of the Liberals might --

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: Are you going to stop the clock?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, we'll stop the clock. Don't worry.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Mississauga North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning transportation of waste. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

Mr David Johnson: As I was saying, I had expected that the leader of the Liberals would be here to give their resolution. Bear in mind that this is an opportunity for all the parties to speak about their plans for Ontario for economic purposes, financial purposes and job creation.

Nevertheless, I thank the Liberal Party for putting forward its resolution on this matter because it's of great importance to all the people of the province. We're talking about economic growth, we're talking about job creation, we're talking about the issues that are of the utmost importance to the people of Ontario. It would have been more helpful, though, if the resolution had a little less rhetoric and was a little more specific on what the Liberal platform would be to help the economy grow and to create jobs.

I read, for example, one of the resolution's "whereas" clauses, which says, "Whereas the NDP have killed jobs by raising taxes $4 billion." This is true; this happened. But it does raise to mind that we only need to go back some four short years ago, and who was in power? The Liberals were in power some four short years ago.

Mr Perruzza: Who was the Premier then?

Mr David Johnson: It was David Peterson, of course, and many of the members sitting in the Liberal caucus today were present at that time. One might ask, what did they do when they were in power? What was the Liberal approach to the economy? What was the Liberal approach to taxes, to the finances of the province, to job creation?

I'm a little surprised, not having been in this House at that point, to look back and check the record, because I've heard today how sincere the Liberals are with respect to cutting taxes and creating jobs. But I see that in 1989-90, for example, there were 16 tax increases brought in by the same people who today are telling us that there should be a tax decrease of some sort. I'm amazed when I read this. This must be a record in the province, to have had 16 tax increases.

I see there was a personal income tax increase; a gasoline and fuel tax increase; a tire tax, which the NDP have now rescinded, and I must admit it was a good endeavour on your part to rescind that; a gas-guzzler tax; the retail sales tax was increased; a container tax was introduced; the commercial concentration tax was introduced by the Liberal regime in 1989-90, and again rescinded by the NDP. Thank you very much again, because that tax didn't make any sense either. You were right twice; those two times you were right. The land transfer tax was increased; the passenger vehicle registration fee was increased; the driver's licence fee was increased, all under the Liberal government.

This is the kind of experience we have with the Liberal government, and it makes you wonder where the Liberal leader was then when all these taxes --

Mr Perruzza: He's a Raptor now.

Mr David Johnson: The present leader. Where was the present leader then? Where was the present caucus then? Do we believe what they're saying today about taxes, or do we believe what they did just less than five years ago in increasing all those taxes?

They take a swipe at the NDP by talking about $4 billion worth of tax increases the NDP brought in. You have to admit it, you did it: in last year's budget $2 billion, the year before that $1 billion, and the year before that another $1 billion -- tax increases of almost $4 billion by the NDP.

But there's a saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, and if you look at the Liberal record from 1985 to 1990, during that five-year period, lo and behold, if you add up all the tax increases, some of the tax increases which I've related to you today, the full-year impact of all of the Liberal taxes was $3.1 billion, over a $3-billion full-year impact of the taxes under the Liberal government.

Just for fun, I looked at the rate of inflation during those years and did a rough calculation and increased those taxes by the rate of inflation. Lo and behold, what do I find? That, adjusted for inflation, the taxes under the Liberal government totalled almost the identical amount as the tax increases under the NDP government. The only difference is that the Liberals took five years to do it and the NDP took four years, so we'll give the Liberals a little bit of credit. But both governments, during their periods in office, increased the taxes by about $4 billion. That's an interesting fact.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, please.

Mr David Johnson: That's all right, Mr Speaker. He needs the attention. That's his usual approach.

I carry on with the resolution of the Liberal government. Again, I thank them for putting it forward, because we need to have these kind of debates. Following down further in the resolution it says, "Whereas the NDP budget is almost as full of more empty rhetoric and as unable to put people back to work as the Tories' economic framework...." That's a little bit of rhetoric itself, you have to admit. It says that the NDP is full of empty rhetoric and it says that the Progressive Conservatives, essentially, are full of empty rhetoric too.

Mr Perruzza: That's true.

Mr David Johnson: The member says that's true. Thank you.

I asked the people of Ontario to decide on which is empty rhetoric. I have in my hand the plan, because the member speaking before me, the Liberal representative, indicated that they have ideas and a vision, that the Liberals have a plan. I'm sure we all want to hear what the Liberal plan is. We didn't really get it from the previous speaker, but I'll tell you what it is, because I have it in my hand. It's the Liberal leader's task force on jobs. It is a five-part plan for success.

Part 1 is entitled "Charting a Bold New Course." "We are going to have to get the commitment of all of Ontario to the benefits of embarking on this vision of a bold new future -- one that embraces the future and gears the economy to that future." That's it; that's

part 1. There we have

part 1 of the Liberal plan. I ask you, what does that mean?

Mr Perruzza: I don't know; you tell us.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite doesn't know what that means; I don't know what that means. Is this a plan? "We are charting a bold new course." However, there it is. Compare that -- I'm sure you're delighted -- with the Common Sense Revolution, which is the Progressive Conservative plan for the economy. This is a job creation plan; the Common Sense Revolution is a job creation plan. We've heard that the first part of the plan for the Liberals is to chart a bold new course, but that's all we know. Where that course is, what it is, we really don't know. "Trust us. If you elect us, we'll think of something."

The Progressive Conservative five-point plan has as its first point: "Cut provincial income taxes." Cut the provincial income tax, the personal income tax, by 30% over three years, with half of the cut coming in the first year. For the average middle-class Ontario household, this would mean a tax cut of more than $4,000 in the first three years.

That's specific. You know what that means. There's no misinterpretation of what that means. There's the difference we have between the two plans.

The second part of the Liberal plan is to let the economy breathe. That is the second part of their plan for success, "Letting the Economy Breathe." Now you might ask yourself, what does it mean to let the economy breathe? It explains. The Liberal plan says, "As difficult and challenging as this will be, we can -- and must -- find solutions to an economy that finds itself struggling with a heavy tax load and an environment hampered by complex regulatory and overlapping jurisdictional problems."

There you have it. Now can somebody explain to me what that means? Again, who knows?

Mr Perruzza: We don't know that.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite says he doesn't know. In that, we are in agreement. However, the member knows the second part of the Progressive Conservative plan, the Common Sense Revolution. It's specific. It says: "Cut government spending. Total spending will be reduced by 20%" -- the total provincial government spending will be reduced by 20% -- "in three years." Now that's specific. You know what that means.

It says we will protect health care, we will protect law enforcement, we will protect classroom funding. These are the priorities of the people of the province of Ontario. We have gone out and spoken with the people of the province of Ontario. These are their priorities. We will protect these moneys.

Beyond that, government spending has to be cut. Government spending has climbed too high in the last 10 years under the Liberals, under the NDP, and has to be cut. We will cut it 20%. The reduction will be $3.5 billion in the first year and by the third year it will be $6 billion.

We talk more specifics. We talk about cutting the members of this Legislature. There will be 31 fewer politicians. We will decrease from 130 members of this Legislature to 99, thereby having the same number of provincial politicians in Ontario as federal politicians, and the provincial politicians can do the same amount of work as their federal counterparts.

Abolish the pensions of the MPPs and abolish the free tax allowance of the MPPs: This will save money. This will provide leadership to the province of Ontario.

Reform the welfare system: The payments in Ontario average 30% higher than the welfare payments in the rest of Canada. We are saying that we will revise those payments so that they are 10% higher, but we cannot afford 30% higher than the national average across our country.

Implement a province-wide computer system to reduce the welfare load, cut business subsidies: We need to cut right across the board and that includes the business sector. The business sector gets subsidies from this government today. I'm afraid we can't afford those subsidies. We need to cut the taxes and we'll need to cut expenditures, and one of those expenditures is subsidies to certain businesses and we need to cut that.

We need to put a moratorium on non-profit housing. The Provincial Auditor has said that non-profit housing is being subsidized by the people of Ontario to the tune of $1,000 a month a unit. The people of Ontario cannot afford this. We would implement a shelter subsidy instead.

These are some of the specific items that we're putting forward.

The third point on the Liberal plan is "Redesigning the Machinery of Government." The Liberals say that some of the structures and programs in government are more geared to the 1960s, and when I read that, I'm reminded that we had a Liberal government for five years, from 1985 to 1990, and yet they're telling us today that the structure of the government is geared to the 1960s. What did they do during those five years when they were in power? I don't know.

At any rate, somehow what they didn't accomplish during the late 1980s they would now apparently try to tackle, although again they don't tell us how. They simply say that they would redesign the machinery of government.

What the Common Sense Revolution says is that we would cut government barriers to job creation, investment and economic growth. We say we would abolish the payroll tax for small businesses, businesses of under $400,000 in payroll. We would freeze Ontario Hydro rates for five years. The Common Sense Revolution would cut workers' compensation premiums by 5%. These are specific items.

We would also repeal Bill 40, the labour legislation, and I can tell you when I talk to people across the province of Ontario, there is no doubt that Bill 40, the labour legislation, is a tremendous hindrance to investment in the province of Ontario. It's a message I'm sure the government doesn't like to hear, but it's a reality of life in Ontario, and I'm hearing that over and over again. We would repeal that bill.

The Liberals would be "Making Ontario the 'Home of the Best Work Force.'" That's point 4 in the Liberal plan. What does that mean? Sure, we want to make Ontario the home of the best workforce, but how? Would you do it by tinkering, or would you do it by real action? The Liberals would do it because it would "involve a strong commitment to embracing the future economy." That's how they would do it. What does that mean? Who knows?

What would the Progressive Conservative Party do? Through the Common Sense Revolution: "Cut the size of government. We will provide the people of Ontario with better for less." Specifically, government spending would be cut by $6 billion in three years. We would downsize the bureaucracy in the province of Ontario by 13,000 positions during the course of the next term -- 13,000 positions. That's very specific.

The fifth and final point on the Liberal platform which comes out of their task force on jobs would be "Providing the Tools For the Future." They say, "For our job-creating private sector to thrive, we must ensure that the financial tools, as well as the important infrastructure for growth, are available." That's very correct; I have no dispute with that, but what does it mean? What specifically would they do?

The people of Ontario are beyond just these empty phrases. They want to know specifically what you would do behind those phrases, and I'm afraid it's not here. It's not there.

I encourage the Liberal Party to go back with the phrases that they have and put some meat on the bones, tell us specifically what they would do. I know it's painful, but it's a process that we've gone through in the Progressive Conservative Party and it works.

Our fifth and final point is that we would balance the budget. I can tell you, there is a cry across the province of Ontario. People understand that this province is in a poor financial state. People understand that when we, for four years in a row, have borrowed over $10 billion -- successively, four years in a row we have borrowed over $10 billion -- to pay for expenditures over and above the revenue that's coming in, driving up the debt, at the end of this year, by the government's own reckoning, to over $90 billion, there is a problem.

Almost 18 cents out of every dollar collected in revenue will go to simply paying the interest on the debt, and that is a situation that cannot be allowed to carry on. We must tackle that deficit every year that has averaged over $10 billion for each of the last four years.

We do that through a realistic program of cutting expenditures by $6 billion a year, imposing tax reductions of about $4 billion a year, and thereby encouraging economic growth. When people are allowed to keep more of their tax dollars -- and that's what we're talking about; we're talking about allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned dollars -- they spend it, they create jobs, they create economic growth and our province will flourish. That is the specific plan in the Common Sense Revolution. I ask the people to stack that up against the Liberal task force on jobs. Which one is rhetoric?

Which one is specific? Which one do you know what it means and which one do you cross your fingers and hope for the best?

If I can carry on with the resolution from the Liberal Party -- I'll go down to the bottom because I can see my time is fast expiring -- it says that they would reduce unemployment to 6%. The Liberals would reduce unemployment to 6% in five years and put forward "the only realistic plan." The plan is: "Charting a Bold New Course"; "Letting the Economy Breathe"; "Redesigning the Machinery of Government"; "Making Ontario the 'Home of the Best Work Force'"; and "Providing the Tools For the Future." That's the plan. That is the realistic plan that's being put forward.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): That's a good one.

Mr David Johnson: I'm being told that's a good one. Sure, that's a good one. If we only knew what it meant, it might indeed be a good one. Some day, maybe before the election, we'll find out. The people of Ontario should demand that we find out before the next election.

Specifically, beyond that, the Liberal Party does mention -- I'll give them credit for this -- that they would reduce taxes by 5% over five years. Just to put that in context, what a tax reduction of 5% -- we bring in $33 billion in tax revenue, so 1% of that is $332 million. That's how much we'd be talking about by 1% a year for five years: Each year it would be $332 million.

The NDP 1994 budget incorporates, according to the author, the Minister of Finance, a reduction of $325 million, primarily through a tax holiday on the employer health tax. So the NDP this year has said it has provided a $325-million tax reduction. The Liberals would up the ante to $332 million. Now, there is progress for you. They would actually reduce taxes by $7 million more than the NDP. That is real progress. When we're looking at a $90-billion debt and at unemployment the highest it's been in our history and so many people unemployed, a $7-million tax decrease beyond what the NDP have implemented this year is not going to cut it; it's not going to be effective.

Besides which, it's interesting that, again, if you look back during the five years the Liberals were in power -- when the Liberals came into power the personal income tax rate was 48% of the federal income tax. During their five years, they increased it from 48% to 50%, then from 50% to 51% and then from 51% to 53% in 1989. The Liberal Party increased personal income tax by five percentage points, which works out to be about a 10% increase on the personal income tax during those five years. Now they're saying they would take back half of the increase they implemented during their five years in power.

They're saying: "When we were in power, we increased the personal income tax by 10%. Now, our great plan is to take back half of that. We're sorry we did it. We'll take back about half of that increase."

The people of Ontario know that if you're going to come to grips with the debt, you need to talk about expenditure cuts. If we're going to come to grips with the deficit of over $10 billion a year for four years, we need to cut the cost of government in Ontario. We need expenditure cuts. How would the Liberal Party cut the expenditures in the province of Ontario? What they would do is cut the failed $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario training program; they would cut out Jobs Ontario. What they don't tell you, which is somewhat relevant, is that $600 million of the $1.1 billion has already been spent. How do you cut moneys that have already been spent? It simply doesn't work.

In actual fact, this year, the budget for Jobs Ontario is about $192 million, so in terms of a year cut, we'd be looking at $192 million from Jobs Ontario, about $15 million from various bureaucratic advocacy legislation cuts, another $15 million from the Interim Waste Authority and some $5 million spent for increased NDP political staff. That's what the Liberals are saying. They would cut expenditures by some $226 million in one estimates year, by my reckoning; $226 million when we have a deficit of over $10 billion.

That is equivalent to me, as an individual, running a personal deficit each year on my own personal accounts at $10,000 a year -- in other words, I was spending $10,000 more than my income -- if I decided to cut my spending my $226 and I thought that would solve the problem. It won't. It doesn't scratch the surface.

I'd ask the people of the province of Ontario to make their own decision: Is that a realistic program? Is such minor tinkering that is being proposed by the Liberal plan, which is almost the same magnitude as the NDP plan, going to really tackle the problems we have in the province of Ontario?

With those comments, I will sit down and allow my colleagues to have their say.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We're debating a resolution which is put forward by the opposition leader, Lyn McLeod. Most Ontarians say, who is Lyn McLeod? Well, 11% recognize the name, 89% don't know, and 100% wouldn't know her if she walked into a restaurant. So we have to spend $600,000 to develop and put a profile before Lyn McLeod in order for people to try to recognize her and to get recognition of the Liberal Party here in Ontario.

Spending $600,000 to improve her image could probably put 100 people back to work through Jobs Ontario. As of May 6, Jobs Ontario has created 46,000 jobs through 11,000 employers who have used the program. Some 45% of the people placed through Jobs Ontario were on social assistance, and 20% of those placements are youth. I recall the opposition party, during last year's opposition day, saying we weren't doing enough for the unemployed young people in our communities.

I listened to what this resolution talks to and I listened to what the Liberal leader puts forward when she says in her proposals that she'll reduce unemployment to 6%, and she blames this government for a lot of the economic issues that are there.

Let us not forget what happened to a lot of the workplaces that I represent in my communities. They were affected by the free trade agreement put forward by the Conservative government federally, which allowed a different marketplace which took away our Canadian content. I will no longer blame Brian Mulroney for the NAFTA agreement. It is now in the hands of the Chrétien government, which has now given royal assent to that deal, a deal that they stood so adamantly against but couldn't get enough members in the federal House to vote against, which could have defeated that bill that Brian Mulroney brought forward.

It just shows you that it's the normal pattern of the Liberals: "Do as I say. Follow the Tory lead."

I think it's important that today we start to understand what we are faced with in job losses. This government has been trying to put forward programs such as Jobs Ontario program. The Jobs Ontario program has been effective in our community in Chatham-Kent. We've been successful through employer-employee relationships in making sure that people have been put back to work.

Using the Liberal leader's own statistics of creating 660,000 jobs, if they were to create them, it would lower the unemployment rate, really, in actual terms only to 8.5%, if you take into consideration the growth of the labour force that will appear. So I find it very hard to see how she is going to get to her 6% unemployment rate through this process.

I think it's also important to understand that when she talks about the Jobs Ontario Training fund, we're talking about removing an element that will help people on social assistance get back to work.

I believe the member in her papers talks about using the Futures program. She says she consulted severely with the small business community in and across rural Ontario. I believe if she consulted with the small business community in rural Ontario, she would get a clear idea of what they think about the Futures program, where it is incumbent upon the paperwork that has to be in place in order to make sure they can hire somebody, and then once hired, the paperwork still continues. Those employers don't want to be bothered by that process.

They believe that Jobs Ontario, and also the recent announcements in the budget about not charging the dreaded -- you want to talk about a business attack? -- employer health tax, which was levied against all employers throughout the province; our exemption on that, where they don't have to pay, will help stimulate even more jobs through this 1994-95 process.

One of the other parts the member keeps blatantly attacking is Jobs Ontario. I find it very ironic that the leader was in Chatham-Kent, and the deputy leader, Sean Conway -- I take it that's what he is -- was in the riding a number of times, but they never brought back the information that was portrayed to them about how effectively and how efficiently the Jobs Ontario project is working in our communities across Kent county.

I want to bring to the member's attention what's happening in her own riding, in Thunder Bay. The local brokerage, Confederation College, as of May 6, 1994, has created 505 jobs: 745 local employers have signed up with the program. The minister, Dave Cooke, attended a Jobs Ontario Training regional employers' conference on March 17, attracting 240 employers interested in getting on board. The minister had heard about the successes of employers such as Bombardier, J-D Video Recording Services and others in the community.

It is also important to understand that the Thunder Bay Times-News says, "The NDP have largely been doing what most people said needed to be done in order to get the economy back on track to prosperity." That was a quote by the Thunder Bay Times-News. Also, a quote by the North Bay Nugget, which is in the leader of the third party's tax revolt area, says, "Jobs Ontario Training, helping unemployed women shed the safety net of social assistance to gain greater independence through self-efficiency." That was a quote that was put forward in the North Bay Nugget.

I think it's important that the member who sits here and puts he