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

December 3, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr Ruprecht: December 1, 1991, will long be remembered as a historic date in the life of the Canadian Ukrainian community, the Ukrainian nation, and indeed, all freedom-loving peoples. More than 90% of Ukrainians voted for independence, a very clear signal that the yoke of oppression and Moscow's control is finally over. Today, Ukrainians will freely join the council of free nations as equals. Their precious democratic rights will finally see the light of day: freedom of speech, press, religion and travel and, most important, the right not only to criticize but also to vote openly for the party of their choice.

The courageous determination of the Ukrainian people to regain this kind of freedom is a source of inspiration to all mankind. Having tasted liberty, neither the weapons of starvation nor prison walls could extinguish the torch of freedom and hope that has been resolutely passed on from one heroic generation to the next. Some members of the Ukrainian Canadian community who steadfastly supported independence at great personal cost by being reported to the KGB are with us today in the gallery:

Dr Hlibowych, past president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Ontario provincial council; Mr Marko, representing the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Toronto branch; Dr Romanyshyn, president of the League of Ukrainian Liberation; Mrs Lesia Shust, president of the League of Ukrainian Canadian Women; Mr Kachmarsky, representing the Ukrainian Youth Association; and Mr Taras Pidzamecky, representing the Ukrainian National Federation.

To those who are here it is fitting that Ukrainian independence is declared in 1991, the very year Canadians celebrate the 100th anniversary of the arrival of Ukrainians in Canada. Their contribution to our nation has been exemplary. To all our friends from the Ukraine and in this Legislature let me simply say [Remarks in Ukrainian].

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Sterling: Last night when I went home and turned on the television news, I was amused to see Premier McKenna, Premier Filmon and our own Premier calling on the federal government to call a conference on the economy. What a joke, when we are doing nothing to encourage people in our province to invest, to work and to create wealth. Prime Minister Mulroney is quite right in refusing these premiers' silly call for a silly conference. These provincial premiers want to foist all the blame for our economic ills on our federal government while asking our federal government for more and more federal dollars to create larger and larger provincial debts.

Why does this government not do some positive things for our economy? Perhaps the greatest of all the things they could do to instil confidence in the business community of this province is to withdraw their ridiculous paper on labour changes. It is adding to the ills of business. It is chasing more businesses in eastern Ontario out of the province. Why do they not do something for a change besides blaming the federal government for all their ills?

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Mathyssen: It is not often I take the time to look at the Toronto tabloids, because I find the small weekly papers in other parts of Ontario more balanced and the editors more interested in news, as opposed to the sensationalism that seems to be the trademark of papers like the Toronto Sun.

Unfortunately, I have been compelled to turn my attention to today's Sun because it has once again shown that it prefers to use the newspaper's space, energy and efforts to attack for the sake of attacking, rather than use its quite considerable power in a responsible way to speak out against behaviour that destroys the lives of women, children, men and families in this province. I refer to the Christie Blatchford

article entitled, "Rae's White Ribbon Like White Flag." It describes the white ribbon campaign against violence aimed at women as feminist pap that does not deserve our collective attention.

In 1990, 234 women died violently at the hands of abusive partners. That deserves our attention.

On December 6, 1989, 14 women were slaughtered by a man who specifically sought out and victimized women. That deserves our attention.

One in four women in this country will be sexually assaulted. That deserves our attention.

I would like to praise those men and women in this House and in this province who have the courage to wear the white ribbon. That campaign for awareness deserves our attention.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Chiarelli: The restructuring of municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton is long overdue. The previous Liberal government commissioned the Bartlett and Graham reports and introduced legislation which the current government has abandoned. Last January the current minister, the member for Windsor-Riverside, said that immediately after the municipal elections he would establish a new task force to restructure Ottawa-Carleton before the next election.

We understand that the task force will be established in January. The people of Ottawa-Carleton are concerned about the review process. The minister has an obligation to ensure his task force is objective, independent, professional and non-partisan. The member for Ottawa Centre is on record as supporting one-tier government. However, there is a very strong body of opinion, perhaps even a consensus, that while the number of municipalities should be reduced, one-tier government may not only be undesirable but could be very divisive and fiscally counterproductive.

In fact, in the recent election for regional chairman, the one candidate who made one-tier government the main issue finished third while the two main candidates who did not support one-tier received about 70% of the votes. I say to the minister that he should not play politics with this issue. Ottawa-Carleton demands a professional and non-partisan approach.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr B. Murdoch: For the past year, I have been pointing out to this government its lack of concern for rural Ontario and its lack of interest in learning anything about it. This government says it wants to work with all the people in the province, so you would think things would improve. But once again I have an example of Queen's Park ignorance of any place that is not Toronto.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General is presently looking for an appointment to the Hanover Police Services Board, so it decided to advertise in a local newspaper. You would think it would use the Hanover Post. After all, it is in the same town as the services board; it is 111 years old and it has grown to be one of the largest weeklies in the region. But no, the ministry chose to advertise in the Durham Citizen, a very good weekly, which appreciated the business, but is not in Hanover and is not the Hanover Post.

What are rural Ontarians to think? How can we blame them if they feel slighted? Why should they not feel the government does not care? This government is woefully short on geography and on sensitivity. This ignorance and apparent unwillingness to learn anything about the regions beyond the GTA does not and will not endear it to the hundreds and thousands of people who live there.

WOLFGANG SCHOLZ

Mr B. Ward: I rise today to recognize the lengthy contribution a citizen of Brantford has made to the beautification of our fine city. Mr Wolfgang Scholz recently retired from the parks department, after 34 years of service.

Wolfgang started with the city as a gardener in 1959 after serving his horticultural apprenticeship in his home country of Germany. He received various promotions, first to lead hand, then to foreman, and finally he was promoted to assistant superintendent of parks in 1980.

He was known throughout the city for growing his own flowers from seed, at a great saving to the city. Wolfgang could take an area of dirt in the early spring and transform it into a wondrous and beautiful sight, using various types of flowers and shrubs to obtain the effect he was looking for. Not a year would go by without someone writing a letter to the editor about how lovely our parks looked.

Wolfgang was a member of the Ontario Parks Association for 25 years and was well respected by his peers. In fact, he was invited across Canada to speak on the issue of horticulture and even to the United States, in Atlanta.

As Wolfgang enjoys his retirement, I would like to thank him for making Brantford a better place to live. I am proud to call him my friend.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Ms Poole: My comments today are directed to the Premier, who unfortunately is not in the House again. That does not surprise me. Just as he avoids us here in the House, yesterday he refused to face commercial day care operators to tell them that they are now out of business in Ontario. But the Premier certainly made time to go next door, where the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care was meeting, to accept the accolades of his union buddies.

There is an old saying, "No guts, no glory." This Premier has no guts but he still wants all the glory.

Yesterday the NDP announced it was spending $75 million to force private sector day care to convert to non-profit. My biggest fear is that this is going to be the last concession the Treasurer will make to child care. With the province's books in terrible shape and the NDP's day care and union friends appeased for the moment, the Treasurer will close his purse.

Sadly, this latest attack against private business in Ontario is typical of how the NDP operates. No thoughtful analysis went into this decision, no long-term planning, and certainly no consultation, just rigid ideology.

Yesterday's announcement does nothing to address the real crisis in child care. Not one more affordable space has been created. Not one more child will have access to the system, and not one more parent will be able to get back to work. Welcome to the Premier's Ontario.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: My statement today is to advise the people of Ontario that Bill 118 has already been implemented.

The chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro has no intention of waiting to receive directives from his "lights-out" shadow minister. This fact was drawn out the other day in the House by the minister's complete ignorance of the marketing and conservation policies of the chairman and chief executive officer.

It would appear that this minister was hand-picked, not by the Premier but by the director, chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro. The policies being implemented are not in the best interests of Ontario Hydro customers, but only to serve a philosophy of a handful of people who are against nuclear power.

The result of this is negative marketing which brings increased costs, an abundant supply of power for the rich, and I say to you today, Mr Speaker, and to this government, and to the Treasurer in particular that I suggest he combine this ministry with the Ministry of Natural Resources and save the people of Ontario $65 million a year.

ELINA ZAVGORODNAYA

Mr Fletcher: It is my pleasure today to recognize a guest in the members' gallery who is visiting Queen's Park from Estonia.

Ms Elina Zavgorodnaya is from the city of Tallinn. She is a guest in my riding of Guelph for the next few months. She has been visiting Guelph through the political studies department at the University of Guelph where Professor Fred Eidlin has been quite active in bringing professionals and academics from Eastern Europe to speak at the university about the changes taking place there. The University of Guelph is organizing exchange programs at universities in Krakow, Moscow and Prague.

Elina is a broadcast journalist for Radio Estonia. While in Canada, she prepares stories on political, cultural and social issues for broadcast in Estonia and in Europe through Radio Canada International.

This is her first visit to the Ontario Legislature. She is planning a story on provincial politics for international broadcast and will also be talking to members from all three caucuses. I hope you will join with me in welcoming her to Queen's Park.

HANSARD REPORTING SERVICE

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As you may know, standing order 130 states, in part, that "full Hansard service shall be provided for all meetings of the House or the committee as the case may be."

I would like to bring to your attention briefly a case where full Hansard service was not provided. Last Thursday, November 28, I asked a question of the Minister of Labour about the rampant nepotism in the Ontario Federation of Labour. The title of this question shows up in Hansard as "Employment Equity." If standing order 130 is to be adhered to and full Hansard service is to be provided, I suggest the title of my question on November 28, 1991, be changed from "Employment Equity" to "Employment Inequity." Thank you.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, regarding the point he raises, the member may know that while Hansard is the official record of what is said in the House, the titling is not. It is a discretionary aspect of Hansard. Your point is certainly noted and of course noted by the people in Hansard who keep the records.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before proceeding with our routine business, members may wish to join me in welcoming to our midst this afternoon an MLA from the province of British Columbia, representing the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove, Mr Gary Farrell-Collins, seated in the members' gallery west.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Beer: In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Attorney General. Today's Globe and Mail reports that between 1980 and 1990, over 2,500 women were victims of homicide in Canada and half of those women were killed by their male partners. Thousands of others are assaulted, abused and harassed. Indeed, a sexual assault is committed every 17 minutes in Canada.

Despite these horrifying statistics, there are three key areas in which the Attorney General has failed to address the real needs of women. First, due to the government's failure to respond adequately to the Askov decision, almost 800 sex-related charges, including sexual assault, have been withdrawn or dismissed. Second, the Attorney General has delayed implementation of the support and custody orders legislation until March 1992 and has slashed $850,000 from its budget. Third, the Attorney General is considering radical changes to the legal aid system, including drastic cuts to family law coverage. This will seriously affect poor women, many of whom have been abused.

Will the Attorney General here today make a commitment to the women of this province that he will not cut the Ontario legal aid plan so that it cannot effectively help women in need? Will he speed up implementation of the support and custody orders enforcement legislation and replace the money slashed from its budget? Will he ensure that criminal charges such as sexual assault that are currently before the courts are not dismissed?

Hon Mr Hampton: The opposition members obviously think that because they come in here and recite something, it must be fact. Allow me to disagree completely with the statements from the member and point out a few things to him.

The vast majority of charges that were lost in the criminal court system were lost because they were overdue when we became the government. Somebody before should have looked at that and should have been taking care of that.

Second, the opposition members believe they can come in here and repeat over and over again that we are cutting funds for SCOE. The truth is otherwise. If they would like to compare the budgets for 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, they will see that the budget of SCOE, now called the family support plan, has grown astronomically. In fact, if that effort had been taken by the former government, we would not have the backlog in SCOE that we had to deal with when we became the government.

Finally, with respect to cuts to legal aid, absolutely no one in the review process has indicated any sort of cut to legal aid certificates dealing with family law matters, and that has been very clearly established. I can say to the honourable member that in terms of the mail I receive from the practising bar, it turns around questions of public defender or it turns around questions of whether or not we might set up a family law clinic. No one is even questioning at all some issue as to cuts in legal aid certificates for family law.

Mr Beer: I take it from the last comment that the Attorney General is indeed making a commitment to this House that legal aid will not be cut back and that the services for women in need will continue. I remind him that there was a real cut in terms of the budget of support and custody orders enforcement, SCOE, the $850,000. Those dollars could have been used to help people who needed the money directly.

The second part of my question to the Attorney General is this: In May of this year, the provincial government announced initiatives to combat male violence. The Attorney General would know that many of the community agencies that were to receive funding are still waiting, and in particular, none of the almost $5 million that was to be directed to battered women's shelters and counselling services to assist the disabled, native and minority women has been flowed.

The Treasurer has already indicated that he is going to be cutting moneys to transfer payment agencies, and we can see at the universities, by the incident that took place at Humber College on the weekend, that there is a real need to ensure moneys are there to help these transfer payment agencies deal with questions of sexual assault and violence.

I ask the Attorney General if he will commit to this House to ensure that the moneys that were supposed to be spent beginning last May will in fact get through to the community agencies, and will he ensure that whatever help is going to be provided to universities to combat violence on campus, the provincial government will provide those dollars directly and not force universities to cut programs in order to find the money to do that themselves?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, the opposition members seems to believe that if they come into this House and make an assertion, it must therefore be fact. This year, this government is spending over $70 million dealing directly with issues of wife assault and battered women. My colleague the minister responsible for women's issues has pointed this out on many occasions and in fact more money has flowed to those organizations than has ever flowed before.

Second, the opposition members seem to insist that because a particular organization may not at this time have received funds it may be entitled to, this is somehow always the fault of this government. We are making up for cuts in the Canada assistance plan. We are making up for federal caps on the legal aid plan. We are making up for cuts in the established programs financing system with the federal government. We are going further than any other government has, and I believe the public knows that and appreciates that very much.

Mr Beer: Surely the question is one of government priorities, and the Attorney General cannot always hide behind what the federal government is or is not going to do. He has a responsibility and his government has a responsibility.

Now, we recognize that at least one in 10 women is physically assaulted by a male partner each year in this country. Clearly this is a problem of such magnitude that it crosses class lines, crosses cultural lines, crosses age lines. One of the key things governments today and before have said is that we need to increase the awareness and understanding of people in this province about the issue so that we can be more effective in dealing with it.

I ask the Attorney General today if he would make a commitment to bring before his government a proposal to establish a select committee on violence. The purpose of that select committee would be to ensure that members of this legislative body are able to travel this province to hear from those who have been affected directly by this violence, to hear from those who are working with those who have been assaulted and to bring back to this House in a relatively short period of time proposals for change and action.

I think we have to recognize that no matter what we have done over the past decade, this is a problem whose magnitude has outstripped our ability, it would appear, to deal with it. Will the Attorney General make a commitment to bring forward the proposal to set up a select committee?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not disagree with the premise that the problem that is there in terms of the assault and the abuse and violence towards women is a very serious one. No one in this government disagrees with that statement.

In fact, one of the things we have done since we became the government has been to give great priority to that issue, whether it be funding for women's shelters; the appointment of more women to the provincial bench, where a great many of these issues are dealt with, in court; training for crown attorneys so they may more sensitively and adequately deal with these kinds of issues; issuing rape shield directives which directed crown attorneys to ensure that women who were questioned in sexual assault trials as to their prior sexual history were not abused on the witness stand or, when it comes to issues like SCOE, dealing with women's issues there.

I want to point out to the member again that the funding for SCOE when his party was the government was $14 million. When we became the government it jumped to $19 million. In the current year it is going to jump to $24 million. We are already doing quite a lot. We do not feel we need to open discussions. We already have an agenda and we are implementing that agenda.

Mr Beer: I regret very much that the Attorney General has decided not to take that proposal seriously, because by creating a select committee we would involve members of all three parties in a way that could be extremely useful in bringing forward new initiatives. I would ask the Attorney General to consider that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Beer: My second question, in the absence of the Premier, who I am now informed is working on a new game show with William F. Buckley in Hamilton, is to the Treasurer.

In October 1991 there were 433,000 children on social assistance in Ontario, and 42% of the entire social assistance case load in Ontario is in fact children. The Treasurer will know what that means in terms of child poverty is that infant and childhood mortality rates are twice as high as the national average, the rate of infectious disease is 2.5 times higher than the norm, poverty affects school performance, and the list goes on.

I am aware that next week the government intends to announce a 2% increase for social assistance benefits. Is this really the best the Treasurer can do for the children who live in poverty in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: The announcement of the increase in social assistance rates will be made later this week, I believe, and has not been made yet. I would simply say to the member opposite I do not think there is anything that bedevils us more as a government than the state of the economy and what that means, because when we use a term like "state of the economy," it really does manifest itself in the way to which the member opposite has referred, namely, children living below the poverty line.

That is obviously a major concern to us all. The numbers I have looked at show that this is not going to abate very much in the short term either and that there are going to be substantial increases in the numbers and the case loads of people on social assistance as well. The member opposite raises an appropriate concern, and I can just assure him that we will do what we can.

Mr Beer: I think we know what the government thinks it can do, because we are already seeing where its priorities lie. I come back to yesterday's announcement, where this government has said that one of its clear priorities is not to increase child care spaces, is not to increase subsidies for child care spaces; it is to spend $75 million to buy out independent day care centres. That tells us something about where the Treasurer's priorities are.

The Treasurer may like to know that at 4 o'clock this morning out in front of Honest Ed's, mothers and young children, children below the age of 16, were lining up for free turkeys. We have food banks that continue to grow, but we see where the priority of this government is. It is not to put money into directly helping children but to buy out centres that do not need to be purchased.

What led the Treasurer to believe that, to help the children of this province, it was a more important priority to buy out independent day care centres as opposed to using that $75 million to provide direct assistance for shelter, food and other kinds of assistance?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I think we should put the member's comments in some kind of perspective.

Mr Chiarelli: You already did that. Just answer the question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Ottawa West should enter the leadership race if he is feeling so aggressive.

I am trying to address the very serious issue raised by the member for York North. I think he will recall, because I believe he was the Minister of Community and Social Services, that he struggled with the way in which the Back on Track reforms should be implemented. As I recall, there was a bit of a stall in that whole process when he himself was the minister, so he knows there are no simplistic answers.

He should know as well in terms of public policy -- and I know the member opposite is interested in public policy in the broadest sense of that term -- it seems to me to be very strange public policy to pit one needy group in our society against another. I do not believe for a minute that continuing to underpay the people who work in our child care centres is good public policy. Perhaps the member did when he was the minister. We do not believe it in this government.

Mr Beer: There is a certain element of hypocrisy in that statement, because the Treasurer knows we are not pitting people one against the other; we are talking about the children of this province.

The honourable members opposite may recall this document called Children Have Rights Too, a primer on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Just a little over a year and a half ago, we had a debate in this Legislature and we passed that convention. It said Ontario should approve it. I raise it because the Treasurer will know that it speaks to the needs of children.

The Treasurer may remember as well what the Premier said during the last election in talking about the needs of children: "The overwhelming evidence, and it continues to grow, is that while the wealthy have done very well and indeed wealthy kids will always have opportunities, the fact remains that poor kids are more likely to get sick, more likely to drop out of school, more likely to have to go to food banks and, bluntly put, more likely to die."

Can the Treasurer assure us that we do not need any more studies, that what we need is action? As he holds the purse-strings of this province, will he make sure, in looking at the priorities of this government, that the dollars he has will go to help children directly, poor children in this province who need help? Will he make sure that happens and that it not go for other uses which at this time are not a priority?

Hon Mr Laughren: Given the fiscal problems we face, I can assure the member opposite that any moneys we spend will go for absolutely critical priorities, and that is all.

Second, I want to remind members opposite that we have already taken some action. A year or so ago, we decided that the people receiving social assistance were getting an inadequate level of support. We increased their level of benefits by 7% and increased the shelter allowance by 10%, because they were getting assistance at a level that had been determined by the people on that side, the government of the day, and we decided that was inadeqate. To put things in perspective, I would say to the member opposite that under very severe economic constraints, we have already done more than he was prepared to do at that time.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the Treasurer would not want to mislead this House in any way. What the government did a year ago was increase by 2%; we had already committed to 5%.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of order. It is certainly a point of debating.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Health, who has put a cap on the fees of doctors in northern Ontario. Many northern Ontario residents are now seriously concerned about how this will affect health care and access to specialists in the north.

Many specialists who practise in northern Ontario tell us they will be forced to cut back on the number of patients they see or continue operating and lose money. Some are leaving the area altogether. The minister will be aware of some specialists who have moved out of the country. These doctors are not covered by the underserviced area program.

Could the minister explain to me why she is exempting southern Ontario specialists to fly up occasionally to northern Ontario -- if they will do that, she will exempt them -- but to the very few specialists we have been able to attract to northern Ontario, mostly through the efforts of my government when it was in office and then the Liberals when they were in office, through the underserviced area program, her very program is now saying: "No, we don't want you to move to the north. In fact, you can make more money.

We'll exempt you if you stay in the south and fly in once in a while." Why is the minister discriminating against the few specialists we have been able to attract to northern Ontario over a period of time?

Hon Ms Lankin: I truly appreciate that the member has placed this question, because I think it will allow me an opportunity to assure him and other members of this House and people in northern Ontario that the situation as he posed it is not based on fact.

Let me start by saying I think the member would want to be fair and surely would put to all members of the House and the people listening that the improvements in northern health care over a number of years were, by and large, brought about as a result of members of the caucus of the government -- in opposition in those days -- from northern Ontario who pushed governments for those kinds of reforms and to make those kinds of changes. However, that is probably a little bit of partisan exchange which is not that helpful in answering the issue people are concerned about at this point in time. I would like to focus on that.

There are some very technical issues under the threshold caps we are talking about and it is important that we are able to meet with the individual doctors and work through this. We actually believe many of those doctors, for example, who have outreach clinics in northern Ontario which are exempted under the kinds of exemptions for northern services we put --

Mr Harris: Yes, the southern Ontario ones were exempted. What about the ones living in the north, the ones who have been prepared to make that commitment?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member across the floor indicates that they are southern Ontario doctors. If he will listen, what I am trying to tell him is that many of the northern Ontario doctors, some of those who are in Sudbury and have been raising the concerns, are unaware of the fact that parts of their practice, like their outreach clinics, are exempted under the rules we put together.

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

Mrs Sullivan: That's not what they have been told. They have not been told that.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member yells that this is not what they have been told. Again I am trying to put the record straight. We do have a meeting coming up on December 5 which I think will be able to clear up many of these unfortunate misunderstandings.

Mr Harris: The minister's letter of November 13 is very clear. It says, "The decision not to extend further exemptions this year stands." That is it for the year.

Now northern Ontario doctors are getting these types of flyers: "Want to double your income without necessarily increasing your workload? Here's what you do. Move your office to Toronto or any southern Ontario city. Now come back up and serve the same patients but have an office in Toronto. The government will pay you $300 a day, secretary's salary, nurse's salary, pay your travel expenses and -- the greatest bonus of them all -- your income will not be capped."

We have very few specialists we have been able to attract to the north. There is no question they are trying to meet a demand far in excess of the recommended averages here in southern Ontario. Now the incentive is to relocate from northern Ontario and open an office in southern Ontario where the minister will exempt them from the cap, provided they fly up north. She will pay all those expenses too. What about our specialists in northern Ontario?

Why, in her application of exemptions to the cap, is she so quick to exempt the southern Ontario specialists who will fly up, but to those living there who have made the sacrifice, who we have encouraged to come to northern Ontario, she has said no way, no more exemptions for them?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: Some of my northern members are upset about the reference that to live in the north takes a sacrifice. I do not think the member actually meant that.

The member can stand up, yell, get blustery and make all sorts of assertions, but that does not make it fact. If he will sit quietly and listen I will try to correct his misunderstanding. He talks about doctors who have closed up shop, are no longer specialists and are no longer going to deliver services. It would be very helpful if in response to a request I have made, the doctors were to open up the books and we could have that open discussion. I question whether under some circumstances some of these specialists will even be touched by the threshold because of the application of the exemption to protect needed services in the north.

The issue becomes very complicated and it needs to be worked through with the doctors, with their practice books open in front of everyone. That meeting is taking place on December 5. My colleagues have been meeting with the doctors. They have been very proactive in advocating on behalf of northern health services and we believe we will be able to resolve the situation under the exemptions that have been put in place already.

Mr Harris: The exemptions that have been put in place already do not apply to Dr Dan Bryer. He is an ear, nose and throat specialist in North Bay. He sees approximately 200 patients per week. Placing a cap on his fees will mean that 4,000 patients each year, most of them children, will have to go outside the area for treatment. With travel costs and fees to southern Ontario specialists, the minister's cap will cost taxpayers up to $900,000 for travel expenses alone for one specialist's patients to have to come to southern Ontario or to travel to see another specialist. His partner has already gone to the United States, so he is the only one left in North Bay.

The minister's misguided efforts to cut costs will in fact cost taxpayers up to $900,000 more or limit access to care for children in northern Ontario who will say, "I can't make the trip to Toronto." It is either one or the other. If they are going to have access to a specialist, it will cost $900,000 more to cap this particular specialist. Given that it is going to cost more, that it is limiting access to specialists' services for children in northern Ontario, will the minister rescind her claim in this letter of November 13, review these northern Ontario specialists on an individual basis and use some common sense in who she is going to exempt from the cap and who she is not?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite, who is often heard to urge this side of the House to be very effective and cautious in expenditure of government dollars, I think would want me to do that.

Mr Harris: It's costing $900,000 more, five times as much. Don't give me that garbage.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I take offence at the comments made by the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Lankin: I am sure the member would want us to approach this issue with caution to ensure that the steps we are taking are both cost-effective and involved in maintaining as high a quality of delivery service to the north as we can. In fact, the way we look at applying exemptions for the underserviced areas, I believe, can take that into account. I believe that needs to be done by criteria consistent across the north, not, as the member would say, on a pick-and-choose basis from community to community.

The people in northern Ontario have respect for their doctors and specialists, and they do not believe that simply because a doctor or a specialist reaches $400,000 and starts to be returned at 66 cents on the dollar from the OHIP

schedule they will pack up and leave. I am sure the member would not want to suggest that is the case either.

However, I truly want to ensure that the services required are maintained in northern Ontario and that we do not take an approach with respect to trying to be cost-effective in this deal that harms northerners. I do not believe we are. I understand the concern in the north and the kind of media coverage that has taken place. Part of it, unfortunately, is that I am left at a disadvantage when doctors I have asked to open their books in some circumstances have refused to do that. You cannot have a level-playing-field debate about some of these things.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I hope the member will find, after we have the meeting on December 5 and the information flowing from that, that we will be resolving some of these concerns for northern Ontarians.

Mr Harris: I am exactly suggesting that if the Minister of Health asks specialists to accept a fee less than their overhead costs and if she thinks they are going to pay the government money to keep on practising, she has another think coming. They would be better off right outside.

The Speaker: Is this the leader's second question?

Mr Harris: If the government paid northern Ontario specialists like it does those of southern Ontario for equipment --

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader take his seat for a moment. I would appreciate it if the leader would place his second question.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Minister of Labour regarding the union-building plans. Just over a month ago Project Economic Growth proposed a co-operative task force to study, among other problems facing Ontario businesses and workers -- problems that would also deal with the declining union membership, because workers are being laid off and losing jobs -- labour-management issues in this province. The committee would be made up of representatives from the public and private sectors, both unionized and non-unionized labour. Would the minister tell us why he rejected this constructive proposal for meaningful consultation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it strange that the leader of the third party seems to take such joy in declining union membership. What we are trying to do with the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments, as we have said in this House many times, and with the discussion paper we have put out is to set the stage for a much better labour-management relationship in Ontario. Surely the leader of the third party would want us to go through our processes before we brought in some outside group to do the work that is involved in discussing what we can do to improve the situation between labour and management in Ontario.

Mr Harris: I think it is important, and the minister will want to acknowledge it, that most of the people in the Legislature were laughing at that answer, including the minister's own members.

I have a copy of a letter sent to the minister from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. The association president, Neil de Koker, has witnessed the minister's so-called consultation process and writes: "To call this process consultation, Mr Minister, is a gross deception, and to persist in so describing the process is an intolerable abuse of legislative power."

Business wants to co-operate, wants to consult, wants to come to the table. But they will not be manipulated into this government's agenda of paying back the big union bosses. I ask the minister again, why will he not cancel his obviously failed and obviously flawed consultation process, which is a non-consultation process, and go back to the drawing-board for full and meaningful consultation with all the stakeholders?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Surely the leader of the third party does not agree it is an abuse when workers in the province want to have some say, along with management, in the decisions that are going to affect their lives and their futures in terms of the plants that close and the changes made in the labour relations scene in Ontario. That is what is an abuse of the process.

Mr Harris: The minister wants to engage in rhetoric and not answer the questions. I am not at all suggesting that the workers wanting that is an abuse. I am suggesting that he as minister, his Premier, the union bosses -- that is an abuse of the rights of workers and management in this province. That is the abuse taking place.

The minister has now placed Ontario's business community between what are commonly called a rock and a hard place. If they do not participate in this sham -- and they all know it is a sham -- he will no doubt ram through destructive legislation without even hearing from the business community. If they do participate in this sham, they will be discussing the big union boss Bob White/Bob Rae/Bob Mackenzie agenda. That is all that is on the table, an agenda that, as Ford chairman Ken Harrigan says, will frighten away business.

Why will the minister not listen to what business is telling him, that the fact that he is proceeding is scaring away anybody who has a choice? Ken Harrigan admits that Ford has no choice; it is here. But I think he can read between the lines and say that if he did have a choice he would be crazy to invest in Ontario with the minister proceeding the way he is.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is unfortunate that the leader of the third party shows such a bias. It has been a long time since I have accused him in this House of dancing to the tune of his company bosses. He should recognize that workers in Ontario resent the union boss label he throws around. These are people they elect to represent them through the collective bargaining process.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology. I was going to direct this to the Premier, but he is debating in Hamilton with what I hope is not a neo-isolationist.

On Monday I asked the Premier about the automotive industry of this province and the difficulties confronting the automotive industry in Ontario, and the Premier used the example of Ford Motor Co as a company willing to invest in Ontario. At that very same time the chairman of Ford, Kenneth Harrigan, CEO of Ford Canada, was speaking to the Oakville Rotary Club. He had the following to say: "It appears that Queen's Park is doing everything possible to put roadblocks in the way of economic recovery. Not one NDP policy initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the province. Frankly, entrepreneurs are afraid to invest or expand in Ontario."

I ask the minister, who is supposed to bring the viewpoint of business to his cabinet, what he is doing to ensure that companies such as Ford and, more important, other companies in the province are going to retain their investment in Ontario and that new investors are going to come into the province to place money to create jobs for the thousands of workers who have lost them over the past several months.

Hon Mr Philip: That very company received millions of dollars from this government to do the very job creation the honourable Leader of the Opposition is asking for. Indeed, if we look at where investors are putting their money in Canada, they are putting it into Ontario, not into the provinces run by Liberal or Conservative governments.

Mr Bradley: I have another quote from the chairman of Ford, whom the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology just insulted. It says the following:

"I ask you, if you had a choice and were in a position to make a free choice, unencumbered by huge investments already here, would you invest in Ontario at this time? Governments should create a political climate and a public climate that encourages investment, rewards entrepreneurship, rejects legislation that impairs competitiveness, and pays more than lipservice to the consultative process."

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thirty-three taxes in five years. You guys carry the guilt.

Mr Bradley: I ask the minister, and I ask the Minister of Transportation who has no automotive jobs in his town, are these people aware of the number of jobs that could be lost in the automotive industry if they continue their present policies, legislation, regulation and rhetoric? They should think of General Motors and the closing of the van plant. They should think of the number of industries. Has he canvassed them and does he know how many are going to close their doors if the government does not change those policies?

Hon Mr Philip: The particular person whom the honourable leader of the official opposition quotes went on to endorse the economic policies of Brian Mulroney. Are those the kinds of policies that the leader of the Liberal Party then endorses? One would think so.

If members want to take an independent source, Data Resources International, which is the largest economic forecasting firm in the United States, has predicted that Ontario will grow annually by 3.8% in the 1992-95 period, and that is faster than any of the G-7 economies. That is the kind of growth that we are stimulating in this province. It is too bad the member does not support them, instead of saying no, no, no to everything.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General and it deals with Sunday shopping. A headline reads, "Shoppers Give Warm Greeting to Return of Sunday Spending." As he will know, some of the headlines go on further to say, "Retailers Hopeful as Stores Across the Province Reported Busy." The chief executive officer of Dylex has said: "We want [Sunday shopping] all year. It is difficult enough for us to compete without having our hands tied behind our back. It's time the government woke up." It was unfortunate he had to lay off some people in the same week, and he is saying he needs to be open on Sunday.

I notice that some of the published reports say that even this Solicitor General was planning to do some shopping on Sunday. In light of what has happened, has the Solicitor General changed his mind, and is he planning to change the rules regarding Sunday shopping in Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The short answer to the question is no. I am gratified to learn, though, that the amendment brought forward to this government to allow shopping on the Sundays in December preceding Christmas has apparently met with public favour, and that the desired goal, to assist retailers and retail sales tax for the Treasurer, has in fact been achieved.

I think it was interesting to note as well from the media reports that on Sunday, notwithstanding that Ontario was totally open in a retail fashion, there was a two-hour backup at the border for people returning from Buffalo. I would just like to say to the members opposite who were claiming that the fact Sunday shopping was not available was the sole purpose and was really feeding cross-border shopping, that it certainly put the lie to that question.

Mr Carr: Some of the articles go on to say:

"They came, they shopped, they bought. Shoppers by the thousands descended on Metro-area malls yesterday...."

It goes to say -- I do not know where the minister gets his figures, but I will give him this quote -- "Customs officials reported lighter traffic at US border crossings. Meanwhile, many people were delighted to shop in town."

If it is such a good thing and he is delighted that the stores were filled and people were shopping, what is the Solicitor General going to tell them in January when they cannot shop? What is he going to tell them when they cannot do it in January? Why will they not be able to shop? What is his answer to them?

Hon Mr Pilkey: What I am going to tell the people of Ontario in January is that after this government has given this flexibility and shown flexibility to members opposite and to retailers and to the public, is it not nice that we are now going to return to another 11-month period to a common pause day for individuals, for families, for some non-commercial activity and also to a circumstance of worker protection for all the balance of the year? Is that not wonderful?

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Ms Haeck: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Niagara Peninsula communities like St Catharines, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Welland and Niagara-on-the-Lake have the largest border community population in the province. The proximity of the region to the US for easily accessible border crossing points and a large population base contribute to one of the highest incidences of cross-border shopping in Ontario, as the Solicitor General just pointed out.

Since the advent of the free trade agreement and the gradual reduction of duty rates between Canada and the United States, retailers in the Niagara Peninsula have lost millions of dollars' worth of sales to their customers who cross the border to shop in the US. The Niagara ridings would like to know what he is doing to help the businesses and the business owners in the Niagara Peninsula stem the flow of retail dollars to the US.

Hon Mr Philip: It is a problem this government is addressing with some very concrete initiatives. Indeed, the border communities assistance fund was established to assist the nine affected communities in implementing a variety of ways and initiatives to deal with cross-border shopping. Funding for seven communities has already been approved by my ministry and I am pleased to inform the member that St Catharines and the Niagara region were among the communities that took effective steps and are being funded for these initiatives.

Ms Haeck: I am very pleased to hear that. I had not realized St Catharines had got money. The retailers in my constituency are concerned that since 1987, the incidence of cross-border shopping has increased. What is the minister doing to ensure that the businesses in border communities are able to better compete with their American counterparts?

Hon Mr Philip: I can point out that since last spring the trend towards cross-border shopping has dropped consistently, but we intend to continue to work with the communities to deal effectively with the issue. One community alone, using our government funding, has predicted that its initiatives will result in an extra $2 million being spent in that community. In another region a massive ad campaign will be matched with a price watch program and a telephone hotline that will give customers quick and direct access to their local retailers.

I can assure the member that the ministry is also working in partnership with the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping to create a province-wide program. We are doing things about it.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr McGuinty: That is an example of a speech that sounds good, but this province does not need speeches that sound good. We need programs that are good and sound.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr McGuinty: My question is to the Minister of Energy and has to do with electricity rates. I am sure the minister would agree that our high rates are taking a bite out of our electrical energy users. The consequences are particularly severe for major manufacturers in processing facilities, such as the auto industry and the mineral processing sector.

Members will of course know that these kinds of industries are energy-intensive, and that as a result electricity costs are a major part of the overhead costs. Our electricity rates are now the second highest in Canada and there is a growing concern that we are losing our competitive edge. Rising electricity rates are making it difficult for us to both attract new businesses and keep our existing businesses here. What initiatives is he taking as Minister of Energy to combat this erosion of our industrial base?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The ministry, in conjunction with Ontario Hydro, has initiated and implemented over 37 programs to help individuals conserve energy and electricity in Ontario. I want to advise the member that some of the programs, such as the industrial energy service program, audit energy use in industrial manufacturing concerns and advise individuals and companies on how they can cut back and/or regenerate energy within the existing industrial use; in short, use energy much smarter.

Mr McGuinty: I expected the minister to make reference to the conservation programs and I want to state here and now, unequivocally, that my party and I wholeheartedly support conservation efforts made in this province. However, I am somewhat troubled by a particular element of the minister's conservation plans.

The minister will know that in August 1990 the previous government set an energy conservation target of 3,000 megawatts to be saved by the year 2000, and we had a competent and independent analysis confirming that was a reasonable target. But now some 14 months later, this government has in place a target within the same time period of 5,200 megawatts. The minister will know that is far and away the most ambitious target in all of North America. It is certainly good to reach as high as possible when it comes to energy conservation, but it is also just as important to be reasonable and responsible in setting those targets.

My question for the minister can be broken down into three parts, and I ask the minister to take his time and carefully consider my question. First, on what basis has the minister's 5,200-megawatt target been set? Second, does this 5,200-megawatt target constitute theoretical, potential savings or realistically attainable savings? Third, if this target is not reached, what backup plans does he have in place to ensure the people and businesses of Ontario do not meet with electrical energy shortfalls?

Mr Ferguson: The targets are not only realistic but are also attainable, and they are attainable for one reason: We have decided to make energy efficiency a priority. It is a priority of this government and it is a number one priority; it is not four or five down the list. We have recognized that we cannot run a few advertisements on television telling people to turn their lights off in order to get the message across. Our programs are comprehensive and they target the consumer directly, and that is where the savings can be attained.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Agriculture and Food, I am sure, is aware of the report by the standing committee on resources development on the subject of the emergency problems with agriculture. Today I want to draw the minister's attention to recommendation 48, that intensive market development be carried out on fuel ethanol.

The NDP government's first meeting on this took place exactly one year ago today. We now hear that the government is hoping to have a report by next spring or next summer, which will guarantee no action on ethanol in the upcoming budget. Why is the government stalling on action on fuel ethanol?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to reassure the member that we are not stalling. I know the member would like us to move much more quickly, and indeed I myself would like to move the thing along as quickly as possible. We do have a committee that is studying the implementation: what it would look like in terms of small plants, where they would be located and how it would fit into Hydro. We are co-operating with the Ministry of Energy, I might add, to look at how this might be implemented in Ontario. The thing is continuing and we are pushing along in order to have a realistic policy which will involve the use of fuel ethanol in Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: I hope the co-operation with the Minister of Energy is indeed positive, because we have heard that it is sometimes negative.

Every day in the United States of America two million bushels of corn get turned into 20 million litres of ethanol. Surely we do not need to study it much any more. Today the weather should remind the government, even the Minister of the Environment, that emissions in carbon monoxide increase when a lot of cars are idling and not moving very rapidly.

If the minister supports ethanol as much as he and his government have said in the past, then we need action now, before the budget comes into place in the spring, so we can proceed with the production of ethanol in 1992, not 10 years from now.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I appreciate the member's encouragement that we move this policy along and do it more quickly. We are in fact trying to move it along by putting in place something that will be long-term and not just a flash in the pan. I do not think it is appropriate for us to stand here and announce something until we are ready to implement it. I want to be ready to make sure we implement something that will be long-term and that will be around in terms of protecting the environment.

Indeed, it is interesting that this comes up as an agricultural question. It is an opportunity perhaps for agriculture, and I appreciate that. It is also an energy question and it is also an environmental question. As government, we intend to proceed. I accept the member's encouragement to get on with it, and we will do as much as we can.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Hayes: My question is of the Minister of the Environment. As I am sure the minister is aware, there are many contentious issues surrounding the reactivation of the Fletcher tile landfill site in my riding in Kent county.

The proponent of the landfill recently applied to the ministry asking that the site, which has not received waste since 1978, be allowed to reactivate waste disposal operations. Residents, the township council and the county officials are opposed to any rebirth of waste activities on this landfill site, especially since the community of Fletcher has been virtually built around this dormant site which has not been in operation for 13 years.

Certain information has been requested by the Ministry of the Environment to be provided in relation to this site. The deadline for the first report was October 21, 1991. What I would like to ask the minister is when the proponents failed to meet this deadline date, why did the ministry extend the deadline for that landfill site?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am very well aware how contentious this landfill issue is and indeed how many contentious landfill issues there are in the riding of Essex-Kent and of the member's great interest in these issues.

The proponent in this particular case requested an extension of the time for filing the report with my ministry and gave us some technical reasons as to why he needed a minor extension. The first report was submitted on November 16, 1991. I am glad to be able to tell the member that the next study which the proponent was required to submit to the ministry was submitted on

schedule yesterday.

Ministry officials are currently reviewing both of these reports and we are taking all the steps that are legally available to the ministry to ensure the greatest possible environmental protection at and near the Fletcher tile landfill site.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister of Government Services and is about making promises and keeping them. As the minister is aware, my riding has been particularly hard hit by the recession. The loss of manufacturing jobs and cross-border shopping have had a terrible effect on the Cornwall area. This is why Ontario's promise to build a new multimillion-dollar provincial office building is so important.

In addition to the recent confirmation of the multimillion-dollar project to construct five new courtrooms, this building will house 12 provincial offices currently scattered across the surrounding area. It is also hoped the Premier will follow through on the former government's commitment to transfer another provincial government ministry.

The building and the jobs it represents are absolutely crucial to the Cornwall and surrounding area. While many potential sites for the building were considered, the municipal council clearly stated that the choice location was right downtown, between 2nd Street and 3rd Street, west of Pitt.

Subsequently, the municipal council was told in my presence to clear the title on this property. The Ontario government has consistently said it will buy the property for the new building. This was confirmed by Bob Riggs when he met with the mayor on August 27. However, the ministry staff now states the location has been narrowed down to two locations.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services, to ask him to confirm his administration's promise to the people of Cornwall once and for all, as Mr Riggs did, that the new government building in Cornwall will be located at the corner of Pitt Street and 2nd Street. Among the finalized plans, there seems to be some question if the government of Ontario will own the provincial building outright on a leaseback agreement.

Hon F. Wilson: The building the member refers to, the Ontario government building for Cornwall, will proceed, I will tell him that. It is well under way right now. Site selection has not been made certain yet, and it will be made certain in due course. I do not think they will have to wait very long for an answer.

Mr Cleary: Will the minister confirm that the building will be constructed at the corner of Pitt and 2nd, as previously promised? The municipal council was told to clear the title on that property. That was a commitment from the government just recently.

Hon F. Wilson: No, I cannot confirm that at this time. As I said to the member, the site selection was never definitely confirmed. The information --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon F. Wilson: You will tell me, Mr Speaker, when you can no longer hear me, I assume.

The information the member has is erroneous. The subject we discussed will be taken care of in due time.

Mr Cleary: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I understood the minister to say I was in error. I was at that meeting and I was there when the municipal council was to clear the title on that property, and that was where the building would go.

The Speaker: The member will know that is not a point of privilege, but it certainly is one of discussion, at least between the two of you.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Scarborough North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning employment agencies legislation. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Also pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Burlington South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning day care. This matter will also be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Runciman: I wish to table a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

"The sewage system of the village of Westport is inadequate. The twice-annual dumpings of the lagoon together with an estimated three months of spillage and constant leakage are polluting Upper Rideau Lake.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Parliament of Ontario follow the recommendation of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as presented in its study Rideau Lakes System Carrying Capacities and Shoreline Development Policies, which recognizes the cost burden to the village of Westport for a sewage system that would have zero impact on Upper Rideau Lake, and states:

"'Given the regional and national importance of the Rideau Lakes as a recreational resource and heritage waterway, we believe that the province of Ontario should step in and provide the additional funding needed to enable the achievement of best available technology economically available in the Westport sewage treatment plant improvements.'"

I have affixed my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill 28,

An Act respecting Class Proceedings

/Projet de loi28, Loi concernant les recours collectifs;

Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Bills ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION / MOTION DE CENSURE

Pursuant to standing order 42(a), Mr Harris moved that the government has lost the confidence of this House as a result of its continuing failure to recognize the dangers inherent in its fiscal, budgetary and economic policies and programs and in particular: (1) because of its failure to abandon its tax, borrow and spend agenda, an agenda detrimental to the best long-term interests of the people and taxpayers of Ontario; (2) because of its failure to implement effective measures to control public sector costs and to cut government spending; (3) because of its failure to conduct meaningful consultations with all its economic partners on key policies, and (4) because of its failure to develop and pursue the new directions in fiscal and economic policies required to ensure economic competitiveness, job creation and universal access to affordable public services.

Mr Harris: I know there are many members who wish to enter into the debate today. It is unfortunate that we do not have several weeks to debate this resolution; however, we do have today. I will try to get a few thoughts on the record and allow other members the opportunity to speak. My caucus and members in the Liberal caucus, and I know secretly and privately a number of members of the NDP as well, agree with me.

Whether they will be allowed to blossom forth and express their own viewpoint today we will see. Whether they will be able to vote as I know their constituents would want them to vote we will see. Whether those who feel most strongly that their government is moving in the wrong direction will either be whipped into shape or will exempt themselves from the House today we will see as well. Clearly when a non-confidence motion is placed and a member is not here for the vote, it is usually 100% that he or she agrees with the motion and is against the government but is too embarrassed to come into the House and vote. We will watch the voting at 6 o'clock to see who those people are.

We placed this resolution today in response to the overwhelming number of letters and phone calls and people who are stopping us in the street asking: "What has happened to this great province of Ontario, this province of opportunity?"

What has happened that we are now not envied by the rest of Canada, not envied anywhere around the world? What has happened to this province that used to be the location of choice for investment and for entrepreneurs who say: "We want to do business and service this North American market" -- or this Canadian market or even the Ontario market. "We'd like to set up somewhere in that market." They used to choose Ontario. They said: "This is a great place to bring up a family. This is where I'd like to have my workers live and work. It's where I'd like to invest my money."

Over a period of time, Liberal taxation and misspending -- disastrous moves on their part -- and then this NDP government moving fast-forward 180 degrees in the wrong direction completely scared off anybody else.

I was out west about a month ago and I visited Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When Ontario politicians used to go out west, at least until 1985, they always said: "We don't like you guys from Ontario because all the money's going there. All the investors, all the entrepreneurs, all the jobs are going to Ontario and we're envious." When you went out there, you had your head down a little.

They understood us cheering for the Argos from time to time, as fruitless as that was, or for the Leafs -- that was even more fruitless -- but they were truly resentful of Ontario, with its well-balanced management for 42 years, balanced between labour, workers, unions and management, the sense that all was well in Ontario and that the future boded even better, that our children could have a future and an opportunity, an education system second to none, roads, leading the country in the provision of environmental protection, sewers, clean water and air.

They wonder what happened after 42 years of -- not perfect government. Some mistakes obviously were made, but on balance it was the kind of government that produced this climate where people wanted to grow up, where they wanted their children to go to school, where the universities excelled, where the clean air and water were envied.

When I went out west about a month ago, they were not envious. In fact, the media asked me what I was doing out west. I think I have shared with the House that they suspected I was out there helping Grant Devine campaign in Saskatchewan. I admit that while I was there I did the best I could; you can see how effective I was in Saskatchewan. However, the point that is important for members of this House to understand is that they were asking, "What happened in Ontario?"

By the way, the other thing I said to them was, "I'm trying to meet with Ontario entrepreneurs, investors and business people in my role as opposition, and I had to come out west to find them," because they are not in Ontario.

As Mr Harrigan, the chief executive officer of Ford, the third-largest company in this country, so eloquently said yesterday, he has no choice. Ford made investments in Ontario when it thought the same commonsense kind of government would carry on. They had no idea, nor did the voters of this province. They thought, "We'll try the Liberals; these politicians are all the same anyway." Then in the last election they said, "We'll try the NDP; we think they're all the same."

They had no idea how dramatically different was that putting into perspective, balancing the rights of labour and the rights of business, making sure we had a climate where investors could make a buck, make a profit, succeed. When we had that balance, jobs were created, prosperity flowed and we were able to develop in this province the most comprehensive, guaranteed universal access to welfare programs, to the best health care system in Canada; indeed, I think it used to be the best in the world. We were able to generate the wealth to be able to provide that, to provide homes for those who perhaps could not afford them on their own, to provide decent housing and shelter.

They ask what happened in Ontario. I have to point out to them that we elected governments from 1985 on that did not understand, that were not good managers, that did not understand this balance. Then we elected, kind of by default, an NDP government, very similar to the Liberal one except moving even faster.

Many of the Liberals -- I see them travelling the province -- have now recognized the error of their ways. Where were they in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990? I am happy to have them on my team today, because I accept converts no matter when they come, and I will be happy to accept converts from the benches of the NDP, those few who are here. In fact, if they are at home today, too embarrassed to be here and watching on TV, I invite them to come down. They still have time to get here for the vote at 6 o'clock and join us in trying to bring some common sense back to this province.

There is a $10-billion deficit this year, and we all know it will be more than $10 billion. There is no way the Treasurer is going to be able to keep it under $10 billion. We also know next year's projection is that the deficit will be higher. We know the year after that it will be higher, a doubling of this debt.

On the debt alone, I say there is absolutely nothing more despicable and more disgraceful than saying to our young people, our children and our grandchildren, those in school today, those in the colleges and universities, my son, who is six years old, and all children of his age and a little older and a little younger: "You're going to have to pay it back. You're going to suffer with reduced health care, with reduced services, with reduced controls on the environment, with reduced job opportunities, because the generations ahead of you took more than they were prepared to put back in."

There is nothing more disgraceful than that. As disgraceful as the Liberals were in setting us up for this fall as they did, by making us the highest-taxed jurisdiction, even they were not that despicable, to say to our young people, "We were too selfish and we wanted this money spent, even though we didn't have the dollars ourselves to pay for it," or "We didn't want to say to the public: 'Do you realize this is going to cost you money?

We'll have to tax today.'" I have consistently given Bob Nixon credit for saying to David Peterson, "If you want to be stupid, Premier, if you want to spend all this money foolishly, I'm at least going to force you to tax for it." Bob Nixon deserves credit for that one thing and that one thing alone.

Look at the spending and look at the deterioration in access. Look at the fact that just from 1985 to 1991 there are more people on welfare, more people without access to affordable housing, more people being shut out of the health care system. Today we heard of these misguided policies whereby they are denying northern Ontario children even the limited access they have today to specialists. The NDP is to them: "No, you're going to have to travel somewhere else to get it. We're going to drive the specialists out of northern Ontario."

It is disgraceful what we are doing to the future, to the economy of this province, to the opportunities for access to services. When you look at the direction we have gone in since 1985, now fast-forwarded by this government, it is an absolute disgrace.

I do not want to spend time today saying "I told you so," but I will tell members that if they check back to the pre-budget reports, the ones I and my caucus did in 1985, in 1986, in 1987, in 1988, in 1989, in 1990 and again in 1991, they will see in those reports common sense, truths about the reality of our fiscal situation. We also pointed out what would happen. They make for great reading, because even then we were saying some things that may have been unpopular in the short term. It is always more popular to say: "Don't worry. We can spend; somebody else will pay."

That was the whole 1990 campaign of the Premier. I said: "We're in a little difficulty at this taxation and regulation level. We're not competitive and we're coming for a big fall." The Premier said: "Don't worry. We can afford all the Liberal spending and $5 billion more, because somebody else will pay."

Who is paying? The workers of this province are paying today, because they do not have jobs. The poor are paying today, because they have to rely on food banks. The homeless are paying today, because the lineups for housing and decent affordable accommodation are larger than they ever have been. My son, the members' children, the children all across this province and the grandchildren and the children to come are going to have to pay and they are going to have to pay dearly.

It is in response to this. We have tried everything. We tried the pre-budget reports; we tried that route. We pointed the way. We said to David Peterson and the Liberals: "We'll join with you in limiting the growth of government and spending to keep our taxes down. We'll help you set priorities." We said the same thing to the New Democratic Party.

We released a document called New Directions. Here it is. It is available for all the citizens of the province. They should get it. They can ask for it; they can write to me at Queen's Park. We will send them this document because it provides commonsense solutions.

We offered this document to the NDP. We put it forward in good faith. We said: "Here's a direction you should be going in. Everybody knows the direction you're taking now is disastrous." We said we would help the government and work with them but they ignored us. They said they did not want our help, that they wanted to proceed with their own big-spending, high-taxing socialist agenda even if it ruins this province, even if it means less environmental protection in the future and even if it means that our children are going to have to pay the principles of Bob White/Bob Mackenzie/Bob Rae/big-labour socialism, which are more important than the people of this province.

We have tried and we have put forward positive suggestions. We have been the most constructive opposition party in the history of the world, anywhere in the world. We have put partisanship aside. We have said, "We'll help you see the way, we'll help you see the light, we'll provide solutions, we'll sit down and work with you," and we have been shunned by this government.

I am particularly distressed with this government. In opposition the New Democratic Party said it was a party of the people; they have abandoned the people of this province. They said they were the party of consultation; they consult only with Bob White and the big union leadership. It was 16% to the brothers and sisters in the public sector, the big civil service union in Ontario last year, while the brothers and the sisters in the private sector paid the taxes for it, lost their jobs, were on welfare and went hungry. If ever there was a disgrace in priorities, that was one of them.

So we have come to today, and that is why we are placing this motion. We have been told by people inside and outside this province: "What a disastrous direction you are going in. Why is this allowed to happen?" We have been asked by our constituents, by people we see in the street, getting our hair cut in the barbershop. I was asked as I met with Earl and the boys at Earl's Shell just last Friday. I went into Earl's Shell, because they do not have any representation now; this is in Brant-Haldimand.

They used to have a member who, while I disagreed with many of his policies and much of the spending of the former Liberals, would at least go into Earl's Shell and consult with those who dropped in and hear what people were saying in the town of St George, small-town Ontario.

On Friday I went in. I had a coffee and I met with the boys at Earl's Shell and with Earl. David Timms was with me, someone who, I would say in a biased sense, is running as a commonsense candidate in that by-election, if this government ever has enough guts to call it so the people of Brant-Haldimand could have representation.

Here is what they told me in St George at Earl's Shell. They said, number one, this government is wasting a lot of money, moving in the wrong direction. They said their former member and Treasurer was responsible for part of the massive taxation grab the Liberals brought in. But more important, they said the last Premier to play politics with the timing of an election, David Peterson, found out that you do not fool with the people of this province.

Now we have this Premier playing politics with the timing of the by-election: "I don't want to call it just yet because the voters are mad at us, so too bad, Brant-Haldimand doesn't have any representation."

Sooner or later, by the end of February, the government is going to have to call this by-election. In the meantime, I want the people of Brant-Haldimand to know and the people at Earl's Shell in St George to know that I will be happy to express their viewpoint until such time as we can get a commonsense Ontario Progressive Conservative member giving them a voice here at Queen's Park. If that representative were here today, he would be saying the same things I will be saying -- if David Timms could only have a voice in this Legislature today, as he will have shortly in the new year.

We are now at the stage where we feel we have been given no other choice. The government will not co-operate with us. It will not co-operate with the people of this province. It will not co-operate with the union members of this province. It will only co-operate with a few élite union leaders. That is why we are moving this motion of non-confidence. Clearly the people of this province do not have confidence in our current Treasurer, in our current Premier, in the current backroom boys who are running this party and running this government today here at Queen's Park.

In giving ample opportunity to the many others who wish to get on, I conclude with this: I ask all members of this House to reflect on the document we have put out, New Directions, and on whether we should be heading in this direction or in the direction in which the NDP is taking us.

If members agree with me -- because this vote today at 6 o'clock is that simple -- that the document New Directions more accurately reflects how we should be putting Ontario back to work and should be guaranteeing universal access to the programs our citizens want and need and deserve, and can easily have with sound management, if they believe that New Directions represents a better direction than the current disgraceful direction of big spending, high deficits, high taxing and big union agenda that we have, then they must vote for this resolution today.

I encourage all constituents who are watching to call their NDP constituency offices right now. Look them up in the blue pages. If they are open -- a lot of times they are not open to provide service -- you can call. If not, call Queen's Park and say: "I just heard Harris speak. I just heard the motion. I want a new direction and I want you to represent me as we voted you to do and to vote for a new direction in this province."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Further debate on Mr Harris's motion of non-confidence? The honourable Treasurer and member for Nickel Belt.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for recognizing me and allowing me to take

part in the debate this afternoon. I think I would feel a little worse about the expression of non-confidence if it were not coming from a Tory. It seems to me that any time a Tory in all of Canada expresses dismay at the way in which the economy is being run, I take some satisfaction in that vote of non-confidence.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I have never pretended --

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: I can see you're real proud of the Communist economies in the world.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The Treasurer has the floor and we will all have an opportunity to participate if we so desire.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try to ignore the red-baiting, McCarthyite tactics of the member for Burlington South. I will attempt to ignore that. I thought that era was gone in Ontario. It certainly is for all thinking people in this province.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To refer to McCarthyism when in fact President Gorbachev referred to himself as a "social democrat" in the last elections in Russia is clear evidence that the Communist party and the socialist party have a lot in common. That is not McCarthyism; that is the lessons of history.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Burlington South does not have a point of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: It seems to me that when people hear Tories talk about the way in which the economy should be run, they pay about as much attention to that as they would a speech from the member for Burlington South on how to fake sincerity. That is really where it is all at.

The basic thrust of the non-confidence motion from the Tories is divided into four sections. The first one talks about this government being one of high taxing, high borrowing and high spending. That is what the Tories say, and they of course decry the tendency to tax, borrow and spend.

I can tell the leader of the third party that it does not ring quite true. He stands in his place and says we are taxing too much, then in the same breath commends the former Treasurer, the member for Brant-Haldimand, Robert Nixon, for his high tax policies. There is a certain lack of consistency on the part of the leader of the third party.

I suppose the leader of the third party does not want us to spend money to fight the recession we are experiencing in this province. I find it really hard to take when the leader of the third party stands in the House in a debate like this and says, "We've got to cut government spending." What was he doing about one hour ago? He was in here telling us he does not like the cap on doctors' incomes and he was beating up on the Minister for Health because she had put a threshold on doctors' incomes in Ontario. You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth in this place and get away with it, and that is what the leader of the third party is trying to do.

I know there are a lot of people nipping at the leader's heels. Not only are there the aggressive backbenchers in his own caucus, but there is the Reform Party as well and he has to look out for that. The leader of the third party cannot simply carry on like traditional Tory parties because the Reform Party has overtaken them. That is what has happened.

Of course the leader of the third party cannot stand in his place and say, "We want you to follow the Mulroney agenda that they've taken this country down since 1988." Can he say that? I never hear him saying that. Why would he not be consistent and say, "We believe in the economic policies of the federal Tory government"? Does he say that? No, he does not say that. He tries to put as much distance as he can between himself and the Tories and put as little distance as he can between himself and the Reform Party. That is what the leader of the third party is all about these days.

If he really thinks that he will appeal to the population of this province by continuing to go after working people who happen to have combined into an organization called a trade union, he is sadly mistaken, because I want to tell him that people in Ontario believe there is a basic fundamental right to bargain collectively. If the leader of the third party does not believe that, let him stand in his place and say so instead of simply standing up and by innuendo day after day bashing anybody who happens to belong to a trade union. It is a sad comment when you try to divide the people of this province along those kinds of lines. I regret that very much.

Of course, not only can he not refer to his friends in Ottawa, he went out to Saskatchewan -- was it Saskatchewan he went to? I think it was -- to tell Grant Devine he should not have run nine straight years of deficits in that province. That is what he went out to tell Grant Devine. What did Grant Devine do? He said, "Well, don't worry. We've only got a $250-million deficit this year. Not to worry, Mike. We won't embarrass you in Ontario."

What happens? The election is held, the books are opened up and what is the deficit? It is almost $1 billion with fewer than a million people in the province. That is the equivalent in this province of having a deficit of over $10 billion.

Anybody who believes the direction this province should be going is the Tory direction should take a second look at the leadership that is being provided by Brian Mulroney and his friends in Ottawa. That is not the direction we want to take this province in and we do not intend to.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, and I would respectfully ask the Treasurer to address his remarks to the Chair. I know there are some inflammatory things being said, but please address them to the Chair and it will create less havoc. Please continue.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try very hard not to be inflammatory because I know the members of the Tory party are just on the edge and all I have to do is give them a little nudge and they will explode. I would not want to do that, so I will try to be very careful.

I would say to the people of this province, and to other members in the assembly, that no one likes to have a large deficit. No one likes to raise taxes very much. Who would like to do that if he did not feel he had to do it?

Every time the Tories -- and the Liberals too -- tell us we are spending too much money, right after they have risen in their places and told us we should be spending more money on a particular program that happens to scratch them where they itch, it really does not ring very true.

I want to hear the Tories and the Liberals in this House stand in their places when we announce our transfer payments, and I want to see them stand in their places all across this province when we take the tough action that is going to be necessary in the next fiscal year, and say, "Yes, we agree with you; that is the action that is necessary," because I have never heard one of the opposition members give us an example of where we should be cutting back, except --

Interjections.

Mr Carr: Housing; day care; public service.

Hon Mr Laughren: All right.

Hon Ms Lankin: The agenda's clear.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. This is not question and response time; it is debate time. Interjections are out of order, I remind members again. Would the honourable Treasurer address his remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, in case you did not hear that because of the yelling from across the floor, I want to remind you what the member of the Tory party said. He said we should be cutting back on pay equity, on day care and on housing. That is what they said. That is what the Conservative Party of this province believes should be the agenda of this province. I want to tell members --

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Hansard recorded our interjections and therefore the Speaker can check the record. What the Treasurer said was he has not heard examples of cuts, and we indicated to him that he should not destroy private sector day care; he could include expansion. We are not against pay equity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. That is not a point of order. Hansard is recording. That is the job of Hansard.

Hon Mr Laughren: As a government, we have some tough decisions to make and we do not expect support from the Tory party on any single progressive measure we take. We do not expect that kind of support. We know they would like to cater to the lowest common denominator, drive down wages in the province, drive down the living standard, drive down the quality of health care in this province, drive down the quality of education -- all in the interest of satisfying a very select few, in exactly the way Ronald Reagan did in the United States. That is the agenda of the Tory party in this province. It is not our agenda.

I want to address directly the assertion by the leader of the third party because it is his non-confidence motion. I do not want to neglect the Liberals today, except that it is the Tory motion of non-confidence and I feel I must direct my remarks more directly to them, through you, of course, Mr Speaker. I want to remind them that when we felt the pressures were building on our expenditures this year, a couple of months ago, we took action. We reallocated $600-million worth of spending. That was responsible management. At the same time we maintained essential services in health care, education and all those other programs the people of this province have come to expect.

Second, when it was announced by the federal government -- not as a cutback but simply as a collection of tax revenues -- that we were going to receive $2.1 billion less than we were led to believe we would receive, we reallocated yet again. The total amount we had to reallocate the second time was $670 million.

I know the opposition does not like to believe -- they do not believe -- we have been able to be so tough and so consistent with our expenditure management that we have said consistently we are going to contain the deficit this year, despite enormous pressures on both the expenditure side and the revenue side. We are determined to do that, because we know there is a lot at stake in making sure we control the deficit as we plan for the future.

I would remind members that at the provincial level, even after this year and the next three years, while there are going to be deficits every year, the amount of our revenues that will go to pay the interest on the public debt will be in the neighbourhood of 12% to 12.5%, 12 1/2 cents on the dollar.

An hon member: What will it be in four years?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is what I am saying, 12 1/2 cents in four years. At the federal level, with the Tories in charge, they are spending between 33 and 34 cents of every revenue dollar to service the debt. We do not want to fall into that same Tory fiscal trap as they have done in Ottawa. We are determined to avoid that.

What we also did to show leadership in terms of managing our expenditures is we froze the salary levels at 1991-92 of all MPPs in this Legislature, all cabinet ministers, all parliamentary assistants, all deputy ministers and senior bureaucrats in this government. To me, that was a signal of leadership in our attempts to control expenditures in the province. We are very much aware that we have to control our expenditures and we have taken action when we felt it was absolutely necessary. We will continue to do so, but it is going to be a very difficult several years.

The opposition can say it is all our fault, but I think fairminded people out there know this government did not cause the recession. They know that and they expect the opposition to say we caused it, but they know we did not cause it, for heaven's sake. It is not a recession confined to Ontario. We all know that, and I think the opposition politicians do themselves discredit when they try to blame everything on this government. We have been in office about a year and we are coping with the most severe recession we have experienced since the 1930s.

We are doing the best we can, and I think the people in the province understand that. They do not expect instant answers. They know it is going to be very difficult and they know we are going to have some very difficult choices to make. But the one thing I believe they understand is that the agenda the federal government has laid down, with very high interest rates, a high Canadian dollar and free trade, is not the answer to our economic problems. As a matter of fact, in many ways it is the cause of our economic problems, not the solution.

I do not want to take up any more time, because I know a lot of members want to speak. I do want to assure members we are aware of the economic difficulties and we are aware of the need, as the non-confidence motion points out, to head off in a new direction for this province.

But the new direction is not one which is mean-spirited, which denies people services, which drives down wages; that is not what we think the people of this province want, even given the fact that we are going to have extremely difficult fiscal times, we are going to have to curtail our spending, there is going to be some reallocation of expenditures, there is no question about that, and of programs as well. I have been saying that as often and as loudly as I can.

I think what is important is that the people of Ontario have a sense that there is a balance in what we must do and that everybody will be sharing the burden equally, as equal as it is possible to make it in this world. That is what we are determined to do, to make sure that people share the burden of a very difficult time. We are absolutely determined to do that, despite the fact that it is going to be difficult.

I expect the opposition to be critical of us. That is their job; that is why we pay them the salaries we pay them. It is because they are there to criticize us, and that makes us a better government. We are determined to manage the economy and deliver essential services in this province because we are determined not to allow those essential services to deteriorate. Even though it is going to be extremely difficult, we are determined to do that.

Mr Mahoney: I am pleased to join in this debate. I want to begin by saying I understand what the Treasurer is saying when he says the people do not blame this government for the entire ravages of the recession and all the problems. I do not have a difficulty with that. I think the majority of the blame properly belongs on the shoulders of the federal Tories and on Mr Mulroney, but I find it rather interesting to have the leader of the third party standing up as if all of a sudden he has found religion. He is the champion of social democracy, taking care of the homeless and the needy and the poor and the single moms. My heart was just thumping. I was really quite underwhelmed by the comments.

While I can very much agree with much of what is being said in this resolution and at the end of the day will clearly be supporting it, I find it somewhat passing strange when a member in this House representing former Tory regimes known for acquisitions such as Suncor and Minaki Lodge stands up and all of sudden says they are the models of fiscal responsibility.

Having said that, though, and being in support of the resolution in spite of the comments, I think there are some very valid points here, and I do think, frankly, that all governments have to accept a certain share of responsibility.

I want to give the Treasurer credit, although he takes all the credit he needs these days, for one thing. When the New Democrats took over the government, I met the Treasurer and I said to him, "I really thought you showed a lot of class in not simply blaming Bob Nixon," when the deficit they were facing went to $2.5 billion. He told me at the time there was a lot of pressure from his caucus to blame Nixon, but this Treasurer had enough class, in the press conference in reply to the very first question asked by the media -- which was, as I recall, "Did the Liberals lie?" -- to publicly admit, "No, nobody lied."

He recognized the fact that retail sales tax revenue had dropped by about $1 billion and the revenue from land transfer tax had dropped by some $300 million. He recognized the fact that they chose to pay off the debt at UTDC in Thunder Bay, some $400 million. He went on and he laid it all out and about $2.4 billion, I believe, was the amount we would call either discretionary or under nobody's control. He was honest about that, and I appreciated that.

That took us to $2.5 billion. What then took us to $9.7 billion was perhaps a little different. I saw a very interesting photograph in one of the newspapers of a large mobile sign. This clearly belongs in the realm of all governments. It was for Paul's Garage, and it said, "Our price includes the PST, the GST, the EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the CPP, the UIC, the WCB." Then it went on to say, "We were going to include profit, but there was no room left on the sign." That really told me something. There are three municipal taxes in there, three provincial and three federal. So the reality is that people are being overtaxed and overburdened as a result of being overgoverned.

What bothers me the most about this Treasurer and his colleagues is that I believe they truly believe what they are doing is right. That is what is so scary. They truly believe the best way to generate economic activity is with more government intervention. They are committed to that. The socialist view says that government should intervene, that government should overregulate, and that in turn will create spending in the community. They are so wrongheaded in their thinking that every citizen in this province knows it, even the ones who have supported them know it.

The real danger, I say with respect, is that the Treasurer did not just say that for one year we are going to have a huge deficit. He did not even just say that for two years we are going to have a huge deficit. He actually laid out a business plan that said to the people of this province, "For the term of our mandate, we are going to run a deficit each and every year."

For the folks at home, what that means is they run an overdraft in their personal bank accounts and at the end of the year, they go to their bank manager and say, "I can't pay off the overdraft so I want you to put it on my mortgage." The bank manager agrees and then they say, "Now, Mr Manager, I would like another overdraft for next year, and then next year I will put it on the mortgage."

How can the Treasurer's mathematics make sense, when he says that in four years' time the debt service, the amount of money needed to pay the interest on the debt, will be 12 1/2 cents? When we left office, the debt for this province was $39 billion. The debt service was nine cents on every revenue dollar. When we get a chance to get government back, the debt will be a minimum, based on the Treasurer's projections, of $76 billion. That is almost double. My feeling is they overestimate their revenue potential and the debt will likely be in excess of $80 billion, maybe in excess of $90 billion, maybe even $100 billion.

Now how do you service a $39-billion debt with 9 cents on every revenue dollar and then service $100 billion with 12 1/2 cents? My math says there has to be a trick here. So what is the option? More taxes. That is exactly the philosophy that will drive this province into a morass to make this recession look like a cakewalk. That is the exact philosophy. Never mind spend or save; what we are talking about here is a long-range business plan that plunges this province into economic ruin.

What can we do about it? All we can do as the opposition is point out to the people of this province what a travesty this Treasurer and his economic policy are creating in this government. People are losing their jobs all over the province. As the members know, I have been travelling all over the province. People are losing their jobs, businesses are closing, businesses are going to the United States. They are saying, "We've had it with Paul's Garage type of taxes. We're not going to take it any more," and they are leaving.

Where is the cash cow that this Treasurer is going to use to bail us out? I will tell members where it is. It is their pocket and it is my pocket and it is the pocket of the ordinary men and women in this province who are going to pay the price for this totally wrongheaded, disastrous type of policy.

I feel there are so many other areas, but time is limited and I want to share the time with my colleagues. I support this resolution and call for the Treasurer to stand up and admit his policies are going to destroy this economy.

Mr Runciman: It is a privilege to participate in this debate in support of my leader's motion of non-confidence in this government. I guess we are going to hear from a number of the Liberal leadership candidates today being critical of my leader and our party.

They do not have much to boast about. The member for Mississauga West talked about the record of the Liberal Party during its five years in office. They had 33 separate new tax increases, representing something like a 132% increase in taxes for the people of this province. I do not think that is anything to boast about.

The member for Mississauga West, who was not a member of cabinet, as a leadership candidate is now going around the province talking about backbench independence. Where was he during that time when those taxes were being increased 132%? He was another seal kissing every ministerial fanny he could find.

The Treasurer talks about Mr Mulroney. I am not an apologist for Mr Mulroney or a defender of many of the things the federal government has done, but comparing it with the current government in Ontario, it is doing a much better job. As I understand it, their expenditures are equivalent to their revenues. What they are trying to deal with now and what is creating so many problems for this country at the national level is the debt they inherited from the federal Liberal Party run by Pierre Trudeau. This socialist government in Ontario is going to make its successor face the same kind of problem in Ontario that Pierre Trudeau put in front of a Conservative government in 1984.

I want to talk about a range of issues. We have limited time because there are a number of speakers who want to make a contribution during this debate. I want to talk briefly about one element -- I think this touches on it as well -- Ontario's hydro costs: an 11.8% increase in 1992. I saw a press clipping today that stated we now have equivalent rates to New York state. We have lost that edge in terms of attracting new investment in Ontario and expansion of industry due to cheap electric power generation in this province. It is not there any more, and it is going to worsen, as we know when we see quotes attributed to Marc Eliesen, the chair of Ontario Hydro, or the Minister of Energy.

I have a letter from a major manufacturer in my riding; I am not going to mention the name of the company. This is a letter to the Premier: "To be globally competitive we need lower rates, not higher. Ontario Hydro is raising rates faster than we can find ways to reduce our costs." This is presenting a significant problem to this manufacturer in my riding. I am sure it is creating problems right across this province. This is just another element of this government's agenda forcing business out of this province or making it less and less competitive in a global economy.

Another matter I want to talk about is the Workers' Compensation Board. We have talked about the unfunded liability; I think it is in the neighbourhood of $10 billion now. We do not see any real, positive initiatives forthcoming from the new chair of the WCB, a former NDP member. They obviously do not believe in patronage, as they were quick to tell us in the past. We have a former NDP member heading up the WCB. Now they are looking at extending WCB benefits to cover stress. What a hornet's nest that is going to be. What a dog's breakfast.

How in the devil are employers expected to cope with increasing assessments based on decisions that will come from defining stress? It is going to be a significant additional burden.

We have looked at news clippings recently of poor investments made by WCB management, costing over $100 million in losses. We look at elements of nepotism in the so-called Workers' Health and Safety Centre with the former president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Cliff Pilkey, and a host of other union bosses retaining their own relatives. With respect to Gord Wilson, the current president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, his 22-year-old daughter was hired right out of school at a salary of $57,000, and relatives of Bob White, a niece of Cliff Pilkey and a host of other relatives.

Mr Jackson: The son of Bob Mackenzie.

Mr Runciman: The son of the Minister of Labour. I was not aware of that one. A host of relatives of big labour leaders who work for the health and safety centre. We heard over the years pronouncements from the NDP when sitting in opposition about appointments made by either the former Liberal government or the former Conservative government, and screams if there was something they perceived to be a patronage appointment. Look at these people when they get at the trough. There is no end to their appetite, apparently.

Another element I want to talk about, which has not been discussed, is mandatory indexation of pensions. We hear that is going to be forthcoming. Again, that is going to further deter business from expanding or even locating in this province. Those are the kinds of questions and issues we have to take a look at. They are talking about mandatory private sector pensions.

As someone who owned a small business with seven or eight employees, if I had had to incur those costs inflicted upon me by the senior level of government when I owned that business, I know I would have had significant difficulty in continuing to operate. It is to be hoped that the government will take a fresh look at these kinds of concerns being expressed right across the province.

Another element I want to put on the record is the increase in the minimum wage. I have a copy of a fax that was sent to the Premier by Pat Dickey, who runs a small inn in Portland in my riding. The Premier has a small cottage just offshore from this inn; I hope he drops by and visits this summer and gets some feedback from the people who are impacted upon by his government's decisions.

The minimum labour rates went up; as of November the general rate is up 11.1%, the student rate is up 21.9%, the liquor server rate is up 12.2%. These are on top of 8% and 9.6% increases put into effect October 1, 1990.

Mr Dickey says: "Our expenses, cost of doing business, have just gone up by more than 5% in wages alone. Overall...this will require an increase in sales of 22%." He goes on to say they have employed approximately 15 students throughout the year, but now these students are going to be earning this new rate and after November 1 they simply will not be able to find employment at the Gallagher House in Portland. He doubts that any place in the area, in terms of the small margins of profit they have to operate on, will be able to afford these kinds of increases.

Again, this is a decision taken by this government without full thought about the impact it will have on low-income earners and students in this province.

I want to talk about 300,000 manufacturing jobs being lost in this province. When I read news clippings about the Ontario Federation of Labour's convention, where the OFL is calling for even stronger measures from this government with regard to labour legislation, with the job losses we are faced with in this province, probably permanent job losses, for the life of me I cannot understand why organized labour -- at the senior levels, anyway; I am not talking about the grass-roots level but the people who attend OFL conventions and who apparently run the show -- cannot understand the impact these kinds of decisions are having on their futures and the futures of their own membership.

During the hearings my party conducted on the NDP budget, the socialist budget, I attended one hearing we had in the city of Kingston. A chap by the name of Bill Fraser, who is the president of Computer Assembly Services in Brockville, gave testimony for about 10 minutes. It was, in my view, very moving testimony. It affected me deeply, in terms of the future of this province and the kinds of burdens that manufacturers and business people must face on a daily and weekly basis to continue operating in this province. They have to have a significant love for province and country, because it is getting so unattractive to continue operations.

Computer Assembly Services has an operation in Ogdensburg, New York, and when you compare the costs and burdens -- I am not talking only about taxes, although that is an important element. We also have to look at administrative costs that have been thrust upon businesses operating in this province in the last five, six or even eight years, when you go back into the latter few years of the Davis government when it undertook some initiatives that were indeed not in the best interest of the businesses in this province as well; I am prepared to stand up and say that.

We talk about widget makers -- I can say that. Mr Fraser and his company can move out of the province; they can move into the state of New York and move all their operations there. But I had the publisher of a daily newspaper express concerns to me that he cannot simply pull up stakes and move; he has to continue operations. Many companies are in that position.

When we look at the tax burden, at the administrative cost burden the former government inflicted and that the current NDP socialist government is inflicting upon the people of this province, it is incumbent upon us to do something. Perhaps we have to do it in a non-partisan fashion. It may not be in the best political interest of the Conservative Party, but we may have to do what we can to bring this government down before three or four more years go by and this province is beyond the state of quick recovery. That is my concern and it is the concern of many people across this province.

It is the kind of decision that many of us as politicians sitting in this House are going to have to take in the next few months. We have to set aside our own political fortunes and do things that are in the best interest of the province. That is why I am very strongly supporting my leader's resolution.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to join in this debate today. I listened with interest to what the member for Mississauga West, a member of the opposition, had to say. While I disagreed in the main with what he said, one thing I did agree with, that this government is true to its beliefs. When it came into office a year ago last October, after the most prosperous years ever enjoyed in Ontario, and inherited the legacy of a deficit from the Liberal government, it had to do one of two things.

In the face of declining transfer payments from the federal government and declining revenues from corporate tax, retail sales tax and land transfer tax, as mentioned earlier, in order to maintain existing programs this government had to mount a deficit of $8.2 billion, as members of the opposition well know. The other $1.5 billion making up the $9.7-billion deficit was to stimulate employment and improve social assistance for the unemployed -- the human fallout from the federal policies of the Tory counterparts of the third party.

We hear about companies leaving the province. I am hearing about many of these companies that relocated to the southern United States and the Maquiladora belt and are now coming back to Ontario because they appreciate the value of well-trained, well-educated workers in the labour force, who are motivated enough to come to work the next day, who are not being paid a pittance of a wage of 90 cents a day, who are not subjected to all kinds of occupational hazards, who are well educated, well trained and well treated. This is the value of the labour force in Ontario.

I would also add that 77% of all foreign investment in Canada remains in Ontario, so Ontario is being seen as a strong and prosperous economy. Those companies that would criticize the government are only slitting their own throats, because they benefit from Ontario's continued economic prosperity. To hear the CEO of the Ford Motor Co of Canada suggest that this government is driving business from Ontario is very ironic indeed, particularly when, as an economic stimulus, Ontario has poured literally millions of dollars into assisting Ford to remain in Ontario, to do business here and to maintain those jobs that are so vital to our economy in this province.

I suggest that business should value, build and foster an economic partnership with this government, rather than engage in vitriolic invective. Certainly a good model would be Germany or Sweden or Japan, where labour-management relations have remained cordial, harmonious and productive over the past 17 years or more that I have been aware of the situation in those countries. That has not hindered by one iota the competitive, productive edge those countries have displayed in the global market.

In regard to the non-confidence motion of the leader of the third party, I suggest that our agenda as a government has not been detrimental to the best long-term interests of the people and taxpayers of Ontario. Overall, our revenue policy has been supportive of economic conditions. The impact of government policy decisions on revenue has in fact been relatively neutral. Major changes introduced by this government have supported consumption and investment.

In 1991-92, the retail sales tax no longer applies on top of the federal tax. Managers are benefiting from a doubling of the Ontario current-cost adjustment. Many low-income people, as a result of midyear adjustments, are no longer paying income tax. Over 100,000 low-income people have money left in their pockets to go out and purchase goods and services to bolster this economy.

Moreover, our tax increases have been selective. Across the board changes to major taxes have been avoided, unlike in previous years where there were significant increases in the provincial income tax, the corporate income tax and the retail sales tax. Our tax increases have been strategic. They have been focused on ability to pay. We have imposed a surtax on high-income-earning taxpayers, those earning over $85,000 a year.

We have made more effective tax expenditures, targeting the small business deduction, eliminating the insurance premiums exemption, limiting the three-year mining tax exemption and imposing taxes to support amelioration of the environment. I am talking now of the gas and diesel tax. Moreover, we are not introducing quarterly increases in the tobacco tax, alcohol tax, diesel tax and gasoline tax, as did the third party in the early 1980s, where quarterly increases in these taxes were the order of the day.

I also add that this government has not failed to implement effective measures to control public sector costs and cut government spending. The government's midyear spending adjustment plan redirected approximately $600 million to deal with urgent pressures, including $240 million for additional spending for social assistance, $53 million in extra costs for firefighting experienced in northern Ontario, $250 million to cover