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

April 19, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

JOHN WINTERMEYER

HEALTH CARE

COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

MEDIA REPORTING

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ESSEX SOUTH

LABOUR RELATIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

LABOUR DISPUTE

LABOUR RELATIONS

WAGE PROTECTION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

LABOUR RELATIONS

ACADEMIC STREAMING

PAY EQUITY

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY SPENDING

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LANDFILL

GAMBLING

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

LIQUOR STORES

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

RETAIL STORE HOURS

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today is Yom Hashoah, the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto. On this day, as people around the world gather to remember the people of the Warsaw ghetto, we in Ontario also remember those brave souls who rose to fight the Nazi threat.

Fifty years ago the Nazis moved into the Warsaw ghetto to try and cart the remaining 60,000 Jews off to death camps. On this day, many of the people in the ghetto began a heroic fight that lasted for over a month. These Jews accomplished the impossible, holding off an army which was larger, stronger and more resourceful for over a month.

The people of the Warsaw ghetto began a fight that carried over to other ghettos and towns the Nazis were trying to occupy. People began to stand up and fight the Nazis. Many people believed it would be better to fight to the death rather than die without a fight.

The Holocaust is an event that we must never forget. Through events such as the rally that took place here at Queen's Park yesterday and rallies worldwide, the memories of all those who fought against the Nazis are remembered. We also remember all of those people who were unable to fight and were herded like cattle and exterminated in the death camps.

The Holocaust is a black spot on the history of the 20th century but one which we cannot forget. We must always remember and ensure that it never happens again. On this 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising we remember the people who fought the Nazi menace. We also remember all of those, over six million people, who lost their lives. It is our duty to ensure that all those who perished did not die in vain. We must make sure that an event such as the Holocaust never happens again.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Everybody is catching spring fever in the city of Orillia. For many anglers, spring is a time of great anticipation for the upcoming fishing season because it's time for the 12th annual Orillia Perch Festival, from April 24 to May 15. It's time to get the line wet again, get the kids out in the fresh air, win a few dollars or prizes and catch lots of the finest-tasting pan fish in all of Ontario.

Now in its 12th year, the annual perch festival, sponsored by the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, has grown to become the largest registered derby of its type in North America. Perch fishing is easy for any age of angler, so the tournament has both adult and child registration.

Just fish to win one of over 60 tagged perch worth $500 each plus five bonus perch worth a total of $7,500 and there's even a perch that could win you a trip for four to Walt Disney World in Florida for a whole week.

There's over $100,000 in cash and prizes to be won, including a motor boat and trailer, and we have other packages, as well as fishing equipment and tackle, camping gear, bikes, clothing and much more.

For more information, call the perch line, 705-326-4424 on weekends, or 705-327-FISH. Come and perch in Orillia; it's a great event for the whole family.

JOHN WINTERMEYER

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): This past Saturday evening in my riding, over 600 individuals gathered to honour and pay tribute to a former member of this place, one John Wintermeyer. Mr Wintermeyer was honoured for his lifetime of service to the residents of my community as well as this province.

John Joseph Wintermeyer was born in Kitchener and educated at the University of Notre Dame and Dalhousie Law School. In 1952 he was elected to Kitchener city council, and then three years later John was first elected to this assembly.

In 1958 he was selected as leader of the Liberal Party, and in the election of 1959 he faced the Frost government. Although he did not succeed in becoming Premier, he did double the number of seats in the Liberal caucus to 22. In the election of 1963, the Big Blue Machine rolled across this province, and at the end of the day even Wintermeyer lost his seat.

Today, however, John takes much satisfaction that many of the ideas he promoted 30 years ago, such as universal medicare, improvements to general welfare assistance and full funding of separate schools, eventually became government policy.

Once out of politics, John has remained extremely active not only in his province but in his community as well. He has served as chair of the Metro Roman Catholic high schools and the Canadian Olympic Association, and he's assisted numerous community organizations, including the Working Centre and St John soup kitchen.

John has been described as a courageous individual and one who has received much satisfaction in serving others. Let me tell you, Speaker, that John Joseph Wintermeyer is a gentleman in every sense of the word.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown: (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have an urgent situation in my riding which demands the immediate attention of the Minister of Health.

Last month, St Joseph's General Hospital, the local hospital in Elliot Lake, received word from the Minister of Health's office that its registered nursing assistant school will have to close at the end of May. That's this May. There was no warning of this ill-timed decision.

I say it was ill-timed because the 1993-94 class of students has already been interviewed and accepted for the program. It is too late for these students to be accepted in any other program. It is too late for the hospital to research other training prospects. I remind the minister, many of these students are already casualties of mine closures who have upgraded themselves and were looking forward to launching new careers in the health field.

Some of the RNA schools earmarked for closure have a full year to prepare. Why is the Elliot Lake program targeted for early windup? Where is the fairness in this decision? I've appealed this decision in a letter to the Minister of Health dated March 31. To date I have received absolutely no reply. So I want to urge her to respond now in the only reasonable and just manner that she can: by granting the Elliot Lake RNA program a one-year reprieve.

COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to honour 24 people within my riding of Dufferin-Peel. Twenty-four hardworking individuals within my riding will be receiving the commemorative medal for the 125th anniversary of the Confederation of Canada.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, will be attending a reception this evening to present medals to the following individuals: Robert Burnside, Don Currie, Jean deGruchy, Glenn Grice, Glenys Houghson, George Ledson, Dr James Orbinski, Mary Phelan, Grace Cronin, Bliss Daley, Joan Donnelly, Delores Hannon, Pat Kalapaca, Linda Lockyer, Bill Parke, Jerry Proctor, Alex Raeburn, Anne Richardson, Nancy Stewart, Wayne Townsend, George Reid, Carole Seglins, Dr Walter Tovell and Betty Ward.

The 125th medal was struck by the federal government to commemorate Canada's 125th anniversary. There are always many worthy individuals who volunteer their time within their community and commit much of their lives to the benefit of others. It gives me great pleasure to host a reception this evening at the Hockley Valley Resort and Conference Centre and to introduce the Lieutenant Governor to some of the special people in Dufferin-Peel.

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Hamilton-Wentworth needs jobs. It also needs a psychological lift. The area's traditional job provider, the manufacturing sector, has declined dramatically, leaving the area's unemployment rate above the national and provincial average.

To help create economic rejuvenation in Hamilton-Wentworth, I and many other residents of the region urge the Ministry of Environment and Energy to locate the new Ontario Clean Water Agency in Hamilton-Wentworth.

There are compelling reasons why Hamilton-Wentworth would be a logical location for the OCWA. First, it dovetails with the region's initiative called Vision 2020, Creating a Sustainable Region, an initiative which sets out principles and guidelines for sustainable economical development.

Second, there are existing agencies, institutions and private businesses in the area which are already involved in research on water and aquatic sciences and can work with the new agency. There are the Wastewater Technology Centre, the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, the National Water Research Institute, the Inland Waters Directorate, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the National Laboratory for Environmental Testing, Bayfield Institute, McMaster University and Mohawk College, all able to provide resources the new agency could rely on.

I believe the request to have the OCWA located in Hamilton-Wentworth is a reasonable and modest request from a community that has been hammered by the recession and is in dire need of a boost.

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm rising to indicate my genuine concern and that of a large number of people in the Niagara region that the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre has experienced a significant delay in obtaining the necessary approval from the Ministry of Health to continue its plans for redevelopment.

The Ministry of Health made a commitment in April 1990 to provide funding for the project. We understand the disappointment of the board and of the fund-raising committee when they were advised at the beginning of this year that there would be a possible further delay in that funding.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has indicated that funds are available at this time, up to $600,000, for that portion of the redevelopment for which the ministry is responsible and that these funds may not be available after two years.

The fund-raising committee has launched a major campaign which has received the overwhelming support of the community at large, and many of the pledges have been made in the knowledge that ministry approval would be forthcoming in the near future.

The centre looks after the requirements of more than 1,000 children with physical and communicative disabilities from a building which is designed for perhaps 400 to 500 children.

I'm urging the Minister of Health to give immediate final approval to the board of directors of the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre to proceed with its redevelopment project. By doing so, you will be addressing the genuine needs of several hundred children in the Niagara region and assisting the construction industry in a part of the province that has long experienced an extremely high rate of unemployment.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to bring to the attention of the new Minister of Community and Social Services the desperate need in Wellington and the surrounding area for the services provided through the special services at home program.

As members of this House are aware, the special services at home program provides a contract worker to assist families with developmentally disabled children. This service is essential because it allows parents to keep their children at home and helps them to cope with their children's disabilities. The program makes a huge contribution towards a child's development, and the frustration and sense of helplessness that families are feeling when their allocation of hours is reduced substantially is very real.

Theresa and Earl Campbell of Moorefield have written about their daughter Tannis, who has Down syndrome: "Why are these services being denied to young handicapped children who have a permanent disability? Our daughter has a permanent handicap -- Down syndrome. It doesn't go away. However, her abilities can be enhanced through early and necessary intervention."

Another family has written the Premier on this issue:

"Surely, you must realize what a disastrous plan you are creating by placing budget cuts on our handicapped children. This action will force many families to abandon their children to the care of the province -- a far more costly situation for Ontario, and a disaster for the children."

As of the beginning of April, the Campbells have had their hours of service reduced from four to two per week. Many other families in Wellington have suffered a similar fate while others remain on waiting lists.

In the throne speech, this government stated that it has "an abiding concern to provide for the vulnerable among us, including our children." If the government continues to turn its back on disabled children and their families, it demonstrates its heartlessness, and in light of the throne speech statement, its hypocrisy.

This is the fourth time I've raised this issue in the Legislature. I do not --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Thank you.

MEDIA REPORTING

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pose a question: Why are politicians held in such low esteem and with such disdain by the people of the province of Ontario?

It seems all politicians at all levels of government are broadly painted with the same brush, regardless of their political stripe. Certainly, during these difficult economic times, when there is a strong public demand for more jobs, less taxes and improved services from the respective governments, it is easy to understand why the public might want to blame their elected officials. Surely, all of the people's woes must be the fault of someone, and it appears collectively to be the fault of the "politicians."

How has this viewpoint come to be so widely accepted? Singularly, nearly all politicians I know are hardworking, credible, honest individuals. Indeed, all of the members of this august body known as the Legislative Assembly, in my opinion, could be characterized as such. However, when viewed collectively, we are not seen with such reverence.

I might suggest that the media have, at the very least, something to do with this. It is this member's opinion that reporters do not always accurately report the facts when covering political events. When they report their stories, they are often just that -- stories -- because of the way they have been editorialized. Headlines often state someone's opinion rather than fact in order to sensationalize the story. This occurs in all aspects of the media and it's most unfortunate, in my opinion.

The politicians are doing their best to improve the public's view both of themselves and of the political process. The media have helped to cause this problem and the media can help to resolve it, in my opinion.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ESSEX SOUTH

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, I rise today to tender my resignation as the member for Essex South, effective April 30, 1993, and I do so with mixed emotions. I'm very pleased to have accepted a challenging position in the private sector which will allow me to live full-time with my family in Amherstburg, but I regret deeply that I will no longer represent the people of Essex South. I would not have been able to serve as their member in this House for the past 18 years without their generous support and understanding.

More important, I would not have been able to carry out my duties without the love and support of my wife, Jo-Anne, and my children, Michelyn and Bianca, who are here in the Legislature sitting under the Speaker's gallery today.

I want to thank them and tell them that I look forward to spending a lot more time at home. Hopefully, all members of the Legislature will be blessed with the many good things that I've been able to have in my life: a wonderful family, healthy children. That's something that only God can bestow upon us.

I also want to thank the many local officials and the community groups I've had the pleasure of dealing with throughout the years. I'm very proud of what we've accomplished together to make our corner of Ontario a fine place to live, work and raise a family in. There's now a modern four-lane highway to link with Anderdon, Malden and Amherstburg. Much work had to be done to help the people of Harrow to recover from the devastating flood of 1989 that everyone recalls.

The downtown areas of Amherstburg and Leamington have been revitalized with beautiful waterfront parks to take advantage of the natural waterfronts in both communities. The same was done in Colchester South.

Our farmers, particularly in Mersea township and Gosfield South, have had to combat drought and we've tried to help; working with the greenhouse and fishing industry to save jobs has always been a priority of mine for my 18 years that I've tried to serve them. New infrastructure for Kingsville and Essex so that they can remain viable communities. Across the riding, we had to fight to protect our public and separate schools from amalgamation. As the member for Essex South, I am proud to have played a role in so many community issues.

During my tenure in the Legislature, I've had the pleasure of serving under four Liberal leaders, all people of great talent and ability. Bob Nixon was one of the greatest legislators ever to serve in this House. Stuart Smith brought a sharp intellect and a passion for politics. David Peterson gave Ontario five years of unprecedented growth and opportunity. I also want to thank David Peterson for giving me the honour of serving in cabinet as the minister responsible for disabled persons and as the Minister of Revenue.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for my colleagues whom I served with in cabinet and in the Liberal caucus. It has been my great pleasure to serve under our new leader, the member for Fort William. She has brought a new approach, I believe, to politics, and in my opinion, if I may be allowed one partisan moment, I believe that Lyn McLeod will become the first woman Premier in the history of Ontario.

After 18 years, not only have I had the opportunity to get to know each and every member sitting in the House today, and all the members who sat previously, but each member has a history, and each member has something special about him. I've made some very special friends in the Liberal caucus: Joe Cordiano, Alvin Curling, Hugh O'Neil, Steven Mahoney, people whom I consider very close friends.

Where else but in politics could you meet a guy like Jim Bradley, who can come up with lines like, "The government needs a third hand to pat itself on the back"? Only in the Legislature could we find a person with that type of wit. Where else could we find the oratorical skills of a Sean Conway? Where else could we find the business acumen of a person like Monte Kwinter? Where else could we find the warmth of a person like Yvonne O'Neill? I could say something personal about each and every member of my caucus, and I could say something for each and every member of the House.

I particularly am proud to have served with a person like the honourable Treasurer, a man of substance, a person who was a gentleman at all times. The fact that we see eye to eye has nothing to do with my opinions about the Treasurer.

I got to know Ernie Eves really well when I served as the official opposition House leader. I thought I was tough, I thought I was a difficult negotiator, but I think Ernie Eves is probably the best I've seen, and I can see why he sits at the right hand of his leader.

Mr Speaker, I want to take this last moment to say that it was an honour and a thrill to have been elected for the first time back on September 18, 1975, with you. I know that you've had a very colourful career and I know that you are presently serving with distinction as Speaker. It's been my pleasure to have got to know you not only as a colleague and as a Speaker but as a friend.

I want to wish each and every one of my colleagues here in the Legislature, the people who work in this building who serve us, and all who come into contact with politics, God's blessing. Thank you very much.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With the permission of the House, may I take advantage of this unique, non-partisan moment in order to recognize the contribution of the member for Essex South.

It seems to me that it's truly remarkable that at the age of 41, the member for Essex South is one of the longest-serving members of this House. It's remarkable that at a time of great volatility in politics, the constituents of Essex South have so consistently recognized the effectiveness of the representation that Remo Mancini has provided.

It's remarkable that Remo Mancini was just 23 years old when he was first elected to the Legislature in 1975, and it's even more remarkable that he was already a seasoned political veteran, having served as an elected official as reeve of Anderdon township and as deputy reeve of Essex county.

There's one phrase that has been used consistently throughout all those years to describe Remo Mancini: He has always been a very determined individual. Some might add a little bit of embellishment to that, particularly if they happened to have been on the other side of the issue from Remo. "Pit bull" is a term that I have heard used from time to time, and a picture of Remo with a megaphone comes very readily to mind, although I can assure you that neither in committee nor in this House did Remo Mancini ever need any kind of amplification.

Remo has always been a very determined fighter for his constituents and for the issues that he cared about so passionately. He worked tirelessly and effectively in his cabinet portfolios, as minister responsible for disabled persons and then as Minister of Revenue.

I speak for all Liberal members when I say that we will miss Remo's contributions in our caucus and in this House, but I also speak on behalf of our members in wishing Remo well in his new career. After 18 years in the Legislature, and an entire career devoted to public service, a new and exciting opportunity has forced a decision that I know Remo found difficult to make.

He has earned the respect and the appreciation of his constituents over these past 18 years and they will, I know, be pleased that he is going to be able to stay in their community. He will continue to make important contributions to his community, and he will certainly have more time to spend with his family.

On behalf of all of us in the Liberal caucus, I want to express appreciation to Remo Mancini for his 18 years of service as the MPP for Essex South, and we want to offer him our very best wishes for great success in his new career and for much personal happiness.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On behalf of my caucus, I would like to say a few words about Mr Mancini and his contribution to this Legislature. It's somewhat coincidental that there are few members who have been here longer than I, and perhaps the only two that I can recall right now are the Treasurer and Mr Mancini. Just coincidentally, they are the only two members in the Legislature who are shorter than myself as well. It says something about the stature of men in this place and how long they can stay around this place. You might want to include -- never mind, Mr Speaker.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I used to be six feet tall.

Mr Sterling: For the record, the Treasurer wants to indicate that he was six feet when he was first elected to the Legislature. Times are tough.

I think Mr Mancini's record in the former Liberal cabinet bodes well for his new job as president of this new Fantasy Land. I believe that Remo would only wish that we continue our partisan positions, as he has always held a partisan position in this Legislature. No one was ever surprised, when they were in committee or in this Legislature, by the stance Remo Mancini would take in this Legislature.

One of the things perhaps people do not understand in politics, as we hear from time to time people talk about free votes in this Legislature and all of those kinds of good individual stands -- I think Remo Mancini perhaps, outside of his constituency, which he stood up for I think admirably during the time he was here, was a loyal party supporter and could be counted on by his party in this place and in committees, and he did a very good job for them there.

I want to say that some of my colleagues who had experience with him during his period as a minister of the crown found that from time to time he would go against his civil servants and let the political will prevail. We in this party appreciated that as a cabinet minister, a politician, he would stand up for what he thought was right in spite of what the bureaucrats around him might have told him, and his decisions sometimes prevailed in those circumstances. The member for Leeds-Grenville was relating a story to me briefly about that before I stood up.

I always found that, when I was on a committee with Mr Mancini, before 1981 and during the last previous Parliament, he always participated; that, as his leader has said, he's a good fighter, and political parties appreciate good fighters to send into committees for committee work, because fighting is necessary in those particular committees.

I would like to wish him well and wish his family well. For a period of time, as you may know, Mr Mancini was ill in this Legislature. I can remember that period, when the many members of this Legislature prayed for his full recovery because of his tremendous participation in this Legislature and how much he gave to it. We were so happy to see his health return; we were happy to see him serve as a minister; we are happy to see him now go on to another stage of his life. I'm sure he will be equal to the challenge. Our best to you, Remo, and our best to your family, who I know have been extremely supportive of you through all of your tremendous career here at Queen's Park.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm tempted, as Remo's going to work with an amusement park facility down our way, to say something about him now really taking his constituents for a ride, but I wouldn't dare say anything about that.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): How much did you pay for that one?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's the speechwriters in the Ministry of Education.

Mr Sorbara: Well, that's one civil servant who can go.

Hon Mr Cooke: When I read the

article and was contacted by our local paper that Remo was going, my first reaction was, "Oh, great, another by-election." They've been a lot of fun so far.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Are you running out of deposit money?

Hon Mr Cooke: They'll probably take it out of my riding.

Now I don't know what to say. Well, I do have some kind words to say about Remo, and they weren't produced by the Ministry of Education. Many of the members wouldn't know of Remo's reputation back in our area as well as those of us who come from Windsor-Essex.

It is really true to say that Remo has over the years developed an incredible reputation down our way of working with individuals, but even more than doing the constituency work on individuals, it's the community networks working with the municipal government and with the school boards down that way that I think have earned him a reputation and, quite frankly, is the reason he got re-elected in the last election at a time that was difficult for his party.

He survived that time when southwestern Ontario went a completely different way, and it's a personal tribute to the member for Essex South that he was re-elected because of his hard work back home.

I also know that many people down our way and elsewhere in the disabled community very much appreciated the leadership that he showed when he was in cabinet in the office for the disabled and I think was responsible for bringing many of those issues to government at the provincial level.

But there's one particular time when Remo and I got together that I think is important to repeat, because I think Remo would probably have the reputation in this place as being one of the more partisan members of the Legislature, as would I, I hope. But just before the 1985 election call, after the Catholic school funding had been announced by the then provincial government, there was a very major meeting down in Essex county and Remo and I were invited to represent the provincial Legislature, not something that either of us looked forward to, since the people we were going to see were very much opposed.

Considering the fact that an election call was only days away, I must say that the working relationship we developed to explain the government's position, the opposition's position, and no political rhetoric at all, was very important and I think a tribute to the approach Remo can take and will take on very difficult issues in our communities when it's the best thing for the community to proceed and deal with it in a non-partisan way.

Again, very respected in the county, very respected in the city, I know that Remo has for quite some time wanted to spend more time in Essex county with his family. This is completely understandable, and I know that Jo-Anne and his kids are going to very much appreciate the fact that he's going to be able to spend more time with them.

So I personally and on behalf of the government caucus wish you well, congratulate you on your 18-year record of service to the people of our area and the province, and good luck.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): In accepting the resignation from the honourable member for Essex South, may I say to him that he has served with distinction on both sides of this chamber for some 18 years. He has made friends. I will always value his friendship.

I think, perhaps more importantly, through the friends that he's made in all parties, he has demonstrated that he is a friend of Parliament, and that's a living legacy for the member for Essex South. My very best wishes for your future. Thank you for serving this House with distinction.

It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will direct my first question to the Treasurer. Today the government began negotiating the so-called social contract. At least we think it was the beginning; we're a little unsure, with recent news reports. But on the very day that negotiations were scheduled to begin, or have begun, we are no closer to understanding what the social contract is and exactly what it is meant to achieve than we were two weeks ago. The press report suggests that even the Premier himself says that the social contract can't be defined until it is negotiated.

I would ask the Treasurer this: Taxpayers, public sector employees, want to know what you intend to accomplish through the social contract. Can you tell us, how much money do you expect to save? What jobs are on the chopping block? Do you have any idea of what you are trying to do?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Perhaps I could answer the last part of the question first. Yes, we do have a pretty good idea of what we want to accomplish through the social contract negotiations. I hope the leader of the official opposition has been following the way this whole issue has unfolded, because what we said from the beginning -- if you would allow me, Mr Speaker, to go back a bit -- when we brought down our budget last spring, we said we had three priorities. One was to preserve the essential services of the province, the other was to do something on job creation, the best we could, and the other was to keep the deficit in check.

What we are saying now, to her and to everybody else in this province, is that there are three components to making those things happen. One is that we're able to continue to provide investment and encourage investment in this province, the other is that we have an obligation to raise revenues, and the third is that we must contain the expenditures of this province.

By putting those three components together in what I hope will be an equitable way, a way which will allow us to achieve our targets while at the same time being as fair as possible to the employees of this government and to all of the taxpayers all across this province, I hope that will be the result of the social contract, the negotiations we'll be entering into almost as we speak.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer attempts to put as fine a face on this as he possibly can, but the reality is that this month the Premier emerged from your caucus retreat and discovered he had a financial crisis. Since then, this government has done absolutely nothing except create utter chaos and confusion.

Let me remind you of what has evolved in the last couple of weeks, Treasurer. There was first talk about 18,000 layoffs, the next day there was talk about wage rollbacks, the day after that there was some mention about the suspension of collective bargaining and then there was discussion about sitting down to negotiate something called a social contract, which nobody including the Premier can even define.

The fact is, if you wanted to get cooperation from unions, you should have sat down with them a year ago, when you could have discussed some plans and acted on some of the ideas. You didn't need to wait until the crisis hit.

Treasurer, you've got to bring in a budget one month from now. You know what the bottom lines for your budget have to be. I ask you, is it not true that you're prepared to back up your budget decisions with legislation and that you have already hired legal counsel to begin drafting that legislation? Is it not true that this entire social contract negotiating process is a sham?

Hon Mr Laughren: I very much hope that in the dark recesses of the mind of the leader of the official opposition there isn't lying there perhaps a somewhat repressed hope that we will fail in this venture, because we are determined to make it work.

For the first time I think in the history of this country, we are prepared to sit down with the people who deliver very important services all across this country -- employees all across this province and employees and employers in the broader public sector as well. I suspect the official opposition or the third party would simply have come in with some kind of sledgehammer and said, "This is the way we're going to do it." That's not the way this government operates.

What we are saying is that we are going to do the best we can to sit down with those people whom we consider to be our partners and see if we can work out the right combination of expenditure reductions and compensation in the public sector to see if we can arrive at a final product called the budget, at which point we will share it with everybody in the province.

Mrs McLeod: In the deep, dark recesses of my mind, I actually once had a little glimmer of hope that you would have figured out you had a problem in time to do something about it.

I would suggest that those very people whose cooperation you are now seeking to help you solve your problem are as confused about the process you've embarked upon as we are. You are well aware that the unions are threatening this province with an across-the-province strike if job cuts and wage rollbacks are part of the social contract. Now we have Michael Decter, who is your chief negotiator, apparently prepared to offer the unions greater control over government policies and government programs in return for their cooperation in cutting a deal. This only adds to our confusion about what in fact is going on.

Hon Mr Laughren: Nothing could be further from the truth, absolutely nothing. That is really silly talk coming from the leader of the official opposition.

I can tell you that what we are trying to do is sit down with the people who deliver the services in this province, both employees and employers, who know a great deal about the best way to deliver services and how to do it more efficiently than is being done now. We think we're the first government in the history of this province that has ever had the sensitivity to sit down with employees and say: "Is there a better way to make the whole system work? Because we want you, the employees of this government, to be a part of the solution to the problem in which we find ourselves."

I can tell you that from what I hear the leader of the official opposition saying, her idea of industrial relations is in some kind of time warp and, as far as her ideas of alternatives to the dilemma in which we find ourselves are concerned, I find that they are -- are you ready for this? -- completely bereft of substance.

Mrs McLeod: The time warp is the suggestion from the Treasurer that you could undertake the most extensive intervention in the collective bargaining progress we have ever contemplated and do it in a month, in time for his budget.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question, although on the same subject, in this case to the Chairman of Management Board. In a statement on the social contract, the Premier talked about the need for sacrifice and for restraint, but it seems to us that the Premier's vision about sacrifice and restraint begins everywhere except at home.

The Premier has talked about restructuring government. All we've seen are eight more MPPs on ministry payrolls. Meanwhile, the NDP has also increased its political staff since it took office by over 14%. Far from showing restraint, executive assistants to ministers, as an example, are now paid up to $84,000, 17% more than they could have been paid when the NDP took office.

I simply ask the minister, is this your idea of getting your own house in order?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): The process that's gone on since the election of 1990, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out on a number of occasions, is a process that has involved discussions with the whole of the civil service in this province. There have been negotiations in 1990, 1991 and 1992 with the public sector. We have done the same with our own employees and, as we move into the kinds of discussions we're moving into with the public sector, we'll do the same with our own.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: It is a little bit difficult to know how to frame a supplementary when the minister has responded to something entirely different from the question I asked, which was a question about political staff, entirely within the government's direct control, not a subject for negotiation with the union.

It seems to me that a reorganization in which you end up with more people and more costs is not exactly the model that this government would want to go into negotiations on the social contract with. The Ministry of Education and Training alone now supports six NDP MPPs. There is one superminister, one junior minister and four parliamentary assistants. The Premier's office numbers have increased by 54%, representing some additional 20 staff people.

Again I ask the minister, what message does this give to the people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: -- with whom you are now trying to negotiate cost restraints and rollbacks?

Hon Mr Charlton: I simply repeat my answer to the Leader of the Opposition's first question, that we'll deal, as we deal with the public service in this province, with our own employees with the same expectations.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that this government's credibility is in real question as it now sits down to talk with people about cost savings and spending cuts. If you're serious about cost cutting, it is important to consider all spending, both the big things and the little things. So let me ask the minister the most simple and most basic of questions.

It seems to me that it would have been so easy not to spend more taxpayers' dollars on meeting rooms when existing government facilities are available at virtually no additional cost to the taxpayers. We know that over 100 people attended the secret cabinet meetings this weekend, where no decisions were to be made, and that this cost the taxpayer something between $7,000 and $18,000. Now, Minister, I acknowledge that is not a big sum of money in relation to a $17-billion deficit, but that kind of expense certainly flies in the face of everything this government keeps saying about cost restraints and trying to control expenditures.

I simply ask you, if your government wanted to cut spending, why didn't you start by holding the meeting in the Macdonald Block next door, where there were rooms available at virtually no cost?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are no facilities where there are no costs. We held the cabinet meeting over the weekend in a facility that we happen to own.

The member likes to ask about cost-cutting. In the political staff to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, there have been cuts. We went through cuts just two short months ago, cuts that reduced staff and saved dollars to the tune of $250,000 in terms of salaries and wages.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer, Minister of Finance -- I'm not sure of his new title. I know there are so many.

Treasurer, you've been making the claim that in a no-change scenario, if you don't take any action, you'll have a $17-billion deficit. However, Treasurer, that figure is arrived at only if you spend next year 9.1% more than you did in this current year.

Surely with inflation running 1.5% to 2%, you don't intend to increase spending by that amount. For example, your own numbers indicate health care spending will go up 4.9%, compared to less than 1% last year. I'm sure that number serves Mr Decter well in the discussions he's about to undertake and puts him in a rather embarrassing position. Spending on education last year fell 3%, but you say this year it's going to go up 9.2% according to your projections.

How can you justify these massive increases in expenditures at the same time as you're calling for cutbacks?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): We can't; that's exactly the point. I'm glad to have the leader of the third party reinforce it. We cannot have those kinds of increases in expenditures for 1993-94. We understand that. That's one reason we spent the weekend at the government-owned facility just this past weekend dealing with the whole question of expenditures and expenditure reductions.

Mr Harris: Well, why would you print those numbers?

Hon Mr Laughren: What we're trying to tell you is that that's the direction we were headed unless we take these actions. That's exactly where we were going to be. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Mr Harris: What Minister of Education said they wanted 9% more?

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd let me answer the question, if you think that we would have anything to gain by jacking up our numbers on expenditures, I don't know what you think it would be. I don't know wherein you think the gain would lie, because that would inflame you, for example, if we were to announce that we had expenditure increases of 9% next year, and we're saying that's completely unacceptable. That's one point.

Second point: We say that the deficit level is unsustainable at those levels and we are determined to get those deficit levels down --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- so that we can put that money into job creation and the protection of services in this province.

Mr Harris: You still didn't tell me whether it was the Minister of Education who said he wanted 9% more. Was it the Minister of Health or Michael Decter who said he wanted 4.5% more? Where did the numbers come from? That was the simple question.

Now, will the Minister of Finance agree with me that if total expenditures for the province of Ontario were not cut but flat-lined -- if you didn't cut, but you flat-lined the total expenditures from last year -- the budget deficit would be $12.6 billion, not $17 billion? Those are your figures, not mine, if you just flat-line the expenditures instead of going up 9.1.

So if you work downwards from there, from your figures, flat-lining -- the Conference Board of Canada projects provincial tax revenue increases of 7%. I know you disagree with them, but, you know, given your record over the last three years -- and I know how tough it is to forecast -- I think the Conference Board of Canada has a little more credibility than you do, Mr Treasurer, if you check the numbers. Given that if you have an increase of 7% and you flat-line expenditures, without actually cutting, just flat-lining, you are starting your negotiations from a deficit position of $9.2 billion.

Can you explain to me why you're running around this province telling the unions, telling financial institutions, that your no-change scenario is $17 billion, when in fact, if you would flat-line your expenses, take the conference board figures, the deficit's $9.2 billion? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure I can the way the leader of the third party has put his question, but I'm also not sure whether he's saying relax, there's not a problem out there, which is very strange coming from the leader of the third party.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): He wants to spend more. You have to be prudent, Mike. You can't go on, spend, spend, spend, Mike.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: We believe we cannot sustain --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Laughren: We believe we cannot sustain the growth in expenditures that in many cases has been built into the system. It really has become a structural deficit, keeping in mind that year after year after year programs were layered one on top of the other and nothing was lopped off the bottom. That was done by governments going right back to the Tories and the Liberals.

What we are saying is enough is enough, the time has come to get our house in order because we think that our priorities should be the creation of new jobs in this province and the protection of essential services. There's nothing mysterious about that. We think that for the long-run health of this province, this is the kind of action that we simply must take.

Mr Harris: I agree $9.2 billion is unacceptable. It was just two years ago 5,000 people stood on the front lawn and said your $10-billion deficit was unacceptable, that it needed to be cut. Now $10 billion seems to be your target. I agree, there's built-in spending in the programs that the Liberals irresponsibly brought into this province through their five-year tenure. We agree with all that.

But, Treasurer, if your target is only $9 billion, and I suggest to you it should be lower than that if you want to actually cut, can you explain to me, given the Conference Board of Canada projections, given you don't have to cut a nickel, just flat-line, why you're talking about tax hikes to get below $10 billion? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition has been around here long enough to know --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Long enough, period, yes -- to know that flat-lining isn't as simple as he puts it. What do you do with entitlement programs? What do you do with increases in enrolments in our post-secondary institutions? What do you do with the increases on the public debt, because even a small deficit adds to the total debt and increases the interest on the public debt that we have to pay. You cannot get away with a simplistic analysis that says that if you just flat-line all programs you don't have to take any cuts. That is simply ludicrous.

Mr Harris: I'll tell the Treasurer this: I wouldn't put up with a Minister of Education who says, "I want to spend 9% more money next year," and I wouldn't print it. I wouldn't even print it to embarrass him.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Chairman of Management Board. I have a copy of an interest arbitration award made on June 29, 1992. It concerns a dispute between Sudbury Youth Services and OPSEU. On page 6 of the award, the chair of the arbitration board specifically points to the "involvement of various government ministers in ending the strike."

Minister, can you tell me why the Treasurer, why the Minister of Northern Development, why the MPP for Sudbury and why the former Chairman of Management Board were interfering in a process of dispute resolution between the management and the employees of the Sudbury Youth Services?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): No, I can't.

Mr Harris: As the Chairman of Management Board and given the very strong condemnation written right into the judgement by the panel, I am astounded that that hasn't been brought to your attention. I'm astounded it hasn't been brought to your attention, but let me bring it to your attention.

The arbitrator states that the government -- this is in quotes -- "effectively abandoned its role as a neutral third party, usurped the prerogatives and the bargaining rights of management, utterly compromised the next set of negotiations; the government destroyed management's credibility."

Minister, given these comments, would you not agree that the Treasurer, the Minister of Northern Development and the former Chair of Management Board acted improperly in a labour dispute?

Hon Mr Charlton: Based on the information that was passed to me this afternoon, I can't conclude that but I'm certainly prepared to look into the matter.

Mr Harris: I appreciate your looking into the matter. Interest arbitration, you know, is an alternative to collective bargaining that was chosen by management and by employees.

Certainly, the Treasurer and the former Chair of Management Board knew better than to interfere. The ministers had to know that they were violating, if not the act, potentially the conflict of interest act and certainly the spirit of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

In

summary, the arbitrator in this matter concluded, "The government was an officious meddler and as such must bear the consequences of its actions."

Minister, I would ask you, as the Chair of Management Board, and in the absence of the Premier, who doesn't set any standards anyway: How many more times will you as Chairman of Management Board allow members of your government to intervene in places where they have no business intervening and before -- "before," because the Premier will not set any standards for that -- we have even more negotiations under your government's control and your ministry's control compromised in the province of Ontario? Can you tell me that?

Hon Mr Charlton: I have given my assurance to the member that I'll look into the matter and I'm not going to comment any further until I have.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the purpose of the question is to try to get a better idea of the goals you have and your government has for the budget and the negotiation process that's ongoing right now.

Our understanding is fairly clearly that your target is now a deficit of between $8 billion and $10 billion, and that's a combined what you would call operating and capital deficit -- between $8 billion and $10 billion.

We understand that the compensation package for the public sector and broader public sector is about $43 billion, from your documents. We further understand, from media reports, that it is your intention to reduce that by the range of $2 billion to $3 billion. That, I understand from published reports, is the target.

Can you confirm for the House today that that is the goal the government has set for itself as it opens this round of collective bargaining?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would not want me to engage in collective bargaining in the Legislative Assembly in case somebody's watching, and I wouldn't want to confirm or deny that. All I can say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is that we do see the necessity of sitting down with the employees and employers out there in the public sector and seeing what kind of solution can be arrived at in order that we are able to achieve the goals that the member refers to, which are accurate.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise it is that I think that unless you clarify that -- and we've had the Premier apparently indicating it's $2 billion to $3 billion -- the problem is that we have -- and all of us have been through this in talking to individuals on the weekend -- extreme rumours. We have people thinking there's going to be a 20% reduction in the public service; we have others who believe they're going to have a 15% wage rollback; there's also talk about a six, six and six program.

The problem is that with those kinds of rumours it makes it very difficult for both sides to enter this process if you don't put some walls around your goals and objectives. And if you want to leave it to rumour rather than allowing the parties to deal as well as they can with fact, and you've laid out your targets for your budget -- you know what kinds of revenues you're going to get. You know what revenues are coming in. You have a window. You know the numbers.

I would say to you, Treasurer or Minister of Finance, and I'd say to the Premier that you can make this process proceed far better if the two sides have some idea of what your goals and your objectives are, rather than allowing rumours to run rampant.

I wonder if you would undertake to commit to the people of Ontario and the members of the House that you will outline today -- ideally today; if not, very shortly -- what the goals are that the government has set for itself as it heads into this important collective bargaining process.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, Mr Speaker, I don't think the member would want us to sit down with people to engage in a collective bargaining process, maybe not collective bargaining in the way many of us have seen it in the past, and go in and say, "This is it; our way or the highway, and nothing is negotiable." I mean, it is a negotiating process that we're engaged in and to foreclose that aspect of it really wouldn't make any sense at all.

I would make a commitment to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, though, that we will be sharing more information with the assembly, with the public at large and with the people at the social contract table with the kind of decisions that we have to make and that they can help us make; at least, I assume that they will help us make those decisions.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to confirm that it currently takes one year to 18 months for claims filed with the wage protection program to be processed and paid.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To the best of my knowledge, that is an extensive time frame. I think at the moment, it's between five and six months to finalize a claim.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you should check your facts with your officials, because when I called them last week I was told that it was not at all unusual for claimants to wait 12 to 18 months for their claims to be validated and paid. Indeed, a group of 88 workers at Waterloo Industries in Waterloo filed a claim 14 months ago. When my office called to check on the status of that particular claim, we were told that despite the fact that the claim had been filed in February 1992, nobody -- if you can believe this -- has yet been assigned to investigate and validate the claim.

Minister, this is another example of your government's mismanagement. This wage protection program is a cruel joke that's being perpetrated by your government on the workers of this province. It fails to promote economic renewal, and yet in a news release that you issued October 16, 1991, you said: "This program is a key initiative to promote economic renewal in Ontario. It is important that employees who have worked and earned these wages receive their money in a timely way."

Minister, in order to avoid economic hardship for workers and their families, why have you personally not taken steps to become aware of what's going on to ensure that these claims are processed more quickly?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member across the way should know that we've paid out more than $83 million already to workers who --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You didn't even support the bill.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's their own money, what they're entitled to. We have covered more than 39,000 workers. We started with a delay period that was close to a year and worked that down to about five and a half months. That does not mean there may not be individual cases that will go longer than that, but we are simply paying out money to an extent and to the number of workers who are not getting it anywhere else in North America, and it's not within the time frames that the member is raising.

The Speaker: The Minister of Housing with the response to a question asked earlier.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I would like to correct the record of last Thursday's question period, in which I was responding to a question from the member for Durham East on the subject of land-lease communities.

I indicated at that time that the Rental Housing Protection Act applied to those communities. It does not. But I would like to underline what I said in that response, which is that we are anxious to help people who live in land-lease communities in mobile homes --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You can't even get your plant questions right. Holy smokes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- to take full advantage of protections that are provided them under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the rent control act.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you will have heard the Treasurer's response earlier with regard to a question asked by my leader on the social contract negotiations that are going on. He said that his goal was "to preserve services, to create jobs and to fight the deficit."

Minister, from what we hear, the social contract plan is already in a shambles. In fact, the latest information I have is that the negotiations have been postponed; we're not sure until when. The civil service, of course, is threatening job action across the province. Minister, it seems to me that you're going to be left with one choice: You're going to have to bring in legislation to override the existing collective bargaining agreements between the public sector unions and your government.

You, sir, are the minister, entrusted with ensuring harmonious relationships. In fact, from your own government publication it says, "The Ministry of Labour's mission is to advance safe, fair and harmonious workplace practices, which are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of the people of Ontario." That's your ministry description of your role. Legislation to override existing public sector agreements would violate that collective bargaining process, which you above all members in the government are dedicated to supporting.

Would you, the Minister of Labour, support legislation that abrogates the existing public sector collective agreements and flies in the face of collective bargaining in this province?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that we're sitting down in an effort, as we call it, at a social contract with the workers in the province of Ontario because we have simply recognized that the current expenditures of the province of Ontario cannot continue at the same rate they have.

We have decided that rather than just deciding we're going to do a wage freeze or a rollback or something unilateral, it makes a lot more sense to sit down, put the situation in the province of Ontario on the table, put some of the options we've thought of and say to our colleagues across the table: "Have you got other ideas? Can you give us some better answers? Will you sit down and discuss the kind of problems we have in the province of Ontario?" We think that is the essence of collective bargaining in this province, which we are prepared to do, and it's not any prejudged route that we've gone.

Mr Mahoney: There are many labour leaders in this province who I think would be somewhat shocked to hear particularly this minister, a former active member and organizer for the United Steelworkers, standing up in this place and in essence saying that he will be prepared indeed -- that's what I heard -- to take away their rights to collective bargaining. Further to that, what he's saying is that the new way for the NDP to bargain in good faith is to do it through the media with threats of rollbacks and layoffs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order.

Mr Mahoney: Instead of sitting down with these people in a reasonable way, through economic terrorism they're challenging all the unions to get involved in the political fight of their lives, forcing them to threaten province-wide cuts.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Mahoney: Can Bob Mackenzie really be the Minister of Labour that is supporting these tactics? It's astounding to me. Minister, is this why you became the Minister of Labour in this government, to take away workers' rights? Do you feel that this is a fair use of government power against the public service unions? Will you answer that question directly?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to say that the fight I've had all my life is to see that workers and their organizations do have a say in the decisions that are made. Many of the decisions that have been made in the past in this province have not given them any credit or recognized that they may have a contribution to make to our future. When we're faced with the kind of problems we're facing, we want to involve the workers of the province of Ontario; that's exactly what we're trying to do.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, with the new destreaming initiative that your government is implementing, all students will be in one class, regardless of their ability. We know that all students should be challenged on a regular basis. With destreaming, neither our gifted students nor our learning disabled students can receive the individual stimulation that is needed for them to develop their true potential, which is a principle, Mr Minister, that you worked very hard for during those long and hard debates around special education legislation in this province. Your party knows it as well as ours does.

If schools are no longer able to offer advanced, general or basic level classes designed to meet the particular needs of our students, how will our special students be challenged on a regular basis?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question, and I think it's important for the member and all members of the House to take a look at some of the evidence and the discussion that took place in the select committee of the Legislature on education that looked at the question of streaming and destreaming and came to the conclusion that grade 9, and in fact grade 10, should be destreamed.

I don't think it's appropriate or a fair description of what the government is doing to say it is anything terribly radical. We already destream at the elementary level. All we're suggesting is that grade 9 be destreamed so that kids are not streamed off and opportunities and alternatives closed off to them at the end of grade 8.

Much work has gone into this, not only by our government but by previous governments. We know that the current streamed system in the province does not serve working-class kids and kids of immigrant families and other disadvantaged families very well at all; in fact it serves them very poorly. This government is absolutely committed to equity in education, and equity will be served with a destreamed system at the grade 9 level.

But we have a specific example for you, Mr Minister, that we hope you'll listen carefully to. Chippewa Secondary School in North Bay currently offers a grade 9 University of Waterloo mathematics contest class. These special contest classes are being implemented around the province and the universities look very closely at how the schools do in these contest classes in order to encourage women and men to enter into engineering, science and mathematics studies at the university level.

In 30 contests held over the last six years, the school has received 21 firsts and has been the top finisher among North Bay secondary schools some 24 times. Students cover the same material as their peers but at a much quicker pace. These students significantly benefit from this type of challenge, and it's the kind of focus the universities are putting on mathematics classes as pre-engineering requirements.

Since we are striving for excellence and the principal of this school was told by an assistant deputy minister --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: -- that this class will no longer be offered under destreaming, my question is this: How can we justify, given our objectives, the deputy minister's comments around this class? Why will this particular class and classes like it not be allowed? At the same time, I have to tell you that I am a member of one of the subcommittees of the Premier's Council which is recommending those kinds of classes, and I'm asking for a clarification here.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll have to take a look at the specific class the member is referring to, but I can say that one thing I do not support as Minister of Education would be an approach that only a certain number of classes and a certain number of students get the best education in the province. If there's a problem with the regular classrooms in this province, if we need to improve those classes, then it's our position that we should be doing that for all the students of the province, not just a few. That's our goal, to make the entire system excellent, not just part of the system excellent.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues, and if I may, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the minister on the position she has accepted and give her my best wishes.

Statistics Canada, as you know, released a report on April 15, 1993, which states that the number of women in the highest-paying occupations has increased by 53% in the five-year period between 1985 and 1990. While this is fine for those women who have made these significant gains, most women still remain in traditional occupations which are low-paid. My question, Madam Minister, is, what is the government of Ontario doing for the women who account for 72% of all people in the 10 poorest-paid occupations?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm pleased that the member has raised the question, because as a government we certainly recognize that although women have made significant inroads into the highest-paid occupations, we still earn on average 61% of what men earn in the same occupations. That's why our pay equity bill is so important to us. All women should be earning the amount of money that adequately compensates them for the true value of their work. Our legislation will add over 400,000 women to the legislation that now covers pay equity.

In addition, we've developed some creative projects to introduce young women into non-traditional trades. One of the examples would be the women's access to apprenticeship program. The Jobs Ontario Training fund is also another program that is geared to help women in the lowest-paid sectors access long-term and better-paying jobs. It helps them to break their dependency on social assistance by providing child care subsidies in addition to the training subsidy that's provided by the private sector job.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: Of course, then, employment equity is the other issue to encourage women to fully participate in the labour force.

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you know, there are several major problem areas that are facing your ministry. We've already heard from our colleague the member for London North around the mismanagement of the whole destreaming issue. I now want to raise the question of funding.

Minister, it's now over six months since the government announced that there were going to be some $53 million provided for transition projects, and a very elaborate system was set out. Much was made by the government of those funds. The minister must recognize that any commitment of dollars to school boards is precious because of the very difficult financial situation they find themselves in.

It is my understanding that as of today, of those $53 million that were promised, that were committed by your government, only $20 million have actually gone out to school boards. Minister, can you tell us, will the remaining $33 million actually get to school boards, and when will you be announcing that those moneys are going to flow?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe it's a little higher than $20 million that went out before the end of the last fiscal year, and the balance of the money was carried over to the new fiscal year. But as with all expenditures of the government, that expenditure and those dollars are being reviewed and a final decision hasn't been made.

Mr Beer: The minister's answer leads me then into the second part of the question. If, as is clear from what the minister has just said, it is quite possible that a commitment which the government made last year to school boards is in fact not going to be met, let me then ask the minister about the strange 2% figure, the $99 million which this government stated last fall was going to flow to school boards. Remember again that this is a government that said, "When we make a commitment on funding, we are going to honour it." That 2% turned out to be a $99-million fund which, if the boards were good girls and boys, might just flow and might not.

In the month of March, you sent out a series of memoranda to school board chairs and then directors of education which indicated that the $99 million would flow in July 1993. Minister, the question is, can you state to this House today that in fact every cent of those $99 million, of that sum, will actually flow to school boards, or have you already said that this money is now off the table and no such funding will be provided to the school boards, whether in July or in any other month of this year?

Hon Mr Cooke: I can tell the member that there are a lot of difficult decisions that are facing this cabinet and the Minister of Education and Training. Priorities are going to have to be set. Yes, he's correct that a letter went out in March indicating that the $99 million in transitional funding would go out in July. But I cannot make an absolute commitment, in view of the falling revenues and the difficulties the government finds itself in, that this money will still go out. No decisions are final at this point.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY SPENDING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. Your ministry gave the Interim Waste Authority $25 million last year to set up, operate and find three dump sites to serve the greater Toronto area. That money, as I understand, has been spent in the first year of operation. Mr Minister, I would like you to clarify to this House exactly how much the Interim Waste Authority is going to spend for the entire process of establishing three dumps in the greater Toronto area.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'll let the Minister of the Environment respond to the member.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What's the answer?

Mr Tilson: Do I understand the minister's saying it's not his ministry? I'm shocked. I think he's dead wrong. If he looks at his portfolio, he is responsible for the greater Toronto area. The Interim Waste Authority money came from your ministry. I'm shocked that you don't know what's going on over there. You have no idea what's going on. I must confess, you're giving this Interim Waste Authority a blank cheque to write unbelievable amounts of money and you have no idea that it's coming from your ministry.

I'm going to ask the minister again the question whether he has any idea whether he's responsible for the funding of the Interim Waste Authority. Talk it over with your colleague; you're responsible.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member should know that it's an arm's-length authority. I do not have an up-to-date figure on that at the moment. I said that I would get the information for him. The member obviously didn't listen to the answer to his first question or he wouldn't have asked the second question in the way in which he did.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Treasurer. In a recent edition of the St George Lance, the member for Brant-Haldimand, in his Queen's Park report, made some very interesting comments.

In his report he wrote, "In addition to the rising unemployment figures in the province of Ontario, the deficit is running out of control." He also put in his Queen's Park report, "Since the NDP took power in 1990, the province has gone from a modest surplus of $100,000 to an astonishing deficit of over $13 billion." He also put in his report, "By the end of Bob Rae's term of office, he and his government will have more than doubled the total debt of the province to well over $80 billion." He concluded, "Lack of fiscal responsibility will surely encourage or discourage our recovery."

My question to the Treasurer is, are these comments valid or is the member for Brant-Haldimand merely on a flight of fantasy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Did the member for Brant-Haldimand really say that? The member for Brant-Haldimand is not far off when he talks about the increasing size of the total debt. That is a very major problem, and it's one reason we're going through what we're going through now. So I don't have any problem with that.

However, I would urge all members of the Liberal caucus to be very careful in their criticism in order that they don't embarrass themselves, because I would remind you that in the 1980s, when we had record growth in the economy in this province, at the same time we had record tax increases brought in by the Liberal government. Despite those two factors, that government increased the public debt by 33% in five short years.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Baloney.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You didn't even budget for it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the Minister of Transportation.

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This question is for the Minister of Health. Everyone in the House knows that the Minister of Health has been allocated a certain amount of money within the budget that has been provided last year by the Treasurer, and that she will have a certain amount this year.

From within that allocation that she will be given by the Treasurer for the purposes of expenditures in the province, would the minister assure the people of the Niagara Peninsula, specifically those who have children who receive services at the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre, that she will be giving the final approval for construction to commence on the redevelopment project, which will at long last give an opportunity for those children to be adequately cared for by the very dedicated staff which is in place at this time?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sure the member for St Catharines, given his long interest in this subject, will know that the planning for the project about which he is concerned has been going on for much longer than the last couple of years. I know I heard his statement this afternoon in members' statements. I have undertaken to ask my ministry for an up-to-date status report on the project. Other members in the Niagara Peninsula have already indicated to me their interest in seeing this proceed, and while I cannot give the member a definite yes or no at this point, I can assure him of my interest and that I will follow up on the subject.

Mr Bradley: The original approval to move forward with this project was in April 1990, and we are now in April 1993, some three years later. The centre looks after the requirements of more than 1,000 children with physical and communicative disabilities from a building which is designed for perhaps 400 to 500 children.

In light of the fact that the fund-raising committee has been raising funds sometimes based on the fact that the project will be moving forward expeditiously, and in light of the fact that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has indicated that it has $600,000 for part of this project but that that may disappear after a two-year period of time, would the minister not agree with me that since they've gone through all the steps, since they have sent communications to the ministry, as I have in March of this year and previous to that, it would be advisable to move forward immediately with this project to provide those essential services for disadvantaged children in the Niagara region?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am well aware of the very good work that this centre does and of the importance to it of having a decision on its future. I'm also aware of the amount of volunteer effort that goes into this centre and the amount of fund-raising that the community has undertaken, and I commend them highly for that support and for that work. But the member will also realize that we have to begin to plan and to manage our health and social services systems in a way that the minister in his government suggested needed to be done and that our government has in fact begun to do.

All of the children's centres are under review. I understand that review is almost completed, and I can undertake to him that I will have him an answer just as soon as I possibly can.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I hope he's more briefed on municipal affairs than he is on the IWA.

Last weekend, I had the chance to attend many functions in the riding, and the conversation very strongly talked about this county restructuring.

There's a resolution coming before county council next week asking them not to proceed with county restructuring. If the resolution carries to stop county restructuring, I would like to know what your reaction would be, and if the resolution fails, do you plan on bringing in legislation this session to proceed with county restructuring?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can tell the member -- indeed I've offered him and other members in Simcoe a briefing on restructuring in Simcoe -- that my staff and the local government representatives have been working very hard at bringing about some understanding of what can be done in terms of restructuring. Tiny township and Midland have concluded some differences they had concerning the issue of compensation, and that was a major breakthrough as we move towards a restructuring.

I've told all the parties concerned that I am prepared to move with legislation provided that they can reach a consensus on what has to be done in that area. My staff continue to work with them, and the moment we are able to develop the kind of consensus that will allow us to introduce legislation, we'll be happy to proceed.

As I said, my staff are in the process of contacting all the MPPs who are interested in this issue to come to a meeting, and we'll give them an update on exactly how our deliberations are going on this important issue.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Minister, for the invitation, and yes, I'll be there. But many of the reeves -- I wanted the issue raised as soon as possible so they would have some input in that resolution they're going to deal with next week. A lot of them, I know, have sent a letter indicating that they want to know what your position is, and we want to find out whether you're going to proceed or whether you're not.

County council sent a resolution to your previous minister with regard to

section 33 within that proposed legislation. It's very concerning to them to have that removed. Your previous minister said he would not remove it. The question I have is, in order to proceed with that legislation and to try and get some cooperation from this side, would you remove

section 33 from that?

Hon Mr Philip: I've told all municipalities that I will review the status of all the outstanding issues, including those in Simcoe, and I intend to review all of the issues.

Again, my staff are working with all of the parties to try and bring about a consensus on all of the issues. Hopefully, with the help of the honourable member and other MPPs as well as some understanding and cooperation of all of the elected representatives in the area, we will arrive at some kind of consensus and can move with legislation that'll be satisfactory. Without that consensus, then I don't think we will be proceeding.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Treasurer. Over the past year, I've heard members of both opposition parties rise in this House and put forward questions to ministers of this government that demand additional spending. One would get the impression that the opposition parties in this House are intent on a policy of "Spend, spend, spend."

Now, Treasurer, we are trying to take a responsible direction of fiscal restraint. Is it possible, Treasurer, that you could provide, let's say, the approximate cost of the spending proposals that have emanated from the opposition benches over the last 12 months?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): We could, but we're not prepared to invest in a computer that will take numbers up that high. I would say, however, that what the member for Cambridge refers to is absolutely true.

You know, last week, I must confess, I was on my sickbed and I was watching television. I was watching the opposition members demand more and more spending. They haven't stopped. They're still demanding more and more spending, and they never say, "Why don't you end this program if you're going to introduce a new one?" No, no, they just keep saying, "Spend more and more and more." Those days are over, despite the fact that the opposition would like them to continue.

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 1,495 residents of Cornwall and Stormont county. It's addressed to the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services and the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut funding to community services for people who have developmental disabilities.

"The effect of such cuts will result in unacceptable hardship to vulnerable people and their families. In Cornwall and Stormont county, hundreds of citizens depend on their services and rely on the government to ensure their continuation through the commitment of an annualized budget that reflects the realities of escalating costs of living."

I also have signed this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition signed by residents from Unionville and the town of Markham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or to pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York, Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refuse to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refuse to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

So submitted and signed by myself.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Of these petitions I have today, again on the casino issue, none of them are from Dunsford or Bobcaygeon, but many people from Tottenham and Palgrave and Peterborough. They say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'm glad to affix my signature to it and to join this with the many thousands of signatures that have already come in on this sorry policy.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by about 60 residents of my community and more to follow. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have released Draft Legislation for Apartments in Houses, Granny Flats to permit accessory dwelling units "as of right" in all residential areas and to permit granny flats;

"We, the undersigned, object to the Draft Legislation for Apartments in Houses, Granny Flats for the following reasons and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the province examine the implications that the proposed legislation may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority and the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"

(2) That the province not entertain this proposed legislation removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on the draft legislation;

"

(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate, license (or register) accessory apartments;

"

(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth (accessory apartments);

"

(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into the legislation;

"

(6) That representatives from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to conduct a public meeting in Brampton to discuss the draft legislation with the community; and

"

(7) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification subject to the ensurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, reading:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," and it's specifically addressed to Mr Alok Mukherjee, Acting Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario:

"It has come to our attention that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is making a proposal to ban any landlord's right to ask whether prospective tenants have sufficient income to pay their rent and service any other obligations which they may have. This has aroused serious concern on our part with regard to the financial stability of future prospective tenants who possibly cannot afford to pay rent in this building which we, the resident tenants, call home." This is 1000 Huron Street, London, Ontario.

"Also, we feel that it is unfair to ban the right of a prudent business person to ask the most basic questions of a prospective tenant. After all, it is the prospective tenant's wish to enter into a written, 12-month tenancy agreement, promising to make lawful rental payments on a monthly basis for the period of a minimum of one year. How can a person make that promise when in all sincerity they know that they cannot keep their promise? And how can the Human Rights Commission encourage financially insecure individuals to make such a promise? That in itself is very unfair.

"So, as concerned tenants of 1000 Huron Street, London, Ontario, we are sending this petition to request that you refrain from putting this totally unreasonable proposal into the legislation."

I have signed my name to this petition, which is also signed by some 800 families at 1000 Huron Street in London, Ontario.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition about a topic of considerable interest in my riding of Scarborough East, and it's signed by 200 people who put a great deal of work into it just over this last weekend. It's about the Guild property. It reads:

"Whereas the Guild is an important historical, cultural and environmental asset for Scarborough and the province and

"The current state of upkeep is causing widespread concern about the maintenance of its unique heritage,

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in cooperation with the government of Metropolitan Toronto to immediately take steps to ensure that the preservation of the Guild envisioned in provincial legislation is maintained."

I'm pleased to sign my signature on this as well.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition and it's signed by 346 residents of the community of Ear Falls and sponsored by the Ear Falls Promotional Association. It reads:

"Whereas the businesses are dependent on tourism during the summer tourist season;

"Whereas economic times have adversely affected all businesses in Ear Falls;

"Whereas the LCBO liquor store is the only business closed on Mondays,

"We, the undersigned, request that the LCBO liquor store be open on Mondays during the tourist season of mid-May to the end of October."

I have signed my name to that as well.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I have signed it and it is signed by a number of residents in southeastern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio; and

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio; and

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively; and

"Whereas we the members and friends of the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association wish to emphasize to the Ontario government the need to fund a post-polio clinic in Ottawa; and

"Whereas a formal request was presented by the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council in May 1988 and received top priority at that time; and

"Whereas the rehab centre of Ottawa-Carleton has presented a proposal to the Ministry of Health for funds to establish such a post-polio clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 1,000 known polio survivors in the catchment area of the rehab centre who need the immediate services of a clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 5,000 survivors in Ontario; and

"Whereas there is only one formally constituted post-polio clinic, which is in Toronto and which has a lengthy waiting list; and

"Whereas the cost and difficulties of several trips to the Toronto clinic and staying overnight each time are often insurmountable for disabled persons; and

"Whereas polio survivors who had no paralysis from the initial attack of polio are not immune from developing post-polio symptoms of varying severity; and

"Whereas research indicates that 80% of polio survivors may develop post-polio symptoms anywhere from 7 to 71 years after the initial attack; and

"Whereas post-polio symptoms are not related to the aging process; and finally

"Whereas because of immigration, the post-polio population will not diminish,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehab centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I endorse and have signed this petition.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 96 members of the Niagara Action for Animals. Their final statement reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare an immediate moratorium on the sale and use of municipal pound animals for the purposes of research, and further, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food be directed to prepare amendments to the Animals for Research Act to permanently prohibit the sale and use of pound animals for research."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael A. Brown: (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of my riding:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before the leader of the third party starts his comments, I believe we've reached an agreement that when he has finished his remarks we will move into the rotation on the throne speech and that today and on each day the throne speech debate continues, the time between the finish of his speech today and tomorrow the calling of the orders of the day, we will split that time in three equal packages. That also means the dropping of the rule on time of the half-hour speeches and also that there will be no questions and comments so that we can hear from as many of the members as possible.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed. I'll recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. The only problem with that deal of the House leaders -- that's assuming I finish today and that I don't carry on tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday. I assure those who are now getting up and ready to leave that in fact it will not be the case. I do not plan to speak, certainly, at that length on the throne speech.

What I'd like to do is perhaps a little different. I really don't plan to refer too much to the specific throne speech because I think the whole thing is a waste of time and effort anyway. I think the government has missed the point.

They would have been far better off had the throne speech been one page that simply said: "We're very sorry, people of Ontario, for the mistakes of the past two years. We thought we could spend our way out of a recession. We took that tack. We thought it was the right one. We now recognize that everybody else in the province virtually and in the rest of the country was right and we were wrong and we're sorry. You can't spend your way out of this recession, particularly now, and we plan to change course."

You could then in a second paragraph have said: "We are a little bit embarrassed as we've read all the comments that our leader and our now Premier had to say about integrity in government; about calling David Peterson a liar at the start of the last campaign; about all the comments that we made. Truly, we found out in opposition it was a lot easier to sniff out every wrongdoing that we possibly could. In government, we apologize. We've not been able to live up to the standards we set for ourselves and we're very sorry.

"Thirdly, given our abysmal track record in the last couple of years, we would like to signify, by way of this throne speech, to the Legislature and the people of Ontario that we do plan to take a different tack, that we do plan to listen a little more, that we do plan to consult, that some of the suggestions from other members -- there is a better way to proceed. We're taking those seriously and we will do our very best in the year or two years remaining to us."

Had that been the throne speech, that would've been a throne speech of integrity. That would've been a throne speech that accurately, I believe, portrayed the first two years of the mandate. I think every individual member of this caucus, in the NDP, the cabinet and the party would honestly look in the mirror and say, "That reflects our first couple of years." I think it would've reflected an honest intention to do better, do the best that you possibly can, never mind these lofty expectations that, "We're the most caring, compassionate, honest people in the whole world and nobody else but us could possibly meet these standards."

I think that would've met with some credibility. It would've met with some credibility with me, and I think it would've met with some credibility with the people of the province of Ontario. It might have brought some goodwill among the significant partners into what has to be accomplished in the next year or two if we're going to get this province back on track.

I wanted to put on the record what I think the throne speech should have said. It did not say that and I regret that. I think what it did say was some platitudes that really bear no resemblance either to the track record of what the government has done and accomplished, which has been a backward step for this province, and as such I was very disappointed.

Many will recall that I had praised the Premier for some of his statements over the last couple of months leading up to the throne speech in recognizing deficits matter. It's a serious problem. We can't carry on with this spending track.

All the things that throne speech after throne speech from various governments, including Progressive Conservative governments way back -- I mean, I don't apologize; I think a lot of those programs were appropriate 20 years ago and 10 years ago, but times have changed -- and particularly the spending of the five years of the Liberals that built into the system those programs, those promises that have been made in elections and in throne speeches and in budgets which could not be sustained. The Premier seemed to indicate some of that, and I applauded him for that.

He talked about a social contract, and it was time to sit down with the public sector unions and employees and say, "Hey, Harris was right, 2% was just about right for our first year," not the 12%, 13%. "We're not going to say that, because we still believe in this whole political notion you never admit you were wrong." But that's the facts of the matter.

So I supported that, but now, just today, we've heard coming out of the first initial meeting that the Premier and the government have already guaranteed job security for the life of the social contract to the unions. This is on the table already. So what we're going to have, I fear, is we're going to have some short-term gain for a year or two, with a long-term even bigger problem.

The social contract talks look, the way they're starting out, like the government still doesn't have the message. It still does not understand. The fundamental problem with the size of government and the bureaucracy and what government says it can do for people -- ie, socialism, government knows better than the private sector, civil servants and politicians can set priorities better than the marketplace, can spend your money better than individuals and families or businesses can -- they haven't grasped that that does not work.

It never worked anywhere in the world it was tried, it never worked in any city, any town, any country anywhere, and it is a disaster here in the province of Ontario, and in fact it is government that is in the way of recovery here in this province. It is government that is in the way of Ontario benefiting from the hundreds of thousands if not millions of new job opportunities that are happening all around the globe.

As Third World countries are emerging, as they're getting more money, as they're turning to the marketplace and raising their lifestyle, as they are becoming -- I mean, hundreds of millions of new consumers are out there and happening every day, and Ontario's being left behind.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I was devastated, actually, when the throne speech came out, not as devastated as the lack of understanding and smarty-aleck remarks from the members of the NDP caucus when the truth comes back to them, but I was certainly devastated that the Premier and the cabinet did not seem to grasp the fundamental change that's happening in North America, that's happening around the world and how ill prepared we are to deal with it.

I also, before I just get to a few of the directions we should move in and then leave the rest of the time for other speakers, want to comment about the comments from the leader of the Liberal Party. I mean, the leader of the Liberal Party now says that we shouldn't be hiking taxes.

That's a little bit like Donald Trump saying, "Don't open a casino in Ontario." If you look over the five years of the massive tax increases the Liberals brought in to this province and the programs that were unsustainable, quite frankly, that was a worse disgrace than even the bungling you've had, because you are incompetent and we expect you to bungle. You do not appear to believe in the marketplace. We expected that some of the Liberals would have.

So perhaps their failure is even greater than yours, in that they might have known they shouldn't have been doing what they did but they did it anyway, for short-term political gain, for political expediency. In your case, the NDP, and in Bob Rae's case, I think it is more incompetence and a lack of understanding of how the marketplace works and what you should do. If I'm wrong and you are smarter than I think, then shame on you too for being as bad as the Liberals, but I think I've correctly portrayed it fairly accurately.

As well, the leader of the Liberal Party says, "This government needs to show leadership. It needs to lead with a sound economic strategy," they say, "but in order to lead, it needs integrity. I am not surprised that this throne speech has nothing to say about integrity, because this government no longer has anything to say about integrity."

That's very true, but I'll tell you, it was the Liberal Party that started the slippery slope down to cabinet minister resignations, to violation of conflict-of-interest guidelines, to making them meaningless. You guys simply fulfilled the process that there are absolutely no standards left and that in fact we don't expect to hold our people accountable. The Liberals violated them time and time and time again. At least after several investigations and after being hounded for 80 or 90 days in a row, they would finally accept it and somebody would resign. You guys just carry on and say it's okay to lie and slander.

Those are the new standards à la NDP. I really am surprised, though, that the Liberals talk about that.

I was looking at the Globe and Mail today -- while I'm talking about the Liberals, then I'll move on to what this government should do. It talks in the business

section about, "Rae Government Confronted by Hard Truth." There's an interesting little chart in today's Globe and Mail, in the Report on Business, that you might want to look at. It talks about welfare economics; it talks about the jobless rate in Ontario from 1980 through to 1992. That's half of this jobless chart. The second half is Ontario's social spending. This is welfare spending.

Welfare spending in 1981-82, when we were in the middle of a recession, when in fact unemployment and the jobless rate was just about the same as it is now, was about $2.5 billion or $3 billion. Today, welfare spending is about $13 billion. The province was in difficulty then; unemployment was about the same. Welfare spending has gone from about $3 billion to $13 billion in 10 years.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Where did you get those numbers?

Mr Harris: This is your chart from a government source -- sorry, the Statistics Canada Financial Management System. It's in the business

section of the Globe. There is another

section to the newspaper, you know. There's the sports, the news and the comics and then there's the business

section that tells you the business facts. This is from the Statistics Canada Financial Management System. This is the total amount spent on what we call welfare spending. So there's $10 billion more being spent.

Inflation over that period of time has not even doubled. It's gone up about 60%. So what has happened in that period of time? This chart is very interesting, because it says in 1983 welfare spending goes up to almost $4 billion, and then the Liberals took over. The recovery was coming because a foundation had been laid in the late 1970s and the early 1980s because our education system had adapted, because we kept our spending under control, because we had a tax and a regulatory climate that said that when we come out of the recession, Ontario will be yours to discover once again.

Plants will want to come here; manufacturers will want to be here; investors will want to be in the province of Ontario, and they did and they came. And welfare spending went up.

In 1986, welfare spending hit $5 billion; in 1987, welfare spending hit $6.5 billion; in 1988, welfare spending hit almost $8 billion. These were the boom years. The money was rolling in. Ontario was booming. They were good times. Why was welfare spending doubling over the good times? Welfare spending should have been going down. People should have been going off welfare and getting jobs and working. Why? Because there was a restructuring taking place and the Ontario Liberals didn't notice it.

This Agenda for People, this accord that was signed was all for wealth redistribution. Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie. The money's coming in; "We want it." "We want it." "No, we want it. We'll distribute it here," without a cent being invested back into the infrastructure and the education system and the skills required for the new jobs that are coming, for the information age.

The number of manufacturing jobs is declining dramatically. They are all over the world. Inco now produces three times the nickel with a third of the employees. There will be fewer auto workers producing more cars. The number of jobs in direct manufacturing are going down as technology advances, as computerization comes into place, as we get more efficient, as we start having to compete internationally and globally.

But there is a massive increase in the number of information jobs or service jobs or idea jobs or thinking jobs, of high-technical jobs and we did not adapt; we did not invest five cents for these new jobs. Those countries and jurisdictions that did are just now beginning to boom. They're beginning to boom. They're now yours to discover, and Ontario is lagging behind.

So it was the 1985 Liberal-NDP accord, saying: "Let's see what we can promise; let's distribute. There's some more money coming in. Where did it come from? We don't know; we don't understand. The money's rolling in. Well, let's spend it. Let's give it away. Let's redistribute it. That's what we got elected for, to redistribute money."

Now the engine that creates the money, the marketplace, the economy of the private sector, has been taxed, when the Liberals left office, to the highest in North America. So anybody who was concerned about if you made a nickel and you could keep it and reinvest it and put it back into planning the next job said, "Well, Ontario's not a good place; the government thinks it can spend it better than we can; it wants to tax it all," the regulatory framework and all the wealth redistribution schemes, and then we elected a government that said, "We're not finished yet; we've got to redistribute even more."

So you're trying to redistribute a smaller and smaller pie, and the criminalness of this, the tragedy of this, is that, thanks to the changing global economy, thanks to the GATT discussions, thanks to the free trade discussions, there are unlimited opportunities for jobs here in Ontario, and there are unlimited opportunities for prosperity, but not as long as government taxes at the level that you are, regulates at the level that you are, indicates that its goal is to try to get that last five cents away and tries to dream up another tax.

This discussion on a wealth tax, this discussion on corporation taxes, the signal that sends out is that if somehow or other, through all this recession and this restructuring, you manage to make five cents or save five cents, just rest assured that we're sitting here dreaming up ways of how to get that last nickel out of you too.

What you don't seem to understand is that if there's any money left or any ability to borrow any money left in the private sector, it is in the hands of those people who, if they invest it in Ontario, will create the jobs and the economic activity and the future prosperity. If you take it away from them and government tries to spend it, you'll be making the same mistakes the Liberals did, and it will be disaster.

If you threaten to take it away from the people that have it, if you threaten you're going to bring in even higher taxes, they will then invest it in provinces like New Brunswick, where Frank McKenna has shown at least he understands the marketplace. You might disagree with him on a number of things, but he has that understanding. He's trying to move his taxes to a regulatory climate where he could compete. Alberta, British Columbia for a while; they're not near as bad as Ontario, but they're not moving in the right direction -- we've got a Premier there who seems to have missed the boat -- or other countries, the United States. This is in fact what's happening.

We prospered when the government of the day took a reasonable amount out of the economy and took that money and reinvested it into new infrastructure, into new education and into new training that allowed you to earn money the next five years or the next 10 years or the next 20 years. We didn't do that from 1985 to 1993. We haven't done that, and that's why we're going to pay a price over the next five or 10 years, because we're behind other provinces and other jurisdictions. We took it all and we tried to redistribute it.

When you look at the new jobs, there are some astounding figures that if you really stop and think about it explain what's happening as we lose manufacturing jobs. Last year, the increase in manufacturing, by the way, in Ontario went up 7%. Did you know that? But there were fewer jobs. It's called the jobless recovery because we've got more machines and more technology improving the efficiency of our manufacturers.

There are so many new jobs. I was astounded. Let me give you three. More Canadians now work in the telecommunications and the communications industry than in all the pulp and paper and forest industries. That's in British Columbia as well. When you think of British Columbia, you think of the forest industry. It's not as significant as the telecommunications and communications industries are in British Columbia.

Think about this: There are more jobs, more workers in Quebec in health and in medical care than there are in all of these combined: construction, textiles, clothing, furniture, automobile, forestry and mining. Add them all up. Combined, there are more people in Quebec working in health and in medical care, in research and development of new drugs and new health care technologies.

Here's one: More Americans work in the movie industry than work in the entire automobile industry. There are more in the movie industry then there are in the entire automobile industry. The new jobs are changing. They're high-tech, they're high value added, they're good-paying jobs. Are they going to come to the highest-taxed province in all of North America? No, they are not. The new investment will not come here, particularly. They know. They want to see a signal, they want to see a sign that the government understands that, and that new jobs are global.

It doesn't matter now whether you make a movie in California or in Toronto or whether you make it in Europe. It doesn't matter. The new high-tech jobs: You look at some of the investments. I couldn't believe this. In Singapore they invested in some of the communications technology, where it's now cheaper, faster, better to send information from Toronto to Edmonton via Singapore. Why? Because in Singapore they made some of the strategic investments instead of frittering the money all away as the Liberals did.

I mean, what the Liberals did to my children, what they did to laid-off workers in this province is criminal. What your throne speech demonstrates to me is that you don't even understand all the mistakes they made and you do not understand the direction we have to go in, where the solutions lie. You have missed the boat and you don't seem to understand this.

That's why my caucus colleagues and I have done something very different than most opposition parties, certainly than any others have done in Ontario and in Canada. We've criticized, but we've said: "Look, these guys don't understand. We're going to have to tell them. We're going to have to lay out the policies. We've got blueprints that would give you the throne speech. We've got a direction that you need to move in. If you'd have taken it, this province would have been better off."

Not only are we here in our role as opposition to oppose when you move off in the wrong direction; we've taken our role one notch up, a step beyond. We've now said: "They don't even understand. We're going to have to show them a way to. We can't wait for a general election to get