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

May 31, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

NATIONAL LAUGHTER DAY / JOURNÉE NATIONALE DU RIRE

ECONOMIC POLICY

CONTROL OF SMOKING

JOB CREATION

ECONOMIC POLICY

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

GAMBLING

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITOR

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

TAX INCREASES

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

EYE EXAMINATIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

DRUG BENEFITS

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

PENSION FUNDS

TOWNSHIP OF ALDBOROUGH AND THE VILLAGE OF RODNEY ACT, 1993

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993

CHUA DI-DA (AMIDATEMPLE) OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1993

KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

1993 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL LAUGHTER DAY / JOURNÉE NATIONALE DU RIRE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As you may know, a number of municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area have proclaimed June 21 as National Laughter Day, la Journée nationale du rire.

The beneficial effects of laughter are self-evident. From cancer patients to Canadians struggling to cope with life, laughter alleviates pain and dissipates fear, bringing people together and helping them renew their energy.

The founders of humour rooms recently opened in the Ottawa Cancer Lodges have personally witnessed the healing power of laughter and are now asking the government of Ontario and this House to extend the curative benefits of laughter to all Ontarians by declaring June 21 National Laughter Day, la Journée nationale du rire.

Le rire soulage bien des maux, et quand je vois ce que le gouvernement impose à la population de l'Ontario, je me dis que la Journée nationale du rire arrive à point nommé.

As you know, June 21 is the longest day of the year. Let's build on that unique feature and invite Canadians of all backgrounds to enjoy on that day the sunshine and warmth generated by laughter.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have some very urgent messages for the Premier and the Minister of Finance. These messages are from people of all walks of life from my riding of Mississauga South and from around the province. Here is what the people of Ontario want to tell this NDP government about the budget.

(1) "Please give Bob Rae a message for me: Resign."

(2) "Has Bob Rae ever worked a day in his life? Has he ever met a payroll or does he know what a balance sheet looks like? Tell him from me: It's simple. You just don't spend more money than you have."

(3) "I'm a 40-year member of the NDP and I've worked on every election, but no more, I can tell you."

(4) "My husband just lost his job. I'm the only one working to support our two kids. Why doesn't Bob Rae get real?"

(5) "I'm working at three part-time jobs, I'm trying to pay off my student loans, and the NDP just don't understand that I have no money to pay off their debt too."

(6) "My wife and I are seniors and we are scared about what changes are coming."

That's the end of the quotations, and these are just a few examples of what I've heard from hundreds of angry people.

Premier Rae, please show that you're listening by responding to these messages. Please don't force another $2 billion worth of tax increases on people who are barely getting by. Please don't kill our economic recovery. We need jobs, not taxes.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Today is World No-Tobacco Day, a day when the World Health Organization calls on everyone to do their part to reduce smoking. This year, the WHO is asking health care providers in particular to set an example. The theme is "Health Services: Our Window to a Tobacco-Free World."

Last week, the WHO released a report that showed the worldwide death toll in smoking has tripled since the 1960s. It now stands at about three million people per year and it's rising. The death count in Ontario alone is 13,000.

The statistics and health effects around smoking have become better known than they were in the 1960s, but the World Health Organization says smoking risks are in fact greater than we have thought. The organization reports that at least a third, and probably half, of all smokers will die from their habit.

We must reach our young people before they start, and definitely before they become addicted. Every adult who cuts down or stops smoking today or decides to quit permanently sets a good example for our youth. They must see that smoking is not a ticket to adulthood.

I hope that all the members here will join me today in the World No-Tobacco Day as a movement towards a tobacco-free world.

JOB CREATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): One year ago, the NDP unveiled its Jobs Ontario Training fund with much fanfare, and while on one hand the NDP has bragged that Jobs Ontario Training has created some 9,000 low-skilled jobs, at the same time the NDP has also killed over 50,000 jobs through the tax increases in its recent budget.

Just what sorts of jobs has the government created through Jobs Ontario? Mike Farnan, the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for Jobs Ontario Training, said in the Legislature, "It requires employers to make a commitment to hire for the long term." This boast about Jobs Ontario providing long-term jobs has been repeated by the Premier, the Attorney General and various and sundry NDP members.

But this government has created these primarily low-skilled jobs not for the long term, but for one year only. Despite their statements to the contrary, the NDP's Jobs Ontario Training contract contains no commitment that the jobs last longer than one year. That's right: only one year.

So what's going to happen to those people hired through Jobs Ontario when after only one year they discover that there's no obligation for their employer to continue their jobs? What hope is there for these people the NDP has deluded into believing that they are now off social assistance for good?

Instead of claiming they are providing long-term and highly skilled technical jobs, why doesn't this government come clean and admit that instead of providing a long-term solution, they have only stuck their finger in the dike?

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Premier. On Saturday, May 29, I accompanied the Team Harris budget tour into my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. This tour was conducted throughout Ontario, giving people the opportunity to respond directly to the Premier by ballot as to whether they approved or disapproved of his budget.

In our tour through the Country Fair Mall at Smiths Falls and the Mews Mall in Perth, people told us to take a clear message to this government about the budget. Simply stated, their message is this: There are too many tax increases, and jobs will be lost. They told me that they cannot afford new taxes on insurance and auto parts, not to mention the drastic increase in the personal income tax rate.

Small businessmen are telling us that they will have to cut their payrolls because of new measures such as taxes on group benefits, taxes on compensation-protection plans and the reduction of tax deductions.

Those who are employed in the tourism industry say that their business will be impaired by the elimination of the sales tax rebate for tourists. Foresters are infuriated with the increases in the timber licences and in stumpage fees.

It is of little surprise that the people I spoke to are opposed to this budget, because the budget attacked every important sector of the economy in Lanark-Renfrew: personal income tax, small business, tourism and forestry.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Mr David Winninger (London South): Last week, when I was visiting with constituents in my riding of London South, I became aware of the pride that my constituents George and Laverne Henderson take in the accomplishments of their son-in-law, Warrant Officer J.W. Parsons, who is married to their daughter Kim.

Mr Parsons served with the Canadian Armed Forces for six months in Sarajevo under General Lewis Mackenzie. Mr Parsons was decorated for his service in Yugoslavia.

Mr Parsons, his wife, Kim, and 10-year-old daughter Desiree will be returning June 11 from Baden, Germany, where the family has resided since 1990.

While in Yugoslavia, Mr Parsons was adopted as a hero by the Kensington Nursing Home in London. The kind residents of Kensington Nursing Home sent Mr Parsons care packages on a regular basis, including Kool-Aid to add to the water that had to be boiled in Sarajevo.

My constituents have started a Blue Ribbon campaign in London to honour all of our peacekeepers in Sarajevo.

I share in the pride expressed by George and Laverne Henderson and I am confident that other constituents in my riding and the people of Ontario are grateful for the enormous contribution Warrant Officer Parsons and his colleagues have made as peacekeepers in Yugoslavia. May their influence be as strong as their efforts.

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today's economy is characterized by phenomenal bankruptcies, business closures and escalating unemployment. Against this background, I would like to applaud Ming Pao Newspapers (Canada) Ltd for having the courage to establish itself in what appears to be impossible economic times.

Ming Pao is based in Hong Kong and is one of the most influential Chinese dailies in the Asia-Pacific region, with a readership of approximately one million.

Ming Pao newspapers have been sold in Metro for the past two years. However, on Thursday, May 28, 1993, they began printing the Canadian edition at their new plant in Scarborough North. They could have selected no better place. To date, over $5 million has been invested and over 70 new jobs created. Circulation is presently 15,000. The company aims to increase readership to 20,000 over the next six months.

My sincere congratulations to Mr Kelly Chang, chairman, and Mr Richard Yao, chief executive officer, and all the able-bodied employees there. Congrats.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): When the Team Harris bus rolled into London and Chatham last week, the residents spoke loudly and clearly: No new taxes; cut government waste; huge deficits and debts are not acceptable; and Ontario needs a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy.

Ontario residents have never been more concerned about keeping their jobs and retraining for new jobs. Our young people are truly worried about getting jobs. We need their infusion of energy, optimism, integrity, commitment and new ideas.

In our schools, teachers, parents and students are angry that we are experiencing chaos in our social contract negotiations and that the blame is being foisted on local school boards. School boards have been searching for fair solutions to assist the province in finding wage concessions of $520 million from elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teachers are accusing boards of contract stripping and of blatant attempts to turn back collective bargaining by 20 years. The unions are boycotting social contract meetings -- little progress is being made in the social contract negotiations and the final-solution deadline is Friday at 6 pm.

This government has pitted school boards and teachers against each other. The government is demanding a $520-million cut in this fiscal year. The only way to achieve this goal is by legislating a rollback in salaries, thus avoiding finance and labour relations chaos in our schools.

What this province needs is leadership and good management, and it is clearly missing with this government.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to welcome a group of dedicated people from my constituency who are gathered in the west public gallery watching the proceedings. They have come today to Queen's Park to share with us the benefits of their collaborative effort in creating a Centre scolaire-communautaire.

I became aware of this project two and a half years ago and last fall I met personally with the Minister of Education to discuss how the proposal had progressed and express my full support for it.

Together, these three groups from the separate and public school boards and the community have achieved a unique partnership for the construction of the first French-language high school between Cornwall and Oshawa. Such a joint venture will provide the necessary public facilities in the most economical way. It will also create a significant number of jobs and bring lasting economic benefits to the whole community.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my commitment to promoting the full participation of all in Canadian life, and I sincerely believe that a Centre scolaire-communautaire in Kingston will help greatly in achieving this goal. As Judge Dickson said in March 1990, "Language is more than a mere means of communication; it is part and parcel of the identity and culture of the people speaking it."

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): A 1984 Solicitor General's report, co-authored by the Honourable Howard Hampton, points out that casinos attract increased crime which becomes a threat to both those living in the area and to gambling visitors. It is no coincidence that among US cities, Atlantic City ranks first in crime and Las Vegas third.

The problems with casinos go beyond mere street crime. Organized crime is drawn like a magnet to casinos, which present an opportunity to launder money gained from illicit activities, like the drug trade, without leaving any paper trail. Inspector Barry Hill, director of the Criminal Intelligence Service of Ontario, points out that organized crime has sought to infiltrate every aspect of the casino business, from garbage removal to building maintenance.

The government claims that a casino will bring no more crime than an amusement park, but, to my knowledge, Canada's Wonderland and Disney World have never had the widespread involvement with organized crime that has been documented with casinos in North America.

By putting a casino in Windsor, the government is hoping to reverse the trend of cross-border shopping. In fact, it is sending out an invitation for cross-border crime.

Peel Regional Police Chief Robert Lunney, concerned about Ontario's new organized crime elements, has also said that any casino should be completely government- run with no private partners in order to keep strict control. But the government, with dollar signs in its eyes, is courting a private partner that knows the business, in a business where links with organized crime are widespread and well documented.

To the people of Ontario, and particularly to the people of Windsor, I ask you if a legacy of increased crime opportunities for organized crime is what you wish to leave your children.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the 13th group of pages to serve in the Third Session of the 35th Parliament: Mathieu Balez, Nickel Belt; Christine Bolan, Nipissing; Kimberley Borden, London North; Darryl Boynton, Dufferin-Peel; Ronald Calixto, Brampton North; Amy Danchuk, Timiskaming; Rebecca Hartley, Oakville South; Bryan Heal, Oakwood; Amanda Hickey, Huron; Lara Housez, St Catharines; Melissa Kinsinger, Norfolk; Tanya Kotowycz, High Park-Swansea; Joshua Lam Jr, Fort York; Timothy Martin, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Alexis McDonald, London Centre; Mark Morassut, Etobicoke-Humber; Wendy Nicholson, Guelph; Jennifer Powroz, Nepean; Gregory Svorden, Hamilton Centre; Fraser Telford, York South; Lucas Thacker, Bruce; Michelle Turner, Ottawa South; Ted Wasserman, Willowdale; and Jeff Wright, Oxford.

Please welcome these pages to our assembly.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Mark Swinson, who is a deputy clerk from the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia. Welcome him to Ontario, Canada.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): A clean environment and green, efficient industry are needed to put Ontarians back to work. This government believes that every individual has a valuable contribution to make in creating a sustainable economy in Ontario. Further, we believe that people must be given the power to make a difference for the environment.

As part of the government's 10-point plan to put Ontarians back to work, today I'm introducing the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights for first reading. This legislation will give Ontarians unprecedented rights to become advocates for the environment. The bill has been written for the public, in the public and by the public. The critics said the bill couldn't satisfy --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member from Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The critics said the bill couldn't satisfy the environmentalists and the business community. Some said stronger environmental rights would hinder business; others said that business input would dilute the bill, but they were all wrong.

The bill is a victory for all Ontarians. It will open up the environmental decision-making to greater public scrutiny; it will give greater certainty to business by creating a consistent and predictable process for obtaining environmental approvals; it will give to the public information it needs to get involved; and above all, it will protect the environment to a greater degree than ever before.

While some refining has taken place since the bill was first released for public comment in July 1992, it has remained true to its original principles. The new bill acknowledges the public's right to a healthy environment, provides the public with more opportunities to participate in environmental decision-making at an early stage, increases government accountability and responsibility for the environment, gives the public enhanced access to the courts and gives greater protection for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers.

There are many people who deserve credit for making today possible. First, I'd like to recognize my predecessor, Ruth Grier, for her tireless and visionary work to get the bill off the ground.

I'd also like to thank the members of the minister's Task Force on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights who have joined us today. I'd like to introduce them. They are in the gallery: first, Michael Cochrane, co-chair of the task force and now in private practice; George Howse of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; Rick Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association; John Macnamara of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Paul Muldoon from Pollution Probe; Andrew Roman, a lawyer specializing in administrative and environmental law; and Sally Marin of the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Also, absent today is Bob Anderson of the Business Council on National Issues. All the members deserve our thanks for their expertise and hard work.

Much work remains, of course. In addition to tabling the bill, we intend to move quickly on its implementation. Today, I am releasing the first draft regulation under the bill. It contains a proposed

schedule that affected provincial ministries must follow to meet the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Environmental Bill of Rights is a landmark piece of legislation in Ontario, in Canada and in North America. It meets the needs of the public, industry, environmental groups and government. It is based on a consensus of business representatives and environmental representatives. The consensus is an important building block in the creation of a sustainable economy in Ontario and it will set a new and higher standard for environmental protection, both for now and for years to come in Ontario.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The minister makes a statement today about the Environmental Bill of Rights. In the next while, we'll be taking a detailed look at the bill and its implications, but at the outset it's clear that there are a number of initial questions and concerns which we have. If time permits, I hope to dwell briefly on four of those areas.

Firstly, it's curious that this statement is made this week, for a couple of reasons. Friday marks the deadline the government has instituted for its social contract talks. The government has said that by Friday municipalities must reduce, no matter what the impact will be on ratepayers; hospitals must reduce; school boards must reduce; the civil service must reduce. Today the government says that it will be creating a new bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which is headed by someone called the environment commissioner. At a time when everyone is being told to reduce, the government expands.

But let's take a look at what the environment commissioner can do. Does this person have the power to institute actions on his or her own behalf? The answer is no. Does this person have the power to demand a review? The answer is no. Does this person have the power to take action on behalf of the people of this province? The answer is no.

This commissioner, no matter how well intentioned, has no such power. The office merely forwards letters and requests to the appropriate minister. It doesn't bring people closer to the government; it in fact creates a buffer between government and the people.

Secondly, this week is significant for another matter. Again on Friday, we will mark the first anniversary date for the release of the long-term sites. Thousands of people have voiced their concerns over the process mandated by the government. People have been devastated by the unilateral action taken by this government. People have felt the expansion of landfill sites in their area, mandated and dictated by this government without allowing any public participation.

People have brought forward their objections to the government's Bill 143, which gives the government sweeping unilateral powers: the power of expropriation, the power of inspection without consent of the property owner. Does this bill, does the announcement of the minister today, help those people? The answer is no. The bill does not give those people a voice. In fact, it ensures that people shut out of the process are now locked out of the process.

Thirdly, and briefly, the Environmental Bill of Rights does not, on our reading, give to any individual rights dealing with how their interests have been affected by the government. It creates no new offences and it gives no right to sue for damages.

Fourthly, the Environmental Bill of Rights does not create a single statement for environmental protection that must be followed by each ministry. In fact, there are only 14 ministries that must design or devise their own statement of values for environmental protection, and these statements do not have to be the same. They can be crafted and carved according to each of their wishes. There are valid questions as to what happens when there is a conflict between those values and what happens when those ministries which are not part of the 14 ministries run afoul of some of the applications of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The statement today does not forward a streamlined process, something which has been called for by many for many years. It in fact ensures possibly a greater confusion. Now each ministry can operate according to its own rules and according to its own values.

In conclusion, I think that when people speak to an Environmental Bill of Rights, they give off a perception, an expectation, that there will be certain rights given to the individuals, to the people of this province; that as a result of this announcement people will have something today that they didn't have yesterday. But this does not fall within the statement by the ministry. There is no increased enforcement power; there are no new legal remedies; there are no new enforcement procedures; there is nothing today that isn't there tomorrow.

In the weeks and months ahead, we will be bringing our questions and concerns forward. Our first priority is the protection of the environment and the involvement of the public, and we will be working to make sure that principle is embraced in that statement.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few brief comments to the Minister of Environment and Energy's introduction of the bill of rights. It's a document, of course, that has been long awaited. There have been many introductions of different bills and statements in this place for some time. The former Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, made an introduction some time ago.

I will say it is rather strange that this particular bill, which is certainly going to create a considerable amount of bureaucracy, is being introduced at this time.

Hon Mr Wildman: Fifteen people.

Mr Tilson: You say very few, but we all know exactly that when you are going to have 14 ministries preparing some sort of review for this -- I think it's called statement of environmental values -- there is going to be a considerable amount of bureaucracy that is going to be required. At a time when the social contract is being negotiated and there are suggestions of a need for cutback in people who work in this place, here we are bringing a whole raft of new bureaucrats into this place.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, wrong.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, page 9 of the document that was handed out this morning at your press conference does talk about a request for reviews. It is going to introduce a considerable amount of need for bureaucrats and legal people to implement this whole process. I don't know who's going to advise people in this whole matter.

The question of course is, can the ministry handle all these things now? The enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment is having a great deal of difficulty at this point in investigating violations.

Hon Mr Wildman: No. It's a lot of work, but they thrive on it.

Mr Tilson: You say no. That isn't what they say. They're having a lot of trouble investigating violations, and now you're going to give them even more work to do. It's going to create a great deal of difficulty.

You did boast about the consultation in this process, and there appears to have been some sort of consultation throughout. I understand that there were only 200 interest groups that responded to your paper that was put out, which is rather low, disappointingly low.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, for a population of this province that's a rather low number that have commented. I understand that those comments won't be released until after second reading of the bill.

It is too bad that a similar consensus wasn't put forward as what you did with Bill 40, because Bill 40 did not have nearly the consensus -- the disastrous effects of Bill 40. There is no mention of the Ministry of Education participating within the 14 ministries that are going to be submitting the statement of environmental values. In the first year these ministries must give a statement of environment value. That, sir, is going to create a great deal of bureaucracy and time, at a time when you're trying to cut back throughout this whole process.

The environmental commissioner is an interesting development. That's going to be yet a new watchdog for the province of Ontario, notwithstanding that we have the Ombudsman, although there's been some criticism of the Ombudsman in this place, particularly by members of the government. Yet, now we're going to have a new watchdog who will have no say whatsoever over such august groups as Ontario Hydro and with respect to the Interim Waste Authority, which has been criticized over and over, particularly in the three regions, as an absolutely dictatorial arm of your government. Yet the environmental commissioner will have no say with respect to those groups.

As I understand it, the environmental commissioner will be responding directly to this House. In other words, once a year there will be a report made to this House. I would submit, Mr Minister, that it should more appropriately be made to your ministry where we can monitor from time to time exactly what the environmental commissioner is doing.

There is one other criticism that I would like to refer to, looking at this group of advisers. As I understand it, there was no representation from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in the whole process of advising from the agricultural community, and there is some concern, Mr Minister, which I trust you will confirm at some other time, that the bill of rights will not override the Farm Practices Protection Act, which the people in the agricultural community are most concerned about.

The electronic registry which is being suggested, now that is an interesting concept. I raise the question as to what sort of access the public will have to that electronic registry. As I understand, when information is to be fed to the various computers, it will only be there for 30 days and then it's zapped. It's just gone, and that is a major defect. You're going to have to have people sitting in these registry offices continually or they will have no idea what's going on. So I would suggest that you have a second look at that whole computerization that you're looking at.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. May I suggest to you that it is absolutely bizarre to hear Ontario's Minister of Finance talking today about the hollow victory, when you fight the deficit at the expense of jobs. It is bizarre, because that's exactly what you've done with the budget that you presented more than a week ago.

Premier, your budget is taking absolutely the wrong direction. The new tax increases in that budget will kill the fragile economic recovery that all of us are hoping to see take place here, and I ask when you will understand what your government has done time and time again, to damage business and to destroy jobs. In the week before this House broke, we asked the Minister of Finance what impact the new tax measures would have on the economy and most specifically on jobs, and we received no answer at that time. So I ask, will you please explain what kind of economic growth and job creation you expect to achieve with your $2-billion tax grab?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the honourable leader of the Liberal Party that I look forward to seeing her correspondence with the leader of the Liberal Party in the province of Quebec, I look forward to seeing her correspondence with the leader of the Liberal Party in New Brunswick, which are leading Liberal governments next to ours -- the economy of Quebec very closely allied and tied to ours -- where her party is in government. Their tax increases obviously required, in their view and by virtue of the size of the overall public sector problems they are facing, the approaches they've taken to the economy, in many ways even tougher than ours.

But I would say to the honourable member that where we differ from the government of Quebec, for example, is that we're investing $4 billion in new investment, in public sector investment in this province, which is more than any other government and, secondly, it's far more than is the case in other jurisdictions. So I would say to the honourable member that when she talks about the approach we're taking, perhaps she would put it in some perspective. Our capital budgets are larger than before. They're intended to deal with a problem. They're intended to provide a long-term view in terms of investment in the province.

The message that I'm getting loud and clear from people who are investing in the economy is that they appreciate the signal we've sent with respect to the deficit. They think it's a sound signal. They think it's a wise signal.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: And they also believe that it's time to start bringing down interest rates, which is the message that we think we're sending to the Bank of Canada and that other governments are sending to the Bank of Canada. I believe this is the soundest approach for us to take with respect to jobs. This is the best approach to jobs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: If you ignore the deficit, you kill jobs. If you ignore the need for sound public investment, you don't do enough for jobs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We're doing something for jobs, and I would say to her, just have a look at what other governments are having to do across the country.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, if you deal with the deficit by raising taxes, you kill jobs. If you try and deal with the deficit without dealing with the need to get people back to work, you are not going to solve your deficit problem. We keep saying, "Understand how the two things work together," and please don't keep telling us about the $4 billion in investment. You've told us about that now for three successive budgets and it doesn't give a whole lot of hope to the 575,000 people who are still out of work in this province.

I actually expected you to tell us a little bit about the Treasurer's concern with the federal government's fiscal policies and the Bank of Canada's interest rates. We are prepared to acknowledge that is a part of the problem, but we also want to urge you to understand that you have to do your part, that it's not enough for you and the Finance minister to lecture others and that it's not enough for you to talk about Quebec and about Newfoundland. You've got to understand how your policies, time and time again, are putting more and more people out of work.

Premier, how can you possibly lecture others about the need for job creation when your budget's $2-billion tax grab is quite simply going to put 50,000 more Ontarians out of work?

Hon Mr Rae: Well, it's really quite interesting. I listened to the honourable member. First of all, I find it really kind of remarkable that the leader of the Liberal Party in this province would completely ignore what her sister party in the province right next door is having to do. She would just disregard that as if that's not of any import, of any relevance.

Have you even picked up the phone to talk to Premier Bourassa and said to him, "Why are you raising taxes in this current economic climate?" Have you picked up the phone and talked to Premier McKenna and said, "Why are you doing this?" I suspect that the answer the honourable member would get is that any mature, sensible policy -- why is President Clinton doing it in the United States? Why is he carrying out this measure as well? Has he gone off his rocker as well? Is everyone else out of step except the Liberal Party of Ontario, which is saying one thing in opposition and doing another thing when it's in government?

I think it's time that the leader of the Liberal Party recognized the fact that there is a serious problem in the economy. It has to be dealt with in a serious way. It is going to be conducive to jobs. We are going to produce a better recovery. A recovery that ignores the deficit simply isn't going to be as long-lasting as a recovery which deals with the deficit and which deals with problems which her government did nothing to deal with for the five years it was in office.

Mrs McLeod: It's tempting for me not to pursue the question when the Premier, who once was an opposition leader, talks about people saying one thing in opposition and something else when they're the government. It really is difficult to keep a focus on what is in fact a very serious question, and the reason this is a serious question is because it is a serious issue for the people of this province.

The government conveniently brought in its budget just before a week that's known as constituency week, and I will say quite honestly, Premier, that no, I didn't call the Premier of Quebec and no, I didn't call the Premier of Newfoundland. I talked to people in communities in Ontario. I talked to municipal leaders, I talked to people who are providing health care, I talked to small business people, I talked to people in the tourism industry and I talked to people in the high-tech industries, and all of them agreed that the budget you presented, with its $2 billion in tax increases, is going to destroy more jobs.

Premier, it is time to stop paying lipservice on Monday morning to the importance of job creation and economic recovery when your budget's damage has already been done. If jobs are your priority, I ask you why you brought in a budget with $2 billion in new tax increases. When will you learn that new taxes are not going to solve this deficit problem in this province; they're going to make it worse? When will you listen? When will you listen to what the people of this province are telling you, "Scrap your new taxes"?

Hon Mr Rae: This from a government which raised taxes consistently throughout its time in office. I find it a little hard to take.

We've all spent time in our constituencies and we can all compare the messages that we've received. I would say to the honourable member that the sense I have from the people of this province is that they recognize there are difficult, real decisions that have to be made. They recognize that these decisions have been to some extent put off. They've been put off in this province; they've been put off by other governments in other places.

We are a government that has decided to tackle these problems in a fairminded way and in an effective way, in a way that asks that yes, there are going to be higher taxes for those who are in a position to pay them, and at the same time says that's going to allow us as a government, first of all, to keep our operating costs firmly under control, which we're already doing through the other measures that we're taking, and second of all, that will allow us to invest more in the future: a billion dollars in training, a program you want to eliminate, and $4 billion in terms of capital works and investment in the future, which we think is going to make a difference.

I would say to the honourable member that she can dismiss the experience of other governments all she wants, but it really does defy analysis to somehow think that the Liberal Party in opposition in Ontario has got an answer that no other government across the country has somehow been able to take up as its call to action recently. Every government in this country is recognizing the need to face the future in a balanced way, in an effective way and in a way that deals with current problems, and the Liberal Party in Ontario seems to be immune to that outbreak of common sense which is taking place across the country.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I say to the Premier, in addressing my second question to him, that the simple reality is that his government is continuing simply to react in a panic fashion to a financial crisis which his government solely has created. I would suggest to the Premier that the budget has made any real progress in that other area of complete chaos and confusion, the social contract talks, that much more difficult.

The deadline for the completion of the social contract talks is literally days away. Last week, we saw two unions and an employer group walk away from the table, CUPE is now threatening to boycott the remainder of the talks, Fred Upshaw of OPSEU is warning civil servants to be prepared for a general strike to save jobs, and last week your Finance minister admitted to the Hamilton Spectator, and I quote, "If on June 4 things fall apart and everybody walks off in a huff, then we're going to have to do some scrambling."

Premier, all you have been doing from the beginning is scrambling. You obviously have no idea what to do. You have no plan. You are still lurching from crisis to crisis. I ask, how are you going to deal with the pandemonium that is being created by your disastrous social contract talks?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can tell the honourable member that we know full well that we presented the one million people who work in the public sector and their representatives with some difficult choices, and we understand full well that what we have asked people to do really doesn't have a lot of precedent to it in terms of this province or indeed other jurisdictions.

We happen to think that it's fairer to people to say: "Look, we do feel, and as a government have reached the decision, that we do need to take $2 billion out of the size of the public sector payroll. We would like very much to discuss with you the ways in which that can be done."

I'm not surprised, and I don't think anybody should be surprised, that there'd be a lot of resistance (

a) to the idea of $2 billion coming out, and secondly, that there'd be a lot of resistance, to say, "Well no, we don't want to have to participate in this." But our view as a government is, and my view remains, that it's always fairer to ask people to participate and to have some kind of a say in these decisions than it is to simply impose a solution. I think it's a fairer way. I think it's a better way.

The honourable member can say that she now agrees with her good friend Sid Ryan and her good friend Fred Upshaw and all the others who are long-time supporters of hers, or she can say that she supports the employers, the odd one who says, "We don't want to participate in these discussions." That's up to her.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: All I can tell her is that I think the way we're proceeding is fairer, and as for what will happen on Friday, we will have to see, but obviously the government is prepared for whatever happens.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, there is absolutely no one who has been affected by this whole series of last-minute crisis responses on the part of your government who feels that any of this is leading towards something that we might call fair.

In that same interview with the Hamilton Spectator last week, your Finance minister said that if the social contract talks fall apart, his preference would be to simply cut more from schools and hospitals and municipalities and colleges and universities. You will be aware that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has already condemned your government for placing most of the burden for your deficit reduction on municipalities and school boards and hospitals and colleges and universities.

If we've calculated correctly, and we believe we have, for every dollar your government contributes to deficit reduction, it is asking municipalities and hospitals and school boards and taxpayers to contribute $8. I ask, Premier, is this what you call sharing the pain? Have you any idea how health and education and firefighting and policing across this province will be affected by the sheer accumulation of the pain that you are sharing?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say --

Interjection: Here comes the answer from Ross McClellan.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not from Ross McClellan. I would say, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member, that there is a need in the province, I think, and a growing recognition in the province, of the need for a sense of reality about what we're all facing here. Yes, we are asking our transfer partners, to whom we transfer tens of billions of dollars, to whom the vast majority of the provincial budget is transferred, to participate with us in this process.

I say to the honourable member that it's inconceivable that you could have a successful deficit-cutting strategy that did not deal with the transfer partners of the government. There is no serious strategy -- again, look at Quebec, look at New Brunswick, look at anywhere else around the country. If you don't have a strategy that deals with that, you just aren't going to face up to the problem.

I heard the honourable member on the radio the other day saying that the Liberals had a solution. They would deal with it by cutting back on administration, which we have done far more than they have ever done, and she said, "But we would do it all without affecting anybody and without causing any discomfort or any pain." That's how the Liberals would deal with it.

Well, as long as that's the cloud-cuckoo-land the Liberal Party of Ontario lives in, I wish them well. Unfortunately, it's not the serious world of fiscal reality that those of us who are in government have to deal with, and in her heart of hearts the Leader of the Opposition knows that full well, which is why it's so difficult to take her questions seriously today.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I think there is a sense of reality in communities across this province. The people I've spent the last week talking to understand that there is a serious financial problem in this province, a problem which you have allowed to get beyond all bounds that any of us could ever have imagined seeing. People realize, as we do, that there have to be steps taken to deal with the financial problem.

But in addition to that sense of reality, I can tell you that there is a sense of anxiety, a sense of anger, of helplessness, of hopelessness, because people simply have no idea what you're going to do next. Your social contract talks are causing a degree of confusion because this whole process has been flawed from the very beginning, and you are throwing this whole province into total chaos. There have been eight wasted weeks, and Premier, I would tell you that all we have seen for those eight weeks is a level of confusion and confrontation such as we have never seen in this province before.

I ask you, Premier, what are your alternatives, your plan, your alternatives if the social contract talks break down on June 4? What responsibility will you take, as Premier of this province, to ensure that yes, your budget requirements can be met, but that they can be met without throwing thousands more people out of work and without slashing vital services to the people of this province to a point where the pain is simply not tolerable?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because we don't want to slash services that we believe in the social contract talks as an alternative to that. It's precisely because we want people to have some kind of say in their future that we are launching the social contract talks.

I would say to the honourable member that I've listened carefully to what I think would be a realistic alternative to the size and dimensions of the problems we face in the province, and I listened carefully to the leader of the Liberal Party, and I really just don't think that what is being put forward by the Liberal Party comes even close to being a serious alternative to what this government is trying to do -- not even close.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is as well to the Premier. Premier, in the gallery today is a Miss Cindy Timleck. She has written a letter to your Treasurer, a copy to me, which I thought you might have had earlier, and I apologize if they didn't pick it up earlier. I sent it over to the Premier at the start of question period.

Miss Timleck is in the gallery. I would ask her to stand up and say hello.

She is typical of Ontarians that we met, our caucus colleagues and myself, as we travelled this province. She wrote in her letter how your budget affects her, and quite simply, Premier, Miss Timleck says that your latest tax grab, on top of years of federal and provincial and municipal tax increases -- I think the timing of it, the cumulative effect, when I chatted with her, as well is a significant part of it -- your tax hike, on top of that has taken a toll on her. She can no longer afford to live and spend as she has because too much of her hard- earned income will be going into your, the government's, pocket instead of hers.

Premier, I've shared her letter with you. What do you have to say today to Miss Timleck?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I've just had a chance today, just now, to have a look at Miss Timleck's letter and I really am not entirely familiar with all of her circumstances, so all I can say to her, through you, Mr Speaker, and through the leader of the third party, is that we are trying to deal with a difficult financial situation in as fair a way as we possibly can.

As a family person, I can say that I don't think it's wise for us to pass on to the next generation an enormous, colossal deficit, and I know that the leader of the third party doesn't think so either. So perhaps it's wiser for us to start tackling that problem now, as the economy's in some recovery, than to put that off for another day.

We're asking public servants to give up a great deal in terms of the overall situation. We don't think we're asking them to give up too much, but we're asking them to give up something in terms of the long term. We're asking taxpayers to contribute and we're cutting back substantially on government expenditures to deal with a problem which has taken a while to accumulate, but which we now feel is serious enough for us to tackle together.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I would look forward to the opportunity of talking to Miss Timleck about what we're doing and what the alternatives are, but I think when we look at the alternatives, people will recognize, and I hope that she does as well, that Ontario is still a pretty good place to live, it's a good place to raise your family and it's a good place to look to the future. That's the view that I have as a parent and as somebody who looks to the future. There's nowhere else that I can think a better place to raise one's family and to look to the future.

Mr Harris: I thought that "Give us a place to stand and a place to grow" was going to be sung in the background and hummed as the Premier spoke about "Preserve and conserve it."

Premier, Miss Timleck's disposable income, I think she wants you to know -- I was very struck when I received a copy of her letter to the Treasurer, which is why my staff called her and asked if she'd be willing to share her letter with more than just the Treasurer and myself -- I think she wants you to know that this extra tax grab doesn't just hurt her; it hurts the local car dealership. She'll not be buying the new car that she was looking at. It hurts the small business people who own restaurants in her neighbourhood because she will think twice about spending money to eat out.

It hurts the local small contractors who've been struggling to stay in business because she has made a decision now to put off doing repairs and improvements to her home.

It hurts any investment opportunity that she and millions of Ontarians like her, if they did manage to save five cents, may have made in this province, because instead of the private sector getting that money or it being invested, it's going to Bob Rae. It's going to government.

I would ask you this, Premier: Can you explain to me and to Miss Timleck how your tax hikes and the money going to government is possibly -- given the abysmal record over 10 years of Conservative and Liberal and NDP governments at taxing money and saying we're going to create jobs, how can you possibly think that you now have a magic formula that you can create more jobs than Miss Timleck can herself, and millions of Ontarians, spending that money in the marketplace? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: When I was leader of the third party I'd often talk about examples and people, and I'd appreciate very much, and I'm sure people will appreciate, an opportunity to discuss with Miss Timleck again in terms of the situation. I certainly would appreciate that opportunity as well. But I would say to you, sir, and I'd say to her, that we can't ignore the deficit issue. We can't ignore the fact that we have a provincial debt. We can't ignore the need to protect services. We can't ignore the need to provide good education, to provide the best possible health care that we can, all of which services have to be paid for.

We have found, I think as every other economy has found, that if she was living in Quebec she'd be facing the same situation. If she was living in New Brunswick she'd be facing the same situation. In fact, in both those places she'd be paying more. She'd be paying more in taxes. She chose to live in Ontario, which I think -- I don't know, I haven't asked her, but I still think it's the best place to be; I really do. I think that when you compare our services and you compare our tax levels with anywhere else in the world, I'd rather have the balance that we have here to having a balance that's found in other places.

I say to the honourable member, I don't pretend to have a magic solution. What we do have is an approach which we think is fair and, above all, is realistic given the very tough times which we're all facing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: The Premier is right that I share his view that the deficit must be dealt with. So does Miss Timleck. So do the people we met when we travelled this province. They want the deficit to be dealt with.

But Premier, they also want to see the private sector and the marketplace flourishing. One of the scary things we found out in the ballots that are coming back and in the letters and the people we talked to is that the only growth that many Ontarians believe is going to come as a result of your budget is a growth in the underground economy, and that, Premier, will not generate revenues for Floyd Laughren.

The only way -- we have pointed out to you, businesses have pointed out to you, and I think even your union social contract partners have pointed out to you -- to generate more in tax revenue is to have more taxpayers. If you want more in sales tax, I think you're going to have to have more sales. You're going to have to have more consumer spending. If you want more in income taxes, you're going to have to have more people earning more money. Your budget is thwarting that. It is penalizing, once again, the marketplace and the private sector from being able to do that.

I would ask you this, Premier, given that I've not seen any evidence that government spending creates more jobs than private sector spending. I've analysed all 10 provinces and the federal government -- Conservative, Liberal, NDP governments. It just doesn't work. I think you would acknowledge that after your deficit of a couple years ago. I would ask you this: that if we and your partners and those Ontarians can come up with $2 billion of spending that can be cut, of waste, of programs that they can prioritize, will you agree to cut your tax hike of $2 billion and proceed that way instead of by the tax hike way?

Hon Mr Rae: I've been able to get a hold of -- I think he sent it over to me -- the Team Harris New Directions for Ontario report to the Minister of Finance, which is a result of the tour that the member was on. I followed it with a great deal of interest throughout the week. I noticed with interest -- and I don't know whether the leader is going to take the supplementary or whether someone else is -- that his proposals are eliminating health card fraud, which would save $675 million.

I don't know anybody who --

Mr Harris: That is according to the auditor.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not the auditor. I don't know anybody who comes up with that number. Stopping welfare mismanagement and fraud, $620 million: Again, I don't know the source of that number. And then the combination of getting out of housing and getting out of child care -- no more government affordable housing programs and no more government child care programs. All of those New Democrats out there who say they don't know the difference between a Tory and a New Democrat: I do. I do, and that's the difference.

The Tories say they don't want to have an affordable housing program in the province of Ontario and the Tories say they don't want to have any public child care programs. I do. I want to have public affordable housing programs. I want to have public child care programs because that's the kind of province that I want to live in.

Mr Harris: I guess it was your own government OHIP personnel who said $671 million.

However, Mr Premier -- by way of a new question, Mr Speaker, again to the Premier. The Premier may think that the partisan record for the campaign trail of whether our plans, our government housing plans to help people directly, which will help many more people afford housing than your plan will -- you can argue your plans better than ours.

You can argue that our plan to give money directly to those who need day care, which we say will help many more single parents, you can argue that yours is better -- the record shows they're not -- but don't sit and stand in this place and lecture about who plans to help single mothers, who plans to put more affordable housing available for people than the proposals that we've given you, because I'll stand our record against yours any day.

Miss Timleck's plight is typical of many Ontarians. This is what they've told us as we've travelled this province, what they're phoning in, what they're writing all over. I had sent over a report from the past week to the Premier, which he has already referenced. In Agincourt we heard from a Peter Lintern, "What we need is a government that reduces expenditure and industry that increases revenues, not vice versa, as now." Premier, this is what we heard in over 25 communities that we visited.

I say to you again, if we and your partners and the unions, which say just stopping the year-end spending will save you $2 billion --

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

Mr Harris: If we can give you $2 billion in spending cuts, will you agree to scrap the $2 billion in tax hikes and deal with the spending cuts instead?

Hon Mr Rae: I've listed the ones that are apparently in part of the report, and I've only skimmed the report, but I think I've got the thrust of it. I would say to the member, the key of it -- sort of the key bottom line, of course, is the ballot, and I want members to hear the neutral language of the ballot which is being put forward as a serious non-partisan exercise in the public interest by the Tory party of Canada. Here's the choice which the non-political, non-partisan, objective rhetoric of the Conservative Party has produced:

"Vote on the Budget.

"After eight years of tax increases in Ontario," which, by the way, includes a substantial period -- nothing happened before 1985. There were no tax increases before 1985. I didn't know that. Now I know that. I hadn't known that. I didn't realize that Frank Miller hadn't raised taxes. I didn't realize that Larry Grossman didn't raise taxes. I didn't realize that those folks didn't raise taxes.

The choice is this: There are two ways you can vote, and I apologize to my Liberal Party colleagues in the House. For some reason they have been omitted from the ballot. I don't know why that is. They may want to complain --

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whether they're being lumped in with us or whether they're being lumped in with them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: "I agree with: Mike Harris that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with no tax increases" -- it's a miracle -- cuts in government waste "and a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy."

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: Or, "I agree with: Bob Rae that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with $2 billion in tax hikes and a $10 billion deficit."

Well, I want equal time on the ballot to put a case on behalf of the people of the province that puts things in a little less squirrelly a manner than they've been put forward by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Premier, if you have another ballot question to ask people, we'd be happy to go to the people right now with a real ballot.

Premier, the real question is this: We have told taxpayers -- I mean, unlike the Liberals, who say, "Spend more, don't cut and don't hike taxes," we've said there are no easy choices. We've said there are no easy choices. It will be tough. There is some spending to be cut. And our choice is saying, "We're going to have to cut spending if we're not going to hike taxes because we want to deal with the deficit."

So, Premier, the real question is this: If Ontarians, from whatever source, even from the opposition benches, including the union members, the social contract talks, can come up with $2 billion in spending cuts -- I think your tax hikes, you said, are over a three-year period. That's how much you plan to hike taxes for the next three years. You want to end your three-year program $2 billion less in spending. If we can come up with another $2 billion in spending cuts, will you agree to repeal the tax hikes? Hit the deficit targets with $2 billion less in spending: That's the question. Will you agree to that?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I never believe in answering hypothetical questions. All I would say to the honourable member is this: Obviously any practical suggestions from him or from others will be taken extremely seriously. If he's now alleging that there's $675 million in health card fraud, if he thinks that's the amount that's out there --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Ask your staff to verify it.

Hon Mr Rae: No, he says these are our numbers. These are the numbers which the member has put forward. These are in the Tory party document which he's putting forward. If he expects that to be taken seriously, if he thinks that's the serious number and the serious proposal that's being put forward, I would say to him, of course we will look at any serious proposals. But I look at the proposals that are out there and I question them.

We're not going to cancel the housing programs of the government and we're not going to cancel the child care programs of the government. Those are things we are not going to do. We're not going to do them because we believe strongly that they make sense for Ontarians, that they will provide good services for Ontarians, decent shelter for Ontarians, and that these are programs that are in the public interest. I don't intend to see those programs savaged and slashed and burned by Tory cuts.

Mr Harris: I ask the Premier, if he doesn't like where we would like to cut out $2 billion in spending, I'm asking if he'll accept it from the social contract partners, from the unions which have offered you $2 billion in cuts, from many others. You don't have to take them just from me.

But, Premier, let me, by way of final supplementary on this question, ask you this: You've talked about how you've cut back. If you have a copy of your budget with you -- perhaps you've got it memorized if you don't, pages 92-93 -- when we add your operating spending and your capital spending, it comes to $55.948 billion. Last year it was $53.789 billion. That's $2 billion more spending than last year.

Now, the only cuts we see in here are $2 billion cut from the public sector employees of this province. They're going to pony up $2 billion. Taxpayers are going to pony up $2 billion; we know that's in here. But we see increases in your spending.

Premier, do you think it's fair -- you and the Treasurer kept saying it's fair -- that taxpayers are going to come to the table with $2 billion? Do you think it's fair that the unionized and the non-unionized civil servants, the men and women, the almost a million of this province, the brothers and sisters whom I seem to be the only one fighting for, have to pony up $2 billion --

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: Do you think that's fair, that $4 billion, when your spending is up $2 billion itself? Do you think that's fair?

Hon Mr Rae: I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the same person who's now saying that he's opposed to what we're doing at the social contract table, the same person who's saying that, the same person who's standing up now saying he's opposed to this, was the same person who just a couple -- I was asking my colleagues, I said, "Wasn't that the guy" -- maybe it was a long-lost twin brother; I don't know. But I thought it was the same fellow who stood up and said, "Bang, bang, bang." That's what he was going to do to the public sector of the province: "Bang, bang, bang."

I would say to the honourable member, we think the approach we're taking is fair. No government since the Second World War has done more to control program spending than this government. That is a fact. No government has done more. No government of which you were ever a member, no government which you ever supported, no government which you ever voted for, no government which you ever campaigned for --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- has done more than the New Democratic Party government this year to control program spending in the province of Ontario. That is the truth.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: I had an opportunity to speak with my constituents, travelling the province over the last week. People are angry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents and taxpayers in this province are angry. They're cynical as a result of a disastrous budget that's asking them to pay $2 billion more. But what they're particularly angry and frustrated about is the waste of government expenditure, and over the last week I don't think there was an example that better said how you're wasting money than this insert in the newspapers that went out -- self-serving, partisan, political advertising.

The taxpayers of this province want you to stand in your place and tell them how you can waste their money. How can you ask taxpayers to pay $2 billion more in taxes and then waste their tax dollars on this kind of partisan, political advertising?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that at a cost of under 10 cents a copy, we have distributed it and it is a concise, factual, easy-to-read

summary of the budget and has information in it which is very direct about the tax increases, information that's very direct about what the government is doing, about what the increases have been, where the cuts are coming -- a very straightforward proposal at a cost of just under $300,000.

I think it's a fair and useful expenditure of public funds to allow the public to see that kind of information and to make that kind of information available.

Mrs Caplan: This document was produced at taxpayers' expense by the government of Ontario. It is blatantly partisan; it is blatant political advertising. It has done more to make taxpayers angry, frustrated and upset.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Mrs Caplan: They are fearful about their jobs. They know the aspect of your tax increases that's going to hurt the economic recovery. They know that this budget is taking money directly out of their pockets and they say you that you must stop this self-serving, partisan advertising and the kind of wastefulness which is making them angrier and angrier every day.

Premier, I ask you, will you stand in your place today and tell the public of Ontario, and promise my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that they will not see any more of this and that you will apologize for this blatant, partisan piece of advertising and apologize to them?

Hon Mr Rae: I think a factual, accessible piece of information about the budget makes perfectly good sense.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: It makes perfectly good sense for governments to do this. It's the sort of thing that every municipal government does. It's the sort of thing that every board of education does. The public has a right to know. It's no more a partisan document than the budget speech or the thick budget document which is provided to the banks and to everybody else as a matter of course.

We don't think the budget is something that should only go to the banks and the big corporations, to the lawyers and the chartered accountants, paid for by the taxpayers. We think taxpayers are entitled to see where their money is going and how their money's being raised. We think all the taxpayers are entitled to that, not just the banks and the friends of the Liberal Party and not just the big accountancy firms. That's what we think.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Recently, a three-year-old child was turned away from the emergency department of a hospital in my riding because his mother could not find the little boy's health card right away. This unfortunate incident occurred in spite of the fact that Jonathon Bastien was born in that hospital and has been there on at least three occasions for treatment.

Today's Toronto Star says: "But when his mother, Tammy, rushed him to the emergency ward May 13, she said she was told to show officials the card immediately or pay about $80. She didn't have the cash.

"She took her son home and gave him painkillers."

It notes that the nearest hospital is about 60 kilometres away, in Barrie.

Minister, because of your government's mismanagement of the health card crisis, thousands of OHIP billings have been rejected by your ministry and doctors and hospitals have become so paranoid over this point that it's beginning to affect the way they deliver health care services in this province. What steps have you taken to ensure that residents of Ontario won't be turned away at the emergency room door like three-year-old Jonathon Bastien was?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm disappointed in the conclusion that the member draws in his question from what I'm sure he agrees with me is an absolutely shocking event in Collingwood hospital. Nobody in this province can be denied emergency help because they haven't brought their health card with them. I understand the hospital has admitted that it made a mistake. It's certainly a mistake that I hope will never happen again.

Mr Jim Wilson: Surely somebody could have treated little Jonathon while they were looking for his valid health card number.

Just to take a look at how you've not responded to the health card crisis, your deputy minister told me earlier this year, during committee hearings, that a toll-free telephone line would be set up by mid-March to ensure that doctors and hospitals could verify OHIP card numbers. It's now the end of May and no such telephone line exists.

Thousands of non-residents are abusing our health care system. Your own unions, in their social contract documents, estimate that there's some $700 million in health card abuse going on in this province at this time, and you've done nothing to correct this problem.

Now we have an American-style "cash up front or no service" health care system in Ontario. Would you agree with me and with the Bastien family in Collingwood --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- that medicare has sure deteriorated since the time when the Ontario PC Party guaranteed universal access to quality health care in this province?

He, I'm sure, recalls the exchange that I had in this House with the leader of the third party, who I think himself admitted that the extent of the fraud in health cards was about $20 million -- too much, but certainly not the kinds of numbers the member is throwing around. It is the responsibility of all of us, physicians, hospitals and consumers, to make sure that health cards are up to date. That does not mean that anyone ought to be denied emergency care in the absence of a health card.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Attorney General. Madam Minister, my office has been inundated with calls from constituents who are involved with the family support plan. It appears there are several problems with this system, especially when it concerns the length of time between when support is deducted from the paycheque and when it is finally processed at the family support plan office and forwarded to the recipient. The time delay leaves the payer in arrears, and once in arrears the payer is subject to a 50% wage deduction and seizure of any federal government funds to which he or she may be entitled.

As you can appreciate, Mr Speaker -- and I know the minister can as well -- many of these payers who are making the payments on a regular basis, in good faith, are extremely frustrated and angry that they find themselves in this position. The payer faces serious financial difficulties as a result of this bureaucratic delay and women and children are left without the support they often so desperately need.

Madam Minister, what is being done to speed up the processing of these support deduction orders?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I agree with the member that the goal of a 48-hour turnaround on these payments is very important for people, and it's very important for us to try to keep to it. She is right: We are not able to meet that goal in some of our busier offices some of the time, particularly at the peak times of the month, the 1st and the 15th, when it will sometimes take three to four days. We have extra difficulties when the source of the funds is not an employer but may be the federal government, in terms of income tax returns and so on, because that's also a jurisdictional issue.

What we are going to do is first of all initiate an electronic funds transfer, which will electronically allow employers to transfer the funds and allow us to transfer those funds to the recipient. That should speed up that process. In order to do that, we have to upgrade our computer system. We're in the process of doing that and perfecting the design to try to improve the service.

Ms Haeck: I appreciate the comments the minister has made. I do want to bring to her attention that a significant number of my constituents in St Catharines are employed by General Motors, and many of these GM workers are involved with the family support plan and have found themselves facing two-week delays in remitting time, of their payments, from the GM head office in Oshawa to the family support plan due to an unwieldy payroll deduction process. GM workers have enough to worry about in my community without having the burden of this seemingly inefficient system hanging over their heads.

With so many family support plan payers employed by General Motors -- and I'm sure that many other large corporations in Ontario are in a similar situation -- will your ministry consider improvements to the remitting process to provide for a direct link between the family support plan office and the corporation so that important support payments are not simply subject to the inevitable delays of the mailing system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Certainly, that is something we are in fact involved in. There is an employer representative group that's working with us to try to improve those processes. That obviously is going to be very important with large employers; it won't help us with smaller employers. But we think, particularly given the growth in technological ability to do that kind of work and to do it in quick batches that really lower the amount of time it takes, we can do that.

I should say we're getting good support from employers. Employers are taking this very seriously, and we're finding that our working relationship with employers is improving all the time.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I listened very carefully to her response to the member for Simcoe West, when she was discussing the quality and affordability of the health care system. Over the past few weeks we've seen a major assault on our medicare system. The decisions this government has made are all the worse because they are unplanned. There's no analysis of the effects of their erratic pronouncements on people who need health and medical care services.

Today, I learned that the social contract talks in the health care sector have been disbanded because the chairman of that division indicated that the talks are in disarray. Furthermore, today the leadership of the Ontario Medical Association has filed a complaint with the referee, charging the government with bargaining in bad faith.

We've raised in the House in recent days some of the more visibly stupid decisions that the government has made, such as locking out Ontario's new doctors from practice. But in this year's budget, buried at the back on page 89 -- I refer you to that page -- where it wouldn't be seen, enters a new scenario of cruelty, because this government intends, first of all, to chop $46 million out of our psychiatric hospitals' budgets, but it also intends to charge psychiatric patients for being in psychiatric hospitals. The government will bill people because they are sick and they need treatment.

They're launching a frontal attack on 3,000 of the most vulnerable people in Ontario through this decision.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mrs Sullivan: My question to the Minister of Health is, how dare you treat these vulnerable people in this way?

With respect to the element in the budget that the member mentions, it is a matter for discussion with respect to our long-term care program that there are many elderly people in psychiatric hospitals who perhaps might well be better cared for in long-term care institutions such as nursing homes or homes for the aged, and who because there is no accommodation fee in psychogeriatric wards as there is in homes for the aged -- we're talking about the $37 a day that is the room-and-board part of the long-term care costs -- may well be remaining in institutions, of which there are only 10 in the province, far away from their own community, far away from their own family, and who perhaps would be better cared for either in those communities or in institutions in those communities.

Mrs Sullivan: There are 12,000 psychiatric patients who are treated on an outpatient basis in Ontario. There are 3,000 psychiatric patients who are treated in psychiatric hospitals, because that is where they need the care. They need the secure facility. They need the psychiatrists and the efficient psychiatric staff on board in that hospital available to them.

This minister does not know if she's cutting expenses or if she's reforming the system, and she has not made a prioritization of one or the other. She is charging psychiatric patients who need care because they reside in a psychiatric institution. There is no other way of looking at this issue.

But the cruelty continues, because also buried in the final pages of the budget is another continuing attack, this time on our senior citizens. This ministry and this minister are now going to charge seniors for drugs which they receive under the Ontario drug benefit plan. They are going to cut $195 million from that program. This minister will know that user fees deter only the weakest from accessing health care. There is no analysis of any health benefits from instituting such a move. The minister knows she will only add suffering, inconvenience and stress to seniors by placing an additional burden on them.

My question to the minister is, how can you possibly justify such a move and on what basis did you make this decision?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the

preamble of the member's question and then to the substance of the issue that she moved on to, because I want her to know that reform of mental health in this province is a priority for this government and is something about which we will be moving in the very near future.

Mrs Sullivan: You have cut the budget on mental health.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: I know that one of my predecessors received a report from Mr Graham that talked about a reform of mental health --

Mrs Sullivan: You haven't implemented one government --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- services right across, from both the community-based --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- to the institutional, a reform that has been long overdue.

With respect to the Ontario drug benefit plan, which was the second issue the member raised, let me point out to her that this too is an open-ended program, the cost of which has been increasing at double-digit rates over the past decade, if not for two decades. It is undoubtedly a fact --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Halton-Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that as we reform that program, we have to look at all of the components, to the manufacturers, to the pharmacists and to the consumers.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My colleague the member from Markham, Mr Cousens, was going to ask a question, but he can't because the Premier's not here, Ms Lankin's not here, the Treasurer's not here, so I'll ask a question to the Minister of Health once again.

As part of the expenditure control plan, the government has decided to deinsure routine eye exams performed by ophthalmologists and general practitioners. The result will be that optometrists will have a virtual monopoly on prescribing and dispensing eyeware and consumers will lose their ability to compare both costs and available products.

Minister, given that eye tests performed by optometrists cost the government more than the same tests performed by physicians and ophthalmologists, how do you expect to save $2.1 million with this myopic expenditure control plan measure?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): There are a number of measures on our expenditure control program that we believe can in fact save us significant amounts of dollars without detracting one whit from the quality of care, and the examination of whether more than one annual routine eye examination per year is required is one of those measures.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to deal with a motion today regarding notice on a number of private bills that are currently before the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr4, Pr13, Pr19, Pr77, Pr85 and Pr88 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 2 June 1993.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly re Bill 38, an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man, but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 210 petitioners.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three separate occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I support this petition as well.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I petition the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario, and especially the area east of Toronto, have an increasing incidence of cancer; and

"Whereas the population of this area is increasing faster than all other areas in Ontario; and

"Whereas these citizens should be able to receive cancer treatment, including radiation therapy, within a reasonable distance from their homes; and

"Whereas the Oshawa General Hospital has plans to add radiation therapy to the cancer services it provides; and

"Whereas the Oshawa General Hospital has investigated the implications and submitted a report to implement such a program; and

"Whereas a large number of hospitals in the area have agreed to support the Oshawa General Hospital's proposal to expand cancer services, including a radiation therapy centre,

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

"To give immediate direction to the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Oshawa General Hospital to establish a cancer centre, including radiation treatment, and to set aside the necessary resources to provide treatment for cancer patients in the eastern

section of the greater Toronto area and beyond to the north and east."

I am going to put my signature to this petition, and my signature will make 15,333 signatures.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Halton Centre. Point of order? The member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I would like to raise a point of order because the member did not tell us what's in those boxes. What I want to know is, are those boxes full of petitions? Is there something live in there or are we under some kind of a problematic situation with those boxes here?

The Speaker: I assumed they were petitions. Can the honourable member help us? Are there live things in there?

Mr Mills: Just petitions, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I see. They are petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government, in its expenditure control plan, without consultation, has proposed to reduce the ability of new family practitioners, paediatricians and psychiatrists to receive full payment from the Ontario health insurance plan for services provided;

"Whereas the reduction of payments to these physicians will result in a lack of their ability to practise medicine;

"Whereas these same reductions in payments will limit the choice the citizens of Ontario have in selecting a physician of their choice;

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

"The Ontario government must reconsider this arbitrary and restrictive decision and look at alternatives in consultation with the Ontario Medical Association and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario."

I agree heartily with this petition and I have signed my name to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I've signed my name on this petition, and it's also signed by several hundred people from the Anglican church in the parishes of Stayner and Wasaga Beach. It was forwarded to me, and I thank the Reverend A. Chaffee for sending that to me.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I add this to the thousands of signatures brought forward against this heinous bill, Bill 8, that's come to this Legislature on casino gambling:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It is my great pleasure to affix my signature to this petition and hope that the government comes to its senses and stops this heinous bill.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition signed by 172 people from the riding of Oxford, primarily the Woodstock area, but I see some names from pretty well all over the riding. I believe it's from some members of the Oxford presbyterial and it says:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

DRUG BENEFITS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by members of the Buchanan Social Club in north Toronto.

"We are a senior citizens' club of 30 members who meet regularly at Fairlawn Heights United Church in Toronto. Since many of us require prescription drugs and most of the members are on moderate incomes with living costs increasing, we feel that the proposed plan of user fees could result in hardship for many.

"Therefore, we strongly protest the removal of this important part of health care. In anticipation of your help on behalf of senior citizens, we thank you."

Mr Speaker, I sincerely agree with this petition and affix my signature to it.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition which contains a number of "whereas" clauses dealing with post-polio phenomenon, which is relatively new in our history.

This is from the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association, which has been formed to help survivors of polio. This petition outlines the fact that it is not a well-known disease, the post-polio phenomenon, and that there are about 5,000 polio survivors in Ontario.

It says after the "whereas" clauses:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation 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've affixed my signature to that petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here, like many others that were sent, on the casino issue, and it's been sent to me by Sutton Knox United Church and Virginia United Church. It has been mentioned at the church service on Sunday and it was signed by a number of people. They don't want the casinos to go forward, and I signed the petition.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition signed by citizens of this province and it states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there's a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald)," and they quote where it came from, and "(the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries;" -- and you quite know about that, Mr Speaker -- "and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction" -- it's very important -- "of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

They all signed here, and I would put my signature to this, and I'm sure that the table will accept it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition, Mr Speaker:

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

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature, Mr Speaker.

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This petition concerns casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

This is signed by such people as the Mutches from Cowling Crescent in Ajax and Mr Wilson from Markham Street, and I will affix my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition signed by 300 or more firefighters, their families and friends, from my riding and ridings across the province opposing the use of firefighter pension funds by the Ontario investment fund. The petition is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the many people who are firefighters who pay in, and I hereby file it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF ALDBOROUGH AND THE VILLAGE OF RODNEY ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr87,

An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993

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

Bill 26,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The bill has included a detailed purpose. I won't go through it all because it is quite lengthy. I'll just say that I'm pleased to introduce the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights for first reading. This bill reflects the consensus forged among public environmental groups, industry and government. It will make environmental decision-making in Ontario more open and accountable than ever before.

This government believes that every individual has a valuable contribution to make in creating a sustainable economy in Ontario. Further, we believe that people must be given the power to make a difference to the environment. The Ontario bill of rights fills this need while setting new and higher standards of environmental protection now and for years to come.

CHUA DI-DA (AMIDATEMPLE) OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto.

AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr69,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1993 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I will wrap up my remarks on the budget today, and I'm pleased to have this opportunity on behalf of our caucus to comment on it. I'd like to make it clear that our leader, the member for Nipissing, Mr Mike Harris, will, in the tradition of our party, have the wrap-up speech on the budget, which will take place when the House breaks off for its Christmas recess in December and be one of the last major presentations on the fiscal and monetary policy of this government.

So in leading off in my remarks, I was able to touch on a number of issues the other day. We've had constituency week, and an opportunity, as a caucus, to meet with thousands of people from across Ontario as we took our small mini-van to many different communities, asking people to comment on the budget.

We had a yellow form for people to comment on the budget. The numbers are still being counted. A lot of people thought we were NDP when they saw the colour of the form. I think the next time we do it we'll use a different colour -- maybe white. That'll be closer to the gods.

None the less, the feedback we've had from the many, many people we've been talking to is that they're tired of the eight years of tax increases. They're tired of politicians lying to them. They feel that when politicians come into office they start off with a set of goals and ambitions and beautiful stories and they draw pictures that they're going to make things better. That was the sense people had of Mr Rae and his group when they were elected on September 6, 1990.

What they've felt from this budget is just something more serious than they could ever have expected, something that is going to hurt their lifestyle and their families and their business and that in fact impedes Ontario's opportunities for future advancement and development.

There are a number of points I wanted to make and I will be able to complete them now. I just really want to say, as I begin the process, that since the budget was released I haven't had any change of heart. In fact, having talked to as many people as we have, it strengthens the resolve and the purpose of our caucus and certainly our leader to continue to fight this government on what it's trying to do.

Instead of looking for ways of saving money and cutting back on expenditures, instead of making the tough decisions and instead of really trying to face up to ways in which we can see in the long term a balanced budget and a balanced fiscal program, this government has seen fit to levy one of the heaviest taxes in the history of the province -- the heaviest tax. Over a year it would amount to some $2 billion in increases. There is no government that has achieved this kind of record, and we're seeing it happen here now.

What we're really seeing is a government that came into office that somehow presented a dream of what it was going to do. It was a plan for people. What's happening now is that there is just a cleavage, a breaking through where you're seeing people fall through the cracks, because in a society where we want to have a balanced view of not only the social needs for people but also to build prosperity and a strong market economy, we have a government that has somehow severed itself from the market forces and is in isolation, developing policies that have nothing but bad news for every one of us.

There is a real problem when you have a government that comes in with those sets of shared values, those shared objectives that are going to be part and parcel of what it is going to be and do, a sense in which this government is going to build the instruments so that we can build in better checks and balances so that we continue to have the social blanket but we also continue to have a strong market economy.

I would like to say that we're into a structural problem where the government really has to be reviewed. We have just too much government in Canada, and I have to believe that with all the levels -- federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and then school boards elected and then public utilities elected -- we should face up to the cost of all this government and somehow put together a strategic way in which all levels of government remove duplication so that we get rid of the waste that's going on between the different levels as they overlap responsibilities.

We have enough government for 130 million people, let alone the 30 million that are here. The lack of cooperation, the lack of synergy between the different levels is part of the concern that I see, where the local governments are screaming with anguish and pain at the breach of trust that has taken place between themselves and this government.

It's too bad there isn't any way in which we in opposition can force a recall of the New Democratic government in Ontario. People say: "Do something. You're down there, do something." I just have to make it very clear that in opposition we are able to try to make our point in the Legislature -- we will in the standing committee on finance and economics when the Treasurer comes, we will in every way we can -- but within the Legislature, the New Democratic government, which had 38% of the vote in 1990, has well over 50% of the votes, so it will always win the major decisions in the government.

Unless there's some kind of breaking away within the New Democratic caucus -- we would need about seven New Democrats who are prepared to separate themselves from Bob Rae and his budget. We could defeat the government if seven or eight New Democrats decided to be away when that budget vote is taken or if they decided to change their vote and vote with the opposition.

I can say we beseech thinking members of the New Democrats to reconsider what they're doing and how they are going to be voting on this budget. Their decision could change the history of Ontario so that we come back and have an opportunity for the public to choose who it is they want to govern.

There is no method of recall within this House. Unless the government loses a vote, Mr Rae and his government have the right and power and privilege to continue to govern this province. It's a one-party government, and since it's not minority, the decisions are made by an inner circle that surrounds Mr Rae and his cabinet and that therefore propels its caucus to support its agendas.

If there were some way in which we could change the constitution for the province of Ontario, if you call it a constitution, or let there at least be a way so that we can recall a government, I would support that, so that even if in the future the Conservatives are in power and the public has a change of heart during office, there would be a way of removing them.

It is a fundamental plank where we as politicians have lost the trust of the people of Ontario, and there isn't any politician who can have a sense that he or she is always being credible. We have failed the people of Ontario. We get elected on a set of promises and hopes and aspirations, as I just described, and then when in office this very same government reverses its positions. I think any time that a government reverses its major priorities or reverses a promise and does anything like that, there should be the right of recall. There should be a way in which you go back either through a recall or a referendum to give the public that opportunity to speak up and say something about them.

I'm concerned as well on something else. I was reading a number of editorials across the province, and people are tarring every politician with the same brush and are saying: "Well, what's the difference between the Liberals or the Conservatives or any one of you? You're all the same."

There is an element of truth in that, because even in British Columbia you saw a socialist government have to legislate teachers back to work, and it was an all- party approval in order for it to happen, not unlike what's happened in this House in the past when the New Democrats in opposition were able to oppose everything. Now they're in government they're having to see the reality that in governing there are certain things they can't do as easily as they thought they could do when they were sitting in opposition and throwing stones.

But as I look at the differences between my party and the Liberals and the New Democrats, I really have to say that Mr Harris, our leader, has never been afraid to stand up and speak out on the hard decisions that have to be made, the hard decisions that would support expenditure cutbacks.

The fact of the matter is that in our party we know there is no such thing as an economic tooth fairy that is going to come and give us some real support from a hidden place that isn't there. The economics are real. We've looked at the books. We know that Mr Laughren doesn't add too well and he's never been able to predict that well, but there are very real decisions that could be made by the government that would reduce expenditures of government.

You know, it has to do not only with reducing expenditures but increasing efficiencies. There isn't a business today in the private sector that hasn't gone through massive change within the last number of years, especially those that are not doing as well. They've had to find ways of increasing their effectiveness and being able to raise a profit and yet do it with less resources. It's not just through computerization, it's not just through better people; it's through new systems and new strategies and revising their plans.

It's a way of looking at their accounting in a way that doesn't require as much paperwork as it did before. They're flying sometimes more by the seat of their pants than they were before. But business across our province, every person I talk to, is going through that process of fine-tuning its organizations.

Can we not do the same thing within the government of Ontario? It has not been part of the platform of the Liberal Party that there be that kind of significant change and improvement. They have not set out goals and objectives in that direction, and certainly this government has not.

My second point which is a differentiator between ourselves and the other two parties in this House is the willingness to commit significant resources to develop a policy on taxation and financial planning for the province, and I commend again our caucus for the work we have done in putting together a New Directions document on finance. If anyone wants a copy of it within the House, I'll send them one. If anyone else wants to phone in for it, the number to obtain it is 1-800-665-MIKE.

If anyone wants to call the Conservative caucus's information line to receive documents of our policy, which we have in writing, in advance of the election -- and the basis of this is what we stand for and we believe; we've put a stake in the ground and said, "This is what we believe and want to do as a government in the province of Ontario" -- if anyone wants to receive a copy of that, call 1-800-665-MIKE.

We have committed these resources in a significant way in order to establish a foundation for future planning. We want to get people's feedback on it. We want feedback from every level within our society: the workers, the people who aren't working, the executives, the management, people at every level, union members, parents, young people. Let everybody react to what it is we're saying so that we can continue to develop a consensus for action for the province of Ontario.

The other thing that's a differentiator, and I see that as something where as a caucus -- certainly Mike Harris, our leader for three years, has been consistent in fighting for no taxes, reduced expenditures and increased deficiencies in the province of Ontario. I commend him for it. I support him in that. I supported him in that when the Liberals were in office, and as now we see the whole situation deteriorating even further, I know that his position of leadership is the position that I couldn't support more strongly.

Next I want to talk about consistency. We have been talking about good management of the government, of fiscal responsibility for a long, long time. I think we've suffered some very tough lessons. I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the House who are having the pleasure of taking this in, we learned some tough lessons. Having lost the government in 1985 and having been one of the members who was here then and was in Frank Miller's cabinet for a short time, I happen to know why we lost the trust of the people of Ontario.

Because after 40 years of doing the right things, in the latter years we confused those right things with some other signals, and the people of Ontario were not pleased with what they saw happening.

We've gone back to our roots. We've gone back to understand who it is we are and what it is we stand for. From the very beginning, when this government came out with its labour legislation, Bill 40, we stood up and opposed it and have made the commitment that when elected to government, we will repeal Bill 40, the labour legislation brought in by this government. We have been consistent on that and we've been consistent on other positions as well.

We know that the Bill 143 legislation of this government is flawed, the way in which it's trying to deal with the disposal of waste within these communities. We have tabled our agenda and we are clear and consistent on it. The fact is, I can just say that has not been the case with the Liberal Party nor with the New Democrats. The New Democrats, I should say, are consistent, because they're on the other side of the position I'm describing.

I think the fourth point that would separate the Conservatives from the Liberals and from the New Democrats is nine words. Nine words will separate me from every New Democrat and most Liberals, but certainly the majority of Liberals have not accepted the importance of these nine words. That is, as a Conservative and as someone within our caucus, we believe in the marketplace; the others don't. The marketplace has forces at work that cause checks and balances, that make for a better economy, better operations.

It means that everyone can win, especially if you're able to balance off the needs of the marketplace with the social responsibility that we must have as politicians. We're able to balance out the economic reality as well as the social responsibilities.

Therefore we would come along -- unlike the Liberals who came along and ballooned the size of government, ballooned the expenditures of the government, ballooned the debt of the government -- and say, "Hey, you've got to control your costs, you've got to control the number of people you've got on here, you've got to control your expectations."

There isn't any doubt that we have to come together and tackle the problem together. There has to be a new coalition of public support to somehow work things out in harmony. We are now seeing Bob Rae and his government in opposition to the unions and other groups in the social contract that has totally broken down the relationships they had in the past, partly because they've surprised everyone with what they're trying to do and partly by the way in which they're going about it.

What has happened is that the government hit the panic button. They hit the panic button, bang, and off they went. Everything that went prior to that panic button time has been shoved aside. All the statements, all the promises, all the goodwill has been shoved aside in order to proceed with what has happened with this panic button.

Whether or not it was a visit from the International Monetary Fund, whether or not it was the bond rating agencies, which are sitting there watching what is happening in Ontario, aware that if Ontario so much as burps in the next period of time, so much as doesn't fulfil any of the expectations that are laid upon us, if the social contract doesn't work, if we're not able to see the forecasts come in --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: You'll have a chance for the floor, Howard.

If the government doesn't achieve its anticipated goals, regardless of how it doesn't, there is going to be more than a ripple effect; it's going to be a very serious impact on Ontario's economy from the outside. In fact, the tragedy is that we're owned so much by outside investors. We no longer control our destiny, because so much of every dollar we ever take in goes into paying interest on the accumulated debt.

No, I think we've learned that we're not going to grow our way out of the problems that we have today. We're going to have to earn our way out. We're going to have to have a strategy that says: "Here is our long-term plan. Here is how we are going to work together. Here is our vision for the future of Ontario. Here is what we want to achieve in Ontario for the long term."

Let us all understand that Ontario could well be one of the most competitive, prosperous jurisdictions in the world. I haven't heard that ever from a New Democrat as they continue to undermine what Ontario is all about. Instead, we are becoming the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in the world. And this budget, this fiscal policy, this social contract, this whole program that's been brought forward by Bob Rae and his government is setting us back instead of giving us an image and a future. It is closing that future down.

Instead of a Depression that just dropped in the 1930s, we're slipping and slipping and slipping, and what we really need to do is hit the bottom as fast as we can. Maybe we're there. I somehow don't know whether we're there or not.

Now, I don't want to be a foreboder of bad news, but let us begin to come out of that. Let's begin to climb back so that there is an opportunity for people to find jobs and find work. But Mr Rae himself probably gives us as good an insight as any. He had an interview not all that long ago which was in the Ottawa Sunday Sun on May 9, "It's the Time to Bite the Bullet."

The question is, you keep saying that we all have to solve this problem, but the unions don't seem to be on side at all. How can you bring them to the table? Mr Rae goes on and says: "Persistence, patience, persuasion. Just keep at it. When people look at the alternatives, I think that sitting down and talking about solutions becomes much more compelling."

Here's what I want you to listen to carefully. He says, "We've been in a state of denial in which I participated for a very long time." That's the first sign of a confession that I've seen from Mr Rae, who helped push the Liberal government in their accord in 1985, and who in his own budget two years ago, where he thought he could spend his way out of the recession, denied the truth and the fact and the reality that Ontario has to work together with everybody else in order to succeed. Yet here he is finally admitting that he participated in that denial for a very long period of time.

Now we reap the benefit of his denial. Now we, as the citizens of Ontario, hear the Premier at last face up to the fact that he has not faced up to the truth, that he hasn't faced up to the reality, and now we begin to reap the harvest of that. Let us at least come back to square one and find a wa