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

December 2, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

CROP INSURANCE

FOOD BANKS

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE

WCB PREMIUMS

RETAIL SALES TAX

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MURRAY WEPPLER

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TUITION FEES

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

RECYCLING

LANDFILL

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

CASINO LEGISLATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

SALE OF LAND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

SALE OF LAND

TAX EXEMPTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

EXTENDED HOURS OF SITTING

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION AND CORRECTIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 CONFIRMANT ET CORRIGEANT LES LOIS REFONDUES

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Mrs Marland moved private member's notice of motion number 33:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that persons with developmental disabilities are valued members of our society who require assistance from the provincial government in order to enjoy the quality of life, independence and community living that persons without disabilities take for granted;

And recognizing that there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental disabilities, including supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family support services and parent relief;

And recognizing that institutions for persons with developmental disabilities are being closed before sufficient community support is in place for the discharged residents;

And recognizing that when youths with developmental disabilities turn 21 years of age, they are no longer eligible for children's support programs but can rarely be accommodated in support programs for adults because of the shortage of resources and services;

And recognizing that parents who care for adults with developmental disabilities in their homes require provincial government assistance to allow them to enjoy some of the freedom from child care responsibilities that most parents of adult children take for granted;

And recognizing that as the parents of adults with developmental disabilities grow older, they worry about who will care for their children when they can no longer do so;

And recognizing that the Ministry of Community and Social Services cut $1.5 million from its funding of sheltered workshops in 1992-93, then promised it would not execute a further planned cut to sheltered workshops of $1.5 million in 1993-94, but none the less reduced its 1993-94 transfer payments to community living associations by $1.5 million;

And recognizing that the 1993-94 Estimates for Community and Social Services show a $20.3 million (11.9%) decrease in the budget for community accommodation for adults with developmental disabilities;

And recognizing that despite new provincial funding of $21.08 million in 1993 for persons with developmental disabilities, there is still a crisis in support for adults with developmental disabilities;

And recognizing that possible cost savings have been identified in other program areas of the Community and Social Services portfolio, including:

-- social services fraud, misallocation and mismanagement ($630 million per year, or 10% of the province's social assistance budget, according to the Provincial Auditor);

-- payments to convert private day care centres to non-profit centres, bail out non-profit day care centres that are in financial difficulty and build new non-profit centres through the Jobs Ontario Capital program, even though many existing day care centres, both non-profit and private, have excess capacity (total expenditure: approximately $200 million);

And recognizing that in other portfolios, cost savings could be achieved by reducing health card fraud ($675 million a year) and reducing workers' compensation fraud ($150 million a year), to cite just two examples;

Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with developmental disabilities, giving consideration to the following:

-- person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for that person and her or his family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs;

-- improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on

schedule and the former residents of institutions can be ensured access to a full range of community support;

-- redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas, such as those mentioned above, where expenditure cuts could be achieved.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Before speaking to my resolution, I would like to thank the many persons with developmental disabilities and their families, advocates and care givers who are in the galleries today. The delegation from Community Living Mississauga is about 80 people. Many other groups are represented too. These people went to great effort to be here because it is critical that we reform this government's financial support for adults with developmental disabilities. I hope the outcome of today's debate will not let them down.

The subject of my private member's resolution is one of many which, as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for disability issues, I could have chosen to debate today.

Whether disabled persons are adults or children, whether their disabilities are physical, developmental or psychiatric, many of them face an uncertain future. Their lives could be a little more fulfilling with a little more support from other Ontarians, through our government. As a supposedly advanced and humanitarian society, how can we neglect the needs of persons with disabilities?

I realize that many Ontarians are experiencing hard times. Half a million of us are out of work. Even those of us lucky enough to have kept our jobs through this brutal recession find it hard to pay higher taxes and do without services we used to enjoy.

Similarly, the Ontario government is facing exceptional fiscal challenges. I know that as legislators, we can't just snap our fingers and come up with a few million dollars more for this health service or that social program. However, we cannot let hard times blind us to the fact that there are people who need support from this government simply to enjoy the basic rights and the simple human pleasures that most of us take for granted.

Moreover, there is something very, very wrong when we cannot support the vulnerable members of our society, yet we are not doing everything possible to prevent fraud, to manage our resources better and to eliminate programs that we simply do not need.

Today we are debating the lack of support to adults with developmental disabilities. I chose this subject after a large number of parents contacted me because their children, who are approaching their 21st birthdays, are about to lose their children's services and there are no adult services to replace them.

This is not to imply that there are no problems in the support of children with developmental disabilities. On the contrary, cuts to special services at home, parent relief and recreational programs, to name just a few areas, have placed an incredible strain on families who have children with developmental disabilities. None the less, those children are entitled to educational services until they turn 21 years of age.

There are other supports too that are limited to children and cut off once those children reach adulthood. After a birthday that most of us celebrate as our coming of age, young adults with developmental disabilities are cut off from the social network they used to enjoy. No longer can they count on being with their peers during the day or learning new skills. No longer can their parents count on the daytime freedom to earn a living or pursue other activities.

Among the people who are present in the galleries today are Shawna McKitrick, a young woman with autism, who is about to turn 21, and her mother, Lois Mercer. Lois is a single parent who works as an early childhood educator in Hamilton. Her daughter, Shawna, currently spends weekdays in a children's group home in Maple called Kerry's Place. Shawna has made great progress in its program for autistic children. However, that home, like most, has a long waiting list. Kerry's Place will try to keep Shawna until an adult placement can be found, but her future there is unclear.

Moreover, at the end of this month, Shawna's transportation funding from the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton will be cut off. That means her mother will have to get permission to leave work very early on Friday afternoons in order to drive to Maple to pick up Shawna. Lois may have to quit her job and go on social assistance to stay home and look after Shawna, who requires constant supervision in a structured environment.

Lois Mercer worked very hard to get a post-secondary education so she wouldn't have to rely on social assistance to support herself and her family. Are we telling her that the only way she can care for her daughter is to go back on social assistance again? Talk about counter-productive.

I could spend the whole hour allotted to this debate recounting more and more stories like that of Lois and Shawna. As Lois herself says, this debate is not about her daughter only; it is about every person with special needs.

Even if the parents' financial situation is such that they can keep their adult children at home, what happens when the parents grow elderly and can no longer care for their children?

I met with a group of older parents in Kingston who are facing that eventuality. They have already made many sacrifices to ensure that their children live in a loving, supportive environment where they can be busy and happy. These parents have never enjoyed the freedom from child care responsibilities that most of us take for granted once our children have grown up. Even something as commonplace as a night out or a short vacation is often impossible for them. Now that the parents' health is failing, they know there are few community support services for their children and they are trying desperately to prevent their children being placed in institutions.

The Ontario government has sadly failed these parents and their children. We have in place a policy to close institutions and redirect resources to community living settings. But what is happening? Closing institutions which are very expensive to run should free up money for community support. But if anything, the shortage of community resources is getting worse, not better. Whether the need is for a day program, a few hours of respite care for their parents, or independent living, far too many adults with developmental disabilities have no community support whatsoever. To me, this makes no sense.

It appears that not all the money saved from closing the institutions is being rechannelled into community care.

I ask this government, where is that money going? Why are there not more community services for persons with developmental disabilities? I am sure the only reason for this lack of support is that a few thousand rather than several thousand families are affected. But the number of disabled persons in Ontario is rising as our population ages. We must come to terms now with how we are going to manage the challenge of supporting persons with disabilities and their families. This is no simple matter.

However, in my discussions with disabled persons, their families and supporting organizations such as community living associations, several people have raised the option of providing funds directly to persons with developmental disabilities and their parents or guardians. This way, the disabled person and his or her family can decide what support they most need. They would have more control over their lives. The care would be what they need, rather than what happens to be funded. Metaphorically speaking, right now we are trying to put round pegs in square holes and vice versa, instead of matching support to the individual's needs.

We also have to look at ways to redirect money from other areas to the support of persons with developmental disabilities. Even if we expend the existing allotment in a smarter fashion, it won't be enough. Obviously, a first target in government cost-cutting must be fraud, mismanagement and waste. We know there is much room for correction in the program areas of social assistance, health cards and workers' compensation. Also, there are many government programs and policies that are costly and unnecessary. For instance, in my resolution, I cited the payments to convert private day care centres into non-profit centres.

I will address some more additional points when my turn comes up later in the debate. For now, I ask the members of this Legislature to recognize that the lack of support for adults with developmental disabilities and their families has reached a critical state.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the people in the gallery not to applaud. Only the members on the floor have the right and the privilege of applauding.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm glad the member for Mississauga South has raised the issue of this government's support for people with developmental handicaps. I would hope the member would have read the public documents such as the annual estimates. These clearly show the Ministry of Community and Social Services has not only maintained its commitment but has increased it.

I would like to first address the member's concern about our commitment by first focusing on the bigger picture. The goal of this government is to continue to integrate people with developmental handicaps into the community, because it is the best-known way of improving the quality of their lives. Our plan and directions are based on the multi-year plan, which is now in its seventh year. The multi-year plan is a 25-year plan document that will see almost every institutionalized person with a developmental handicap living in the community. At the same time, we must do without the assistance of expanding tax bases.

This government has increased spending by almost $100 million since coming into office; in other words, our developmental services spending has increased just over 12% since we took office.

Now I'd like to show the member for Mississauga South how we are wisely using tax moneys in carrying through with our commitment to people with developmental handicaps, and it can be shown in many ways.

(1) There are many people in older institutional settings, psychiatric hospitals, sheltered workshops etc. We are working closely with people with developmental handicaps and their representative groups to establish them in the community, again based on the multi-year plan.

(2) We are doing this despite the significant cost of maintaining two systems at the same time. While we are creating a community-based system, we still have to fund the old institutional-based system until all of the clients are moved over. In a time of extremely tight money, that we see fit to continue funding this changeover is proof enough of our support to people with developmental handicaps.

Without a growing tax base, we cannot throw money around as previous governments did. We have to work harder to better use the resources we have, and we have done that.

(3) This government has consistently found millions more to provide for the most vulnerable group in our society by tightening up the administrative and financial mess left by previous administrations. We are already doing what the member from Mississauga is recommending.

(4) This government is the first one to ever create a separate branch for developmental services that brings together operational and policy functions under one roof.

(5) This government is responding to the training needs of people with developmental handicaps by allowing the community-led committee on sheltered workshops to expand its mandate to look at all employment training initiatives.

This government has been driven by trying to find the best possible solutions within our means to find the ways to improve the quality of life for the vulnerable people in our society. As I read the resolution, which is clearly showing its support for the developmentally handicapped, I must say that this government has, because in the indications since 1990 with community-based agencies, in 1990 we were spending $488.9 million, and in 1993-94, the estimates are that $608.8 million is being spent. The depletion in the government institutions from $303 million in 1990 is now down to $286 million.

So the resolution may be wrong. It agrees in principle with working with the people with developmental handicaps. This government is showing its commitment and will still show its commitment. I know there are some groups out in the community that are opposed to the resolution being put forward today.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this morning to speak to the resolution put forward in this House by the member for Mississauga South. Since becoming my party's critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services nearly two years ago, I've been continually frustrated; frustrated by this government's inability to effectively manage the services for Ontario's most vulnerable citizens.

As the member's resolution states, there is a severe shortage of support for adults with developmental difficulties, disabilities, including supported employment, alternatives to sheltered workshops, a variety of living options, family support services and indeed parent relief.

The NDP government continues to promise community-based services through which each person will be provided with programs in their own community to meet their own individual needs. That sounds very good.

During the public hearings on Bill 101 last February, one of the deputants was Mrs Joan Rowe-Sleeman from Huronia Helpers, and I'm sure people in the gallery will know this lady. Huronia Helpers is a parent organization at Huronia Regional Centre. This is a

schedule 1 facility with over 600 residents, 600 residents with varying needs. She said:

"There are indications that this process of change is like a riderless horse galloping off in all directions. The government is proceeding to close institutions and the residents are being reabsorbed into the general population, but there doesn't seem to be any real understanding of the degree of care needed for these residents." If I may interrupt that quote, that's the real crux of the matter. To continue:

"They are a most vulnerable group and we have seen little, if any, evidence that this group of severe to profoundly handicapped people has been considered realistically in policy planning." That again is the crux of the matter.

She went on to tell us: "We have...a group of people who can actually be said to be already in long-term care.... At the present time very few, if any, residents are leaving Huronia Regional Centre for the community. It would appear that their health requirements are so difficult that very few adequate and affordable placements can be found for them."

And she continued: "In the Metro area...there are 2,500 crisis situations...where aging parents," and some of them marched on this Legislature, "with developmentally handicapped dependants at home are in dire straits because of their own poor health. Their own age is making it difficult for them to care for their sons and daughters and they're actually frantic with worry about how they'll be taken care of."

Margaret Paproski, another person who many in this province know as an advocate and a long-standing advocate and president of the Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups, also made a presentation during those public hearings on long-term care. The federation she represents speaks for the developmentally delayed, speak for groups of parents, relatives and friends of people who are living in Ontario institutions.

Mrs Paproski gave us some very revealing statistics about one facility in eastern Ontario, the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls. "Approximately 90% of the people there have been diagnosed in the range of severe to profound retardation; 85%" of the residents of "at that facility are over 30; 45% are over the age of 40; 6% are deaf; 46% have epilepsy; 16% have cerebral palsy; 33% exhibit severe behaviourial problems and 19% are non-ambulatory." Obviously, the individual needs of these people are very significant and very specialized.

Individuals with such severe problems require a wide range of services, including specialized health care, physiotherapy, supported employment, respite care and family support.

Even with this poignant testimony that I've spent most of my time relating, the strongest commitment we've been able to get out of this NDP government is, and I quote from government documents, "Beginning within the next three years there will be a review of the two systems." So within the next three years -- no real time lines -- a review. "Long-term care and services for those with developmental disabilities will be reviewed to product a better-coordinated, efficient system that reflects the concerns of consumers, their families and providers." Doesn't that sound nice.

This just isn't adequate. It isn't just. It's an insult to the people who are here this morning, the developmentally delayed, their families and their advocates. The needs of these vulnerable people and their families are obvious and they're immediate, yet they are given little, they're promised little within the complete mandate of this government, its full five years in power.

On September 20, 1993, the minister announced with great fanfare the allocation of $21 million to the developmentally delayed. The purpose of this announcement was to show, and I quote from the minister's press release, "this government's resolve to support the most vulnerable members of our society during this time of fiscal restraint."

Let me share with this House some of the many things this province-wide, right across the province, $21 million is going to accomplish.

-- Funding community placements of residents from Northwestern Regional Centre, which is scheduled to close in 1994.

-- Initiating the closure of Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock.

-- Proceeding with community placement from other institutions.

-- Funding special services at home.

-- Promoting development of community services.

-- Funding new and existing services for people living in two Simcoe county nursing homes.

-- Addressing the health and safety measures in five facilities.

This is going to be a very, very busy $21 million. It's just a first step, a modest first step, to accommodate the magnitude of genuine, real needs right across this province of real people, some of whom are with us this morning.

This $21 million is being presented when other expenditure control and social contract outcomes are inevitably cutting services to those in need on a daily basis, and each of us in this Legislature is receiving letters to that effect.

I note also that the $21-million figure earmarked in the minister's announcement is remarkably similar to the projected decrease -- I repeat, decrease -- of $20.3 million in the budget for community accommodation for adults with disabilities which we find in the 1993-94 estimates.

As the presenter of this motion has said very well, there is a great deal of comparison with the $22 million that's been spent for very ideologically driven motives in the conversion of child care without one extra space, one extra subsidized space, one extra child being cared for in this province.

The $22 million that has been devoted to the conversion process in child care could've been directed to the needs of real people within this real community in this province. The people we are speaking about this morning, the developmentally delayed, could have begun to have a real reason to believe that their government had them and their needs on the front burner, but no, decisions were made otherwise.

This government must begin to take its responsibilities to the developmentally delayed very much more seriously. This government must begin to allay the fears and the concerns of real people who are supporting the vulnerable in our communities, the parents, the care givers, the advocates.

The adequate community services are just not there, and that is the crux of the matter. The community-based services must continue to be developed. They must meet real needs of real people and they must become a priority of this NDP government within its present mandate before the year 1995.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution. I want to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga South for bringing it to our attention. This resolution calls on the provincial government to immediately undertake to reform the financing of support for adults with developmental disabilities by giving consideration to:

-- Person-centred planning, whereby funding is allocated directly to each person with a developmental disability for that person and his or her family or guardian to decide how best to meet his or her needs.

-- Improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on

schedule and the former residents of institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support.

-- Redirecting funds to adults with developmental disabilities from other areas such as those mentioned above where expenditure cuts could be achieved.

I will be supporting this resolution because the current provincial government's approach to dealing with the plight of the adults with developmental disabilities across Ontario has been lame, to say the least.

Unfortunately, the provincial government is taking that same lame approach when it comes to the closure of institutions without any thought to the needs of the developmentally disabled. I am disappointed that the current Minister of Community and Social Services has firmly entrenched his ministry's position to close institutions without any new data or rationale, with no recognition of the significant needs of people who have severe to profound intellectual disabilities, and no acknowledgement of any of the constructive recommendations proposed by the Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups.

I share concerns expressed to me by the Orillia Association for the Handicapped about the minister's irrational plans to cut funding for in-home community therapy services and sheltered workshops like the ARC Industries in Orillia.

I agree with foster parents like Isabel Seguin, Margaret Smit of Orillia and Shirley Black of Brechin, who are outraged at the NDP government's plan to claw back a portion of the federal children's special allowance which is used to offset the cost of raising children in their care. This is another example of a provincial government policy that is outrageous, insensitive and irresponsible, and that is why I'll be supporting this resolution from the member for Mississauga South.

I will also be supporting it in an effort at reflecting the opinions of my constituents in Simcoe East, who recently responded to a questionnaire that asked, "Do you believe the appropriate support services are in place that would facilitate the policy of deinstitutionalization and allow developmentally handicapped persons to live with dignity in the community?" In response, 28% were undecided, 21% said yes and 51% said no, the appropriate support services are not in place to allow the developmentally disabled to live with dignity in the community.

I urge my colleagues to support the member for Mississauga South in her efforts at improving the funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on

schedule and the former residents of institutions can be assured access to a full range of community support. Huronia Regional Centre is in my riding; the member for Ottawa-Rideau spoke with regard to the Huronia Helpers. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would certainly like to commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward this resolution today. I think it has provoked and will provoke some very important discussion around how we can best meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities.

Parts of the resolution are quite positive. They place a value on people with developmental disabilities. They affirm and encourage quality of life, independent living and full participation in community life. I think it's very important that we be mindful of the commitments in this kind of resolution.

Virtually not a week goes by when I don't hear from parents in my own constituency of children with developmental disabilities, including children with autism, and the monumental challenges that those parents face each and every day, sometimes 24 hours a day, even during their sleep, with children who wake up, who are hyperactive, who have demands that are not easily met; who need respite care and need more respite care, who need supports in their homes, who need supports in their community so that their children can live independently in their homes where they can receive love and affection and a nurturing environment.

These are very important supports that parents of developmentally handicapped children require if they're going to continue to be able to keep their families together.

Certainly supported employment is important, living options, family supports, parental relief. The special services at home program needs to be a flexible one, it needs to be able to meet the needs of individual families and their children. Yes, sheltered workshops are important for those children who are unable to enter mainstream life, but on the other hand I think we need to encourage as much as we possibly can the integration of children into mainstream life.

One of the ways to do that is to improve access, access to child care, access to education, access to skills training and access to the job force, so it strikes me as a little strange that some members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party would oppose Bill 79, our employment equity legislation, which strives to do just that sort of thing, to improve access to the workforce for disabled people.

There will always be people, young and older, infants and more mature people, who are unable to adjust necessarily to a competitive work environment, and we need to look a little more at how we handle children with severe disabilities. I know that many nations in the G-7, such as Great Britain, Italy, France and Japan, have made very progressive strides towards dealing with people with severe disabilities. I know that ARCH and PUSH here in Ontario would like to make the same kind of progress that has, for example, been made in the United States for people with severe disabilities.

This government has already taken several steps, despite the economic constraints under which we're suffering, to integrate children and more mature people with developmental disabilities into the workforce, not only employment equity but also our reform of skills training, known as OTAB, which seeks to invoke the full talents and skills of the developmentally disabled.

In schools, we're no longer segregating children with special or exceptional needs. We're trying to integrate them into the regular classrooms.

Our reform of the social assistance system is notable in that one of the provisions is Job Link, which is designed to provide people who are currently on social assistance, on family benefits because they have disabilities, with opportunities to enter the workforce. If they are unable to work due to mental or physical disabilities, they still need options, options to participate fully in community life. The key to giving them the options is to remove some of the barriers and some of the discrimination that children with disabilities and their parents encounter when they seek to do so.

Child care is important too. We continue to reform our child care system to make it more accessible, more affordable, to add quality to it. It's important that children with developmental disabilities participate in these reforms as well.

Housing: we have a tremendous commitment to the construction of non-profit and co-op housing. In each and every one of these housing projects today, normally there are units for disabled people.

It's important that there be community supports for those disabled people if they're to have independent living: Groups homes, yes, where necessary, but encourage independence wherever possible, but provide community supports to those children and their parents where necessary.

We recently announced that we're implementing the Lightman recommendations. That too is important news for people with developmental disabilities.

Health care, reform of the long-term care system: That too is a very important initiative to confirm that when people are moved out of institutions the necessary community supports are there for them.

Just to close, in London, through the Coordinating Council for Children and Youth, we've done a good job, I think, of coordinating services for youth, but there's a lot more that can be done and should be done.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to join in the debate this morning. I too want to congratulate the member for Mississauga South.

Since the process of deinstitutionalization was started some time ago, we all, I think of all party stripes, have watched this with great sensitivity.

It makes sense. These people who at one time in our history we thought were not capable of independent living, were not capable of a lot of things, those of us who do not suffer from that developmental handicap have grown to understand that these people can be developed to their full potential and have to be developed to their full potential.

Probably the most heart-wrenching thing, though, as was indicated by one of the members in the debate, is that we as parents, if we're making our will or are making plans for our children in the possibility that we may pass on before they reach adulthood, have grave concern and go to great extremes to do that. Parents of these children, who will become adults, have that concern with them constantly, and as they grow old, it becomes an even more pressing and more demanding problem for them.

That's where government, of whatever political stripe, has to place great emphasis: on providing the services to ensure that those people able to live independently do so, yes, but also that you can relieve the minds of those parents who see themselves growing old and perhaps are not seeing the services being kept up by the government of the day in terms of ensuring that those young people or those adults will be secure.

I suggest to you that it really comes down to a matter of how you deal with the economic affairs of the province. It causes me some concern to watch this government; I hate to say this. They look at areas where the private sector could continue to operate -- day care is one that's suggested in the resolution -- and instead it wants not-for-profit, wants government to run it, wants government to fund it. I say to you, wake up. Let the private sector look after day care.

Use the very scarce dollars you have to improve the system to provide the safety net for these young people and these young adults, to allow them to live independently, to allow them to reach their full potential and, most importantly, to allow their parents to feel comfortable that when they pass on or they become incapacitated, that the government of the day will have the funds sufficient to do that in an appropriate way.

I can only see one parallel to the concerns of parents as they grow older. Their concern must be equivalent to that of the parents of a schizophrenic. I know that is not related to this particular issue, but it's one that concerns me and one that has to be changed by this government. The parents of the schizophrenic don't know where their child is: He or she has been released from institutions; we don't institutionalize them any more. They're out on the streets; they're the street people of this province, the street people of this country.

We have a Mental Health Act which does not require them to take their medication. That has to be amended. We have an OHIP plan which doesn't pay for the most recently discovered type of drug that can be taken, which is far more acceptable to schizophrenics.

It's things like that which cause parents great concern. I feel there's a parallel between that and the parents of people who have developmental handicaps. They in fact are worrying, they're waiting. They want to be sure that when they pass on or become incapacitated, their loved ones will be looked after adequately.

I suggest again that it's a matter of how you deal with your money. I suggest that the government of the day unfortunately is putting money into things that are better handled in the private sector, and that if it didn't do that, there would be funds available to ensure that each and every individual in Ontario and in Canada who has a developmental handicap would be able to reach their full potential and their parents would be able to rest easy, knowing that the government, which is using the taxes they pay, is using them properly, fairly and wisely to ensure that all of these programs that are available continue to be so.

I notice in the resolution that there are certain transfers that have been reduced. I always hear the Premier of the day, in fact this morning on Gzowski, talking about the cutbacks of the feds in transfer payments. Well, Premier, don't cut back transfers to your particular ministries, this one.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I want to say a few words in support of my colleague the member for Mississauga South, particularly regarding the improving of funding of community-based support so that the closing of institutions can proceed on schedule. I want to make clear to the government and remind it that there is a certain percentage of these residents who cannot be placed outside of the institution.

As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has pointed out, for the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, that institution has been reduced, I would say, from the information made available to me, to the numbers now that basically have to be retained in that type of environment. It is an excellent building, in excellent shape, and the living standards there are extremely high. I would strongly recommend to the government that it look at that particular location as a location for the province of Ontario for those residents who are not able to go out into the community regardless of the money available.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I don't have much time this morning, unfortunately, because I think this is the kind of debate that should go on for a lot longer. I know some of my colleagues have already mentioned the multi-year plan and have already mentioned the special services at home review that has been under way for a couple of years. Even in my own community, Mila Wong from community living has been talking to me a great deal and I understand the situation entirely.

But I want to speak in my brief time to the particular resolution of the "therefore" at the end. Historically, we know that the idea was to hide people away. Anybody who was even slightly different was supposed to be locked up and not be a bother to anyone. Of course that reform has been going on. It took a long time coming, and it is still going on, we are still doing many, many things. Unfortunately, as with a number of other things, you can't do it all in a very short time, much as we would like to.

To have 600 people, as the member opposite says, in an institution is totally unacceptable; there's no question of that. and in the three years that we've been the government, that reform is continuing. Again, you can't take 600 people with no place to go; they have to have the support that's in the community. On that, we're very much in agreement.

But the government's job -- any government; I don't care which political stripe it is -- is to balance whatever decisions it has to make with the funding dollars it has. We have to deal with real people, as the member opposite said, people who need housing, people who need social assistance reform, people who need education, people who need health care, people who need all of those things, with the smaller and smaller dollars we're getting. Given the restraints, I think to have actually increased the budget in the social assistance reform for the developmentally challenged is a very good indicator of the commitment we have to this area. I wish we could do more.

On the resolution, focusing on the "giving consideration to" part at the end, "redirecting funds to adults" is the only

part I have a problem with, because you can't just redirect to people with developmental disabilities; you have to redirect any savings you find to all kinds of areas and you can't just do it to the one. With the proviso that it's giving consideration to the three items she has mentioned, I support this.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, at the outset let me say I want to commend my colleague and close friend the member for Mississauga South. Both of us were elected on the same day in this House back in 1985, but we also were school trustees in different jurisdictions. Between us, we've figured out that we have about 35 years of participation with and support of community living associations in our community. I'm not surprised to see this resolution and the level of commitment coming from our critic responsible for disability issues, and I, as the critic for Community and Social Services, wish to put some points on the record.

Today we're going to hear a lot about dollars spent and dollars not spent, but really the issue is whether or not politicians in this chamber representing three different political parties understand what's going on in communities; whether or not this government or the previous government is committed or was committed to having listened to the needs of the disabilities community. If they had listened to them and understood clearly what they were saying, then we would have proceeded in an orderly fashion, building upon understandings of how we were going to make this a more caring, humane society where people with disabilities had an equal place and an equal standing in our society.

We as Conservatives believe we understood this fundamental right, that children who are handicapped should not be shunted away and hidden, that they had a right to be integrated into our school system, so it was our government that brought in Bill 82 and fundamentally worked on that principle. The philosophy of understanding and listening to what families were doing grew so that we started an understanding of a multi-year plan, that the role was not to hide people away in institutions.

There is a role for some people in institutions -- don't get me wrong -- but far too many children were just put away there, and the promise and the understanding was that we would bring them back into the community.

But what we as politicians have to remember is that there were a lot of families who didn't put their children into institutions, who made conscious decisions that the most supportive, loving environment they could provide was in their home.

So why would we stop listening to those people and just stay focused on those people in institutions? We have stopped listening to those people, apparently, when we look at where the government is spending its money and who the government's listening to.

Frankly, I've seen some very terrible turns in the wrong direction since this government was elected. I want to run through these very quickly, because I've been the Community and Social Services critic and my colleague has been responsible for disability issues since this government was elected.

I recall when the whole multi-year plan was seized by a private meeting between Fred Upshaw of the union and Zanana Akande, the then minister. The differently abled community had to fight to get their rights back to all the ground they'd earned over the seven-year period leading up to that.

We've seen the reductions in sheltered workshops, because there's again that sort of union bias that nobody in society should be paid less than minimum wage. But did they understand exactly what was happening in sheltered workshops? No. The unions again are going to dictate to the community, to the families, just how their lives will be ordered.

We've seen supported living rules change dramatically, not only access, saying to families: "You can't pick who you want to come into your home and assist you with the daily living activities. Oh no, we've got to have somebody we choose to go in there." When that person has difficulty lifting an adult and throws his back out and goes on workers' compensation, now it's the workers' comp expense for that family. These are the kinds of things that are going on out there, and nobody's listening.

There are more issues. Long-term care reform: They were told from day one, "You don't count." Now, where are these people going to live? Family after family comes and visits us year after year. The parents are getting older. Their ability to care for a 35-year-old living in their home is getting difficult. We're not providing the supports. I'm watching a family where a mother now has to be hospitalized because of the care requirements of an older husband and a younger son or daughter with developmental disabilities. Are we listening to these families? Are we providing the funding? Do we have an awareness? No.

We've seen user fees being dreamed up now for families and a grab of the baby bonus money.

Ms Murdock: No.

Mr Jackson: Oh yes, you know there's a grab of the family allowance moneys for those persons under the age of 21 with the community living associations.

What I'm trying to say, because I really wanted to give the floor back to my colleague with her excellent resolution, is that government is moving off its commitment to these families and to these citizens who are differently abled. We'd better get back on track if we want to say we're a caring society and that we understand their rights to normalization, their rights to empowerment, and listen to families who are failing under the burden of these additional responsibilities.

We have to stop making promises to these families and to these individuals and start funding appropriately so they can live with dignity in our communities as we promised them. That is the philosophy of community living. That is the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the commitment of the member for Mississauga South, and I urge all members to support her resolution today.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): It's my pleasure to participate in this debate today. I stand in support of the resolution in principle.

I've met representatives from the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council, from ARC, from PUSH, from People First, consumers who have shared their experience in the years that they have suffered from previous governments' terrible management of the huge institutions they built. Their purpose was to not allow disabled people to participate in society, and their history has been a disgusting one.

A lot of what I'm hearing today is a bunch of baloney and I find it rather disgusting. I'm very proud to say that our government has worked very hard with legislation such as the Employment Equity Act, the Advocacy Act. I've sat in committees where I've heard Liberal members and Conservative members working their darnedest to stop legislation like that from going through. Why are you now standing and saying you want to make sure disabled people participate in society when you have in fact stalled on this sort of stuff?

The federal government has cut transfer payments, and I see nothing except a lot of talk. I'd like to see some action. We're the only province that has actually proved itself by a commitment, by programs that are actually in place. I ask the Conservative and Liberal members to work with us, then, to help us stop the federal government cutting the transfer payments that in fact do not allow us to continue with many of the programs we need so that --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired.

Mr Malkowski: But we have maintained social programs and maintained education and training opportunities for disabled people.

Mrs Marland: I want to remind the members in this House that this is private members' business and each and every member has an obligation to vote to represent the people in their ridings and their constituencies. I hope for once we don't have a whipped vote on the government side.

I challenge this government, which has made the cuts to these much-needed programs, to look into the faces of these people here today. I challenge you to recall the 5,000 people who were on the front lawns of this building one year ago. I hope that this time your actions will be different. I hope that you will promise them this time that you will not disappoint them and you will not turn your backs on them again.

For the Minister of Community and Social Services not even to answer my question in the House and two letters about the predicament of Mrs Lois Mercer and her daughter Shawna is plainly irresponsible and uncaring. Is this the best this government can do, that it won't even answer the questions about people with special needs? I say, as I've said in this House so many times, that disabilities do not disappear overnight on a person's 21st birthday, that government's obligation to these young people and their families also does not disappear either. How can we abandon them? They need us now more than ever.

If it is the right in this province for a francophone family in Ontario to be able to drive the highways of this province and read the highway signs in French, then surely it is the right of persons with developmental disabilities and their families to drive the road of life in Ontario with the support they need.

Mr Winninger: Who wrote this?

Mrs Marland: This government is about to pass equal opportunity for employment legislation that a member has referred to. They are about to pass legislation on equal opportunity for employment.

To answer the question that is being asked in this House at this moment as to who wrote the speech: I wrote my own speech. I don't need anybody to write my speeches.

All I say is, at the same time that you're passing equal opportunity for employment, what about equal opportunity for persons with disabilities to survive on a daily basis? They need to have support for functions that others take for granted. What about equal opportunity to live independently? What about equal opportunity to live with dignity?

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Let us join our hands for once around this chamber and work together to achieve a solution. I ask you this morning to consider very carefully before you vote, that vote which will be taking place approximately an hour from now, after we deal with the next resolution that is scheduled for this morning. When that vote takes place this morning, I challenge each and every one of you to prioritize once and for all on the basis of human need. You can go and stand on any public platform in this province, for any political party, and defend prioritizing on the basis of human need first. I'm asking you to give the support for people who need it most.

Yes, we're in a depression; yes, we're short of money. And as the member for Sudbury said, there are all kinds of drains on government funds. I said that in my speech at the beginning this morning. We understand that. But in this time of recession, who do you think it hurts the most? The most vulnerable people in our society.

We have a moral obligation and a responsibility that I hope not one of us will turn our back on, and that is to vote in favour of this resolution once and for all. I ask you, when you do that this morning, for once not to listen to your whip but to listen to your heart and to your mind and, by voting to support this resolution, give hope to these people for a better future.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

I want to welcome the people in the gallery who are interested in this resolution. The vote on this resolution will take place at 12 noon.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In accordance with our standing orders, I would ask that the member for Cochrane North withdraw his statement during the interjections that my colleague's comments were racist.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; I didn't hear that.

Mr Jackson: I would like to give the member the opportunity to rise in the House and withdraw his interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member care to comment?

Mr Wood: Yes. I was upset that other groups were being attacked to gain support for this particular group of people. I agree that this group of people needs extra money. I was upset over that.

The Acting Speaker: Would you care to withdraw?

Mr Wood: The other remarks -- I will withdraw if it upset Mr Jackson, yes.

Mrs Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker: I did not say that money should be taken from that program. I simply said that if that is the case, then this also should be the case.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of personal privilege. Orders of the day.

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

Mr Paul Johnson moved private member's notice of motion number 32:

That, in the opinion of this House, the present federal government should keep its financial commitments to the people of Ontario with respect to its promises made during the recent federal election campaign.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member now has 10 minutes to address his resolution, and then each party will have 15 minutes.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My resolution today is comparatively simple. It quite simply asks that the newly elected federal Liberal government keep its financial commitments -- and I was very specific -- to the people of Ontario with respect to its promises made during the recent federal election campaign.

During election campaigns, many promises are made. Every time we go through the process of an election, whether it be federal or provincial, we know that promises are made. I know that members of the third party and members of the official opposition will suggest possibly in their comments that indeed the government of the day in Ontario didn't live up to all the promises it made during its election campaign. I would differ with that, if they should make those comments. I think we've done many of the things that we said we would do.

You might ask why I pose this resolution or ask this question or make this comment. Basically, I think the people of Ontario have been incredibly discriminated against by the recent Conservative government in Ottawa, and as a result of their policies, the people of Ontario are suffering now more than they otherwise would have had they been treated fairly and equally by the federal government that was previously in power and, to a great extent, removed from power.

I want to note also that 98 of 99 federal seats in the province of Ontario are now represented by Liberals. We could debate whether that's good or bad, but what I want to say is that when the federal government now examines what's happening in the province of Ontario with regard to its economy, with regard to its fiscal situation, given the fact that it has such a great representation here in the province, it should certainly do things much differently than the previous Tory administration did. I think the people in Ontario recognize that they were discriminated against by the Tories in Ottawa, and that's why they to such a large degree sent the message to them in the province of Ontario.

What has that done? It's made it very difficult for this government, for this administration, to deal with some of the very serious financial and economic problems that it has to deal with. We know that this recession or depression in the province of Ontario, indeed in the country of Canada, has been very severe.

I know, as many of my colleagues do, that what the Tories did in Ottawa with regard to their policies, such as the goods and services tax, which, I might add, has encouraged an underground economy the likes of which we've never seen before; free trade, which decimated manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario; the dollar, which they allowed artificially to become more valuable than it should have been -- of course, there are two sides to that argument. I know that some people would like to see the dollar more valuable and some would like to see it less.

In trade, we'd like to see the dollar somewhat less in value than it has been because that offers us some advantages here in Ontario and indeed in Canada.

Of course, the federal government has absolute control over the interest rates in this country, and that affects the province of Ontario. Those are things the province has no control over. It does not have control over the dollar. It does not have control over interest rates. It certainly wasn't the government that introduced the GST and it certainly wasn't the government that supported or endorsed free trade. However, all those things have impacted dramatically on Ontario.

What has that meant for us in the province of Ontario? What has that meant to our economy? It certainly has very obviously been very detrimental. People are concerned about taxes in Ontario, and I hear that daily; I hear that regularly, as I'm sure all members of this Legislature do. The reason we've had to deal with taxes in ways that we would prefer not to has a lot to do with the policies of the past federal government. Today we have to deal with all the problems that are associated with their policies and we have to do things that we think are necessary in order to maintain our services here in Ontario, so we've done some things that I guess largely have been unpopular.

Any time you increase taxes, certainly that's unpopular. When you ask the broader public sector to make a contribution to help reduce the deficit in a particular year, we know that's something that's not particularly popular. These things that we do are a result directly of the policies of the previous federal government.

What my resolution says is that the federal government of the day should keep its financial commitments. That's what we want them to do, because the previous government, because of its policies, has caused us, as I said, to do things that are not particularly popular. Now, on the notion that the new federal government should keep its financial commitments, I just want them to know that the provincial government has been the most efficient provincial government we've had in this province for 40 years. We've done things and we've reduced our expenditures in ways that no other government ever has -- out of necessity, I might admit. However, there were things that had to be done.

People are fed up with taxes. People are absolutely fed up with taxes. They don't want to see any more tax increases, but they don't want to see their services cut. The dilemma is, of course, that the revenues that both the federal government and the province are receiving right now have gone down dramatically.

Unfortunately, the federal government -- I say unfortunately because it takes some of the control out of the hands of the province -- receives all the taxes that it collects through personal income tax on behalf of the province, and it keeps them for an extended period of time. It's some time later, after the fact, that they send the money back to the province. It's very difficult for the province to plan, not knowing exactly what the amount of revenues it's going to receive is going to be. That certainly has caused a lot of problems for the province.

The federal government of the day, the Liberal government that was just recently elected, has said that it is going to create jobs. They were elected on the notion that they are going to create a lot of jobs in Canada, especially a lot of jobs in the province of Ontario. As I said, because of policies of the previous administration, we've lost a lot of jobs in this province and we want to get those jobs back.

I like to think that we could work cooperatively in a meaningful way with the federal government in order to create more jobs, but I also want to make it perfectly clear to all those people who are watching today, to members of the opposition, that right now in the province of Ontario, this government has spent 10 times what the federal Liberal government has promised to spend in the province of Ontario in order to create jobs.

We have had a great deal of success with that, maybe not the success we would like to have had, very frankly, because of the fact that the economy is as bad as it is; however, we continue to work to create jobs in the province. I want to say that for some reason that effort seems to have been unrecognized, certainly by the members of the opposition, and probably not communicated well to the people of the province of Ontario.

We are spending 10 times the amount of money that the federal Liberal government has committed through its promises.

We're very anxious to see the $400 million they have promised to spend in the province of Ontario with regard to job creation. If they do that, and if we work cooperatively, and certainly if we don't increase taxes -- our revenues are down dramatically and we want to maintain the services, absolutely, yet we know that as we examine these things, as we spend our money as efficiently as we possibly can, there's a great concern that some of the services that people have come to expect in the province are being eroded.

I want to ensure that all those financial commitments the federal Liberal government made before it was elected, as campaign promises, are adhered to, that they're complied with, that they're met. If they are, and if they work cooperatively with the province of Ontario, which as I said, has spent 10 times the amount of dollars, made probably 10 times the effort to create and maintain jobs in the province of Ontario, then surely more jobs will be created and the economy in the province of Ontario will improve.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm really pleased to join the debate. I was delighted when I heard that one of the backbench New Democrats had proposed a motion to hold the government to its promises. I said, "Finally somebody in the back bench is getting at that cabinet to make them do what they promised to do." So I was thrilled with it. Then I get here and I find that it has nothing to do with holding Bob Rae to his promises, it's the federal government, and that's fine. We can pass this motion. Next week it'll be something else.

But I think the back bench should spend its time holding the cabinet to its promises. There's where you can be useful. I ran to get elected here in the provincial House. I ran to do something in the province. I love to blame other people. You can blame the federal government, blame the US, blame anybody, but we're here. We're here to deal with it.

I'd hoped, on the motion, that finally someone in the back bench would stand up and say, "Isn't it time we did what we said we would do?" The member across said "on the capital program." The people of the province should know that Bob Rae and the government promised this year to spend $3.9 billion on capital. What was the first thing that was cut? It was $300 million out of capital. That was promised. The $3.9 billion was promised to be spent on capital. The first thing they cut was $300 million. Surprise, surprise.

That's the amount of money that will be put back in when the province agrees to participate in the federal program. We're playing with numbers here. I thought you would live up to your promise to spend the $3.9 billion. You're actually promising to spend $300 million less this year than you spent two years ago. So I would say, first thing, live up to that promise on your capital expenditures.

I think the members will agree that in the Legislature I've always been focused on jobs. I remember when Bob Rae came back to the House in September 1991, more than two years ago, and said: "Jobs, jobs, jobs. That's our focus. That's where we will be putting our effort." That was the promise he made.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): And he had.

Mr Phillips: Well, a member hollered out, "And he had." I appreciate that. I hope everybody in the province gets a copy of the three-year report card on Bob Rae. I hope everybody gets it, because you should be -- ashamed may be too strong a word -- embarrassed by your economic performance. Yes, you've focused on jobs. There is a record number of people unemployed in the province of Ontario in 1993.

We have lots of talk from the cabinet about focusing on jobs, but you get the document out, and you will find there have never, ever, ever been more people unemployed in the province of Ontario than in 1993, the year we're in right now. I know that Premier Rae loves to talk about things he's going to do, but nothing happens.

Mr Mammoliti: That's just not true.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "It's just not true." Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers, to the back bench. This is why you should be spending your time getting at those people, the cabinet.

It's fun to go after the federal government. I think that's great sport. I don't mind it at all. I'm not going to have any responsibility for what they do. If you want to run federally, resign, go and run federally. Let's focus on what Bob Rae can do and look at the report card for "Jobs, jobs, jobs." There have never been more people unemployed in the province.

You want a promise? The promise was that we would reduce the number of people unemployed. It is not happening.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Phillips: Social assistance: We were promised social assistance reform. The member across the way -- and the people probably can't hear it -- is barracking when he should be spending his time doing what I'm suggesting, and that is getting at the cabinet to do what they promised to do.

This resolution shouldn't read, "Get after the federal government," although you can do that if you want. It should be, "We, the NDP back bench, want our cabinet doing what they promised they'd do."

I would also say in this report card that I hope everyone in the province gets -- it's called the Ontario Economic Outlook, but it's the three-year report card -- you will find the social assistance case load never, ever, ever higher. We were promised social assistance reform.

I am one who believes that the people around social assistance desperately do want to work. I believe that. But your plans aren't working. We now have 657,000 people on social assistance: never a higher number. You add social assistance and unemployment recipients together and it is almost a million people in this province. At the height of the recession in 1982-83, it was half that, roughly 500,000. So if you want to be useful on these days, you should be preparing motions that say to your cabinet, "Do what you promised you'd do."

I must say I can't forget that at election time, I remember well things like -- do you remember this one? Yes, I've got it here, page 10 of the speech from the throne. It takes me a while, but here it is, "We will provide for a common pause day." Do you remember that one? Do you remember public auto? Do you remember, "We, the NDP, are the party that doesn't believe in casinos, that believes casinos are a tax on the poor"?

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: Well, one of the members across the hall is barracking again. But these are all promises that you made --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Phillips: -- common pause day, the whole area of public auto, not believing in casinos. You've lived up to none of those promises. So, again, I had hoped that the motion from the member might have said, "We will live up to the promises we made."

I'd also say that there's something interesting on the pensions one. This is not a huge deal, but it's important. It says here on pensions, "Pension surpluses would belong to the members of the plan." Do you know what we've got before the House right now? We have a bill that will permit the government, the employer, to bypass something called the Pension Benefits Act, to not notify the teachers that you are planning to withdraw $300 million from the teachers' pension.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Did you know that?

Mr Phillips: The member nods his head over there, but if any private sector company ever tried to get an exemption from notifying the pension beneficiaries that they were withdrawing money from the pension fund, the NDP of old --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Conrad Black provision.

Mr Phillips: The Conrad Black provision, as my colleague says. That's exactly what it is: withdrawing money from a pension, and not only that, not even telling them, as the Pension Benefits Act provides, that you're going to do it. You do that by ramming a bill through the House that will allow you to exempt yourself from that provision.

I just say to the member that I realize we will see a series of these motions. I have no trouble supporting it, but frankly it's a waste of the House's time. It would be far better spent if the backbench members of the NDP could kind of get some courage, some backbone, and get after the cabinet to do what it promised to do, because you've got some control over that and this Legislature has control over that. That's where I'd like to spend my time, rather than these interesting but frankly non-productive motions.

I also think that the member is doing a disservice to the people of his riding by talking about a matter that is completely out of his jurisdiction and really has nothing to do with this Legislature. The member is doing a disservice to those who elected him to bring their views and concerns to the attention of his government colleagues.

He should be exposing flaws in the policies, actions and initiatives of his government. He should be mobilizing public opinion against policies, actions and initiatives that his constituents feel are unacceptable. The member should be formulating and bringing forward alternative legislation and policies and aiding and strengthening policies and legislation by submitting amendments to bills and statutes.

When confronted with resolutions like the one we're dealing with now, and several others that have come from other NDP members, the people of Ontario have grown impatient with the activities they are seeing on private members' business every Thursday morning. They say, "What's the point of this nonsense?" They've grown so used to the silent demise of reality and the important private members' bills or resolutions that they just assume it's going to happen.

All of us know that private members' bills, important ones like my boaters' safety and education bill or my heritage day holiday bill, which do not have the active support of ministers will not proceed, even though they are overwhelmingly supported by all members. The people of Ontario have a right to object to this arrangement. There is something fundamentally wrong if legislative matters cannot stand before the representatives of the people to be enacted. The people of Ontario have a right to be outraged by this resolution we're wasting time on this morning. There are more important matters that people want us to deal with.

I've been talking about matters of public safety, like poor visibility on these concrete barriers on highways 400 and 401 that Mr G.A. Zylich of Penetanguishene notes are difficult to see at night or when there's fog or it's raining.

I'm referring to matters of importance to the many potential home buyers and realtors in Simcoe East who have contacted me about the Finance minister's December 31 deadline for pulling the plug on the extremely successful Ontario home ownership savings plan.

More than 248,000 of these plans have been opened since the program was established in 1988, and of that number, 204,000 have been closed to purchase a new home. Approximately 48% of all home sales in the first nine months of 1993 were first-time home buyers. Rather than wasting time with this resolution, we should be debating the merits of renewing OHOSP, which costs $50 million annually, compared to the $2.6 billion the current government spends on non-profit housing subsidies each year.

In the same vein, perhaps we should be using this time to discuss the merits of replacing non-profit housing subsidies with shelter allowances. Independent studies indicate the average monthly subsidy would be $114 per household for a shelter allowance, compared to the current average of $942 a month to subsidize a household in non-profit housing. I would suggest that a shelter allowance program would help all those in needy target groups who wish to apply, especially Ontario's working poor.

Right now, unless a needy tenant receives welfare or family benefits, there is no help until a unit becomes available in a social housing project. Shelter allowances would allow tenants to remain in their current homes if they choose, close to families, child care, schools and workplaces. Not only that, but shelter allowances avoid the development of low-income ghettos which can occur in social housing projects that do not have a mix of incomes.

For those compelling reasons, we should be considering replacing the existing wasteful government housing regime with the more affordable and effective alternative of shelter allowances instead of debating this ridiculous resolution.

With resolutions like this one we are considering here today, a resolution that is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with the real issues facing the people of Ontario, I have to ask, do you honestly wonder why there is so much animosity out there against the provincial government?

We should be talking about Bill 47, which brought closure in. There have been five closure motions in the last two weeks brought into this Legislature.

I have a letter here from a Wayne MacIntosh in Orillia, outraged at the proposals of Bill 47: "We should not let this get on the books without a fight." He indicates it's nothing but a tax grab. He's unhappy with regard to the six weeks' processing time, and he indicates that it's unconstitutional. This was one that was brought in as a closure motion.

The social services report and the debate we had earlier today with regard to our developmentally handicapped: There is concern with regard to that, and I think that was a great resolution, one which brought out the many aspects of the problems with that.

When we look at other community social services, the minister, that same minister we were talking about this morning -- I have a letter from a Jim Russell at RR4, Coldwater, who is very unhappy with regard to the minister, Mr Silipo. He says, "It gives me very little satisfaction or advice on how to solve this problem." This individual wrote to the minister with regard to the concerns that he had.

These are the types of things we should be debating here. We should be talking about these issues.

There are many other issues, such as Hydro. I haven't heard much discussion since the minister announced the layoffs in Hydro and the downgrading of the Bruce plant.

The parole system, which my colleague Mr Runciman has been talking about: Why is this government not bringing forward a resolution with regard to improving the parole system?

We spoke last week with regard to the cancer problems that we have.

The Agenda for People: It is also interesting that we still have that around. The member is talking about keeping the federal government to its commitment financially. What commitment has this government kept with regard to the Agenda for People that was put out in August 1990?

Minimum corporate tax: What's been done about that?

Fair taxes for the working people: Do you know what they've done with regard to fair taxes for people? They've done nothing but add tax to the individual. It would be interesting for some members to note that in this province of Ontario, an individual making $17,000 a year pays over $1,000 in income tax. Why aren't we talking about these issues with regard to the government?

I look at some of the questionnaires that I've sent out which say, "Do you support the provincial government's proposal to charge motorists tolls on new or improved highways and bridges to pay the cost?" Do you know what the questionnaire came back as? Well, 36% said yes; 57% said no. The undecided was 7%. These are the things we should be discussing in this Legislature and should be talking about.

I wanted to put some of these on the record because last Thursday we dealt with a resolution to urge the federal government to abolish the Senate. Today we're dealing with a resolution urging the federal government to keep its commitments. The resolution we should be dealing with here is urging this government to keep its commitments.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm delighted to stand in my place this morning and speak to the resolution of my friend and colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. What a timely resolution this is.

Last week -- no, this week -- I awoke and I saw Mr Martin announcing on the television a deficit of some $46 billion. Wow: $46 billion.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Ten billion more.

Mr Mills: Now, it's my understanding that $13 billion of that debt --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: Look, just a minute. Some $13 billion of that debt was accumulated in the last year of the federal Conservative government, who have now gone on to their Waterloo. They met their Waterloo, and rightfully so. The people of Canada spoke.

I never want to stand in my place again and ever, ever hear members of the Conservative Party talk about this government and its financial responsibilities and how it has managed the deficit. I never want to hear any of them say anything again. I never want to hear any neo-right wing, would-be Conservative mention anything about this government's handling. What has happened is that we have been decimated by the policies of the Conservatives in Ottawa. They've absolutely destroyed this province in ways it would take me an hour to think about.

I want to talk about the health care system. We are battling now in Ontario, trying to maintain our health care, and we are having an awful job with it. The reason we're having an awful job with it is because those scoundrels in Ottawa that the people have gotten rid of absolutely cut off all the payments and forced this province into the situation that we're in.

I want to read from the Liberal red book. I'm going to hold them to this, and I wait for the Liberals here to come up with their "son of red book" for their 1995 campaign. The federal Liberals say: "The Liberal Party remains firmly committed to the five fundamental principles. Health care must be universal." I say, "Hear, hear." "Health care must be portable." Hear, hear. It must be, they say, comprehensive, publicly funded and publicly administered. I, for one, will be holding those people to that, because two-tiered health care in the province of Ontario is absolutely akin to making me say things I wouldn't do.

I can't stand this. This is what the red book says: "Liberals cannot and will not accept a health care system that offers a higher quality of care for the rich than for the poor." I say, "Hear, hear" to that. I'm going to hold the Liberals to that, this red book, and I hope that the transfer payments to this province will allow us in this province to maintain that sort of health care that these people preach and that they want to see.

It says in the red book -- and the son of red book is going to come, no doubt -- "A Liberal government will not withdraw from or abandon the health care field." I want to make sure they blinking well don't, because the Conservatives in Ottawa have made it so difficult for this province to manage not only health care, welfare and all the other things, with their decimation, their cutbacks -- I'm beside myself to even think that someone would stand in his place and criticize this government for our mismanagement of the fiscal responsibilities of this province when we were forced into that by those scoundrels in Ottawa who are long gone, who have met their Waterloo.

Mr Bradley: I would, as I did last week, again mention to the government members that I think it does no service to this Legislative Assembly to debate matters outside of its jurisdiction and matters which have little impact on the Legislature. We are elected to this Legislature to deal with provincial issues, and I can't recall, as a member over the years, dealing in any significant way with federal issues.

I think it's very important for the sake of those who watch the political system to know that there are three levels of government and that municipal people should deal with municipal things, provincial members with provincial jurisdiction and federal with federal jurisdiction.

I can recall sitting on St Catharines city council when one night -- I think we were banning guns across the country -- one member of the council asked another, "What is Lincoln doing about this?" They said, "Lincoln is banning seal hunting tonight." None of those, of course, were within the jurisdiction of that municipal council.

The same can be said here. I think it's important that we, as legislators, deal with provincial issues, that we don't confuse the people out there to believe that somehow we have some jurisdiction over matters of a federal nature. There are a lot of topics, I think, that members could put before the House which would be useful to study and to debate, and this is not one of them. I think it would be much more important to look at the Agenda for People, the textbook for the NDP, and what it was going to do in terms of promises if indeed that's what you're going to deal with.

I look at "Tax Fairness For The Working Poor." People across this province are paying far more in taxes than they have paid before, far more in charges that are out there to various people in various levels of income. They must still pay them whether it's for licensing, whether it's for services they get from the government, so that has not been kept.

I always enjoy this one because I was in education. Under "Restoring Education Funding/Property Tax Relief" it says: "New Democrats propose raising the provincial share of education costs to 60% over five years, providing a solid base for a better education system and lifting some of the load of property taxes."

That's extremely important, and I know that the members of the top echelon of the teachers' federations probably said to people within their federations, "The New Democrats will be a good choice because they are going to, over a period of five years, fund education at the provincial level to some 60%." Of course, what's happening is that funding is dropping. I am afraid this is what you invite when you bring forward a resolution of this kind.

I go through and see "Relief for Farmers." Farmers are in dire straits across this province. They're not getting the kind of relief they should be getting from the provincial government.

"Driver-Owned Insurance": I merely invoke the name of the beloved Mel Swart, former member for Welland-Thorold, who chastised the government for not implementing government auto insurance. I'm not critical of the government for that because I don't think it probably would have worked well, but there's a promise that is unkept.

Job protection: More people have lost their jobs in this province in the period of time since this government has been in power than certainly I can recall in previous years.

In terms of pensions, "Pension 'surpluses' would belong to the members of the plan, not to employers," and we have a bill that's coming before the House which will in fact allow what you'd never want to allow Conrad Black to do with teachers' pensions.

We get into protection for seniors. Seniors have felt the wrath of this recession probably as much as anybody else, and their costs are greater.

In the environment, this is of course totally amusing because I see we have "Safe, Clean Water." The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is way, way behind in its implementation. I just read one of the regulations that came out last week, and I'll tell you that if a Liberal government had put that regulation out, all hell would break loose in the environmental community. I read it very carefully. I know weasel words when I see them, and I read those very carefully. I know weasel words when I see them, and those were weasel words in that.

It says here that there's going to be clean air. Nothing has been done on the clean air program; you're into your fourth year.

"Preserving Agricultural Land": We remember how well agricultural land was preserved around London, very good agricultural land. When London wanted to annex it, of course the government acquiesced and promoted that.

"Improving Public Transit": The last I saw was that GO Transit, which is public transit, was in fact being cut back in terms of the service provided.

I could go through all of these things.

Ms Murdock: Go through all of them. I dare you to go through all of them, each and every one.

Mr Bradley: The member for Sudbury should get a chance to speak.

Look at tuition. You ran on tuition; you were going to abolish tuition. You have increased tuition every year to those students, and there are people right across Ontario who believed you when you said you were going to abolish tuition fees. Instead, students today pay far more than they ever had to pay before.

Look, you solve your own problems before you worry about municipalities or the federal government. That's your responsibility, that's why we're elected to this House, not to play these stupid games with resolutions that have nothing to do with the Legislative Assembly.

There are a lot of things you could list that this government hasn't done. That's what you should be working on, that's what we should be working on, not something that has something to do with something else.

I know the strategy. The Premier's brought in Murray Weppler now and he will advise you to blame the Americans, blame the federal government, blame the unions, blame the municipalities, blame everybody else but this government. If you want to find the problem in this province, look in the mirror, you members of the government side, and you'll find the problem.

Mr Mammoliti: Blame yourselves for putting the province into this mess. That's who you should blame.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Yorkview, order, please.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am pleased to be able to stand here today in support of the resolution from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

The member for St Catharines spoke with passion during the last couple of minutes that this House should not tie itself to resolutions with the federal government, but I disagree. I think the people of Ontario need an explanation. They need to know the reasons why this province has been forsaken for nine years.

I'm standing here saying that we want to work in partnership with the new federal government. There's not been one negative word from our members saying anything about the new government in Ottawa. We are hoping to work with them, but the explanation is to tell people why we have been devastated, why our needs have not been addressed.

I come from the riding of Niagara South, where there are some wonderful people like Vicky Laws from the community living association. There have been people in our galleries today, beautiful people from all over the province, and we have not been able to give them the moneys they deserve. There are people like Janice Gordon who live in Fort Erie who feed the poor. In the province of Ontario, people need to be fed. How sad that is. But it's because we've been hurt so badly in this province.

We talk about the new federal government's pledge, and I have a belief it will fulfil its pledge of creating jobs and the economy. I want to talk about an industry in Niagara, the shipping industry. So many people talk about the automotive industry, they talk about agriculture, but there is a shipping industry that has also been forgotten by the federal government. They have allowed ships to fly foreign flags and not employ people from Ontario and the Maritimes.

The former government had a Minister of Fisheries that was so interested always in demeaning women, and now we have a new deputy Prime Minister from this province, a woman from Hamilton, who I know is going to stand up for the issues of women in this country. I have faith in her.

But going back to the tale I'm telling you about St Catharines and the Niagara area with shipping, the rates are too high. This is a federal issue. They have to control shipping and get it going again, shipbuilding. This government built a ferry, the Pelee Island ferry in St Catharines. Yes, it created some jobs, but it's not enough.

We as a Parliament have to work with the federal government and bring jobs, make sure it keeps its commitment, make it aware of how much we've been hurt in the Niagara area. There shouldn't be a need for food banks, but the federal government created -- transfer payments: When I talked about the wonderful and beautiful people from all over the province from community living groups, do you realize that this government was not given $4.5 billion in transfer payments that we deserve? With that $4.5 billion we would be able to keep all our commitments to this community who needs the money so desperately.

Members hold up a paper called the Agenda for People. They read the headlines on it. We have worked so hard to make that agenda happen, and also opposition members hold up papers that call us traitors because we broke contracts. We broke contracts in this province to save 50,000 to 60,000 jobs. The new Prime Minister kept one of his promises: He broke the helicopter contract. I agree, it was much too rich, but he put 1,000 people out of work the next day, including the good people of Fort Erie, where I have Fleet Aerospace. I only ask that the federal government keep its promises on job creation; remember the people that it just put out of work.

The member for Kenora is holding up "The Traitors." The traitors were the federal government --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Kenora.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- the federal Tory government. The heroes will be the New Democrat government of Ontario.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Employees' unions put this out.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Kenora, please respect the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: You didn't put that out. Their union people put it out.

Mr Miclash: Unions. We didn't do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West. The member for Kenora. The member for Niagara South has the floor.

Mr Miclash: You think we have nothing to be upset about. Give me a break. Equalize gas prices across Ontario.

Ms Murdock: Oh, geez.

Mr Miclash: The member for Sudbury remembers that well.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, I would ask you to refrain from interjecting.

Hon Mrs Coppen: A comment was also made a few moments ago about our commitment to eliminating tuition. I just had a constituent come into my office and yes, they are upset about tuition. Their daughter wanted to enrol in university: $6,000 for a working couple. They went across the river to Buffalo, New York, thinking opportunities were better there for their child's education. They were given a bill of $18,000.

Yes, I wish we could eliminate those tuitions. It would help an awful lot of working people let their children get educated.

Mr Miclash: Agenda for People, Shirley, what did it say? It said --

Hon Mrs Coppen: The Agenda for People. Keep reading the book over and over, because we have kept our commitment to people --

Mr Miclash: Tuition fees. You didn't eliminate the tuition fees.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, I'm warning you.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I'll conclude, Mr Speaker. I started and I continue to want to work in partnership. I have not said any negative words about the new federal government. We are hoping to work with them. My purpose in standing in support of this resolution is to let people know how this province has been forgotten by the former federal government and how we are looking to work with the new government.

Their book is called Creating Opportunities, an opportunity for partnership with all of the provinces in Canada. If together with the new government we support this resolution, it can happen for Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: This has to be one of the dumbest things of everything that's come forward from the government side, to start asking other levels of government to keep promises that were made in a campaign. I don't know what happened over there when this took place, but can you imagine these people writing this motion in a back room somewhere, the government side?

"We've got nothing for private members' hour on Thursday. What do you think we should do?" And one of them said, "Why don't we write a motion that says the Liberal government that's just been elected should keep its promises?" And then some other person who's in the meeting, probably not there purposely but who showed up, said, "Well, you people, if we write that motion, the opposition might have a copy of the Agenda for People," and they all turned on that person and said: "We told you never to use those words in this House again. Don't ever talk about the Agenda for People. We don't want to hear about that. We want to talk about the federal Liberal promises and how they should be kept."

But the poor innocent soul, who probably wasn't a dipper before the election and just kind of fell into the job, said, "My gosh, we made a lot of promises too that we haven't kept." And then they said to this person, like the member from London just a minute ago said, "Oh, we've kept our promises." And then that poor little soul who fell into the meeting said, "Well, I just happen to have a copy of the Agenda for People here, and there's a lot of things in this Agenda for People that we promised the good people of Ontario we would do that we haven't done."

And everybody turns on this poor soul who snuck into that meeting and gave some salient points of view on why it's maybe not a good idea to throw rocks at glass houses, who said: "But minimum corporate tax; we didn't do that. And tax fairness for the working poor; my gosh, we've raised taxes on the working poor. Succession duties on estates of the rich and super-rich" -- remember the super-rich and the salad days of the 1980s, the super-rich? Well, there's no more super-rich. They got rid of the super-rich.

Speculation tax: at that meeting, the poor soul stood there and said, "Remember when we thought a spec tax was a good idea?" Gosh, that's gone by the board. But they've kept their promises. Don't let them tell you they haven't. They have.

Restoring education property tax relief to 60%: We still don't any money from the provincial government for education and you promised we'd get 60%, but you've kept your promises, we know that. This is just our imagination. This was a joke; they were kidding. People weren't taking this seriously. Yes, sure, people voted for them on this, but, "Nobody really believed we'd do it, did they?" No.

That poor soul in that meeting is really getting pummelled now by all the NDP, because we go to driver-owned insurance. "We promised the government would run auto insurance." Well, at that point they just slugged that person. "Will you be quiet? That's just a joke. We were kidding. People don't take those things seriously. We're socialists."

We move on to job protection. Job protection? The only thing you're protecting is their unemployment cheques. That's job protection to this government. Then there's training and adjustment.

Now we go to child care: 10,000 spaces over two years. They've abolished private sector child care. They abolished it. That poor soul in the meeting is really getting pummelled at this point, but that's not all. Remember eradicating food banks? Gee, I don't see any more food banks, and if I do, I'm only imagining them. They don't exist, because the socialists kept their promises, and now we've got to make sure the Liberals do federally.

We move on to protection for seniors, and then the environment. We know you've kept your promises on the environment, we know you did that. Some people are saying you didn't, but I'm saying, "You're wrong, because the socialists tell me they did keep their promises." Fifty per cent recycling on pop cans: We know it's 50% or 2%, one or the other, but you kept your promise. Safe, clean water: You kept your promise. Less garbage: You kept their promise. Saving agricultural farm land: I know you're saving agricultural farm land, keeping your promise on grade 1 farm land, because on that farm land you're growing garbage. You've kept your promise. Don't let anyone say you haven't.

And now, since you're so good at keeping your promises, since you're so forthright and honest and upfront with the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, you now have a higher calling, folks. You must keep those dastardly, dishonest Liberals in the federal government, who make promises and don't keep them and give all us politicians a bad name -- you've got to get them in line and make sure they keep their promises, just like you keep your promises.

Oh, to be so perfect, to be so pure, to be so full of horsefeathers.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): It's been said that the Liberal Party of Canada campaigns from the left and governs from the right. That's why we in Ontario, while looking with some approval at promises made by the Chrétien Liberals, do not entirely have faith that we'll see these promises realized.

What is really rather remarkable and hasn't, I believe, been pointed out, is the similarity in many respects between what the Liberals have promised and what the NDP government of Ontario has already delivered.

This is particularly remarkable in view of the fact that voters and media have both approved the Liberal proposals, as shown in the election results, while at the same time excoriating the government of Ontario for effectively practising what the Liberals are preaching. The media and the tendency to scapegoat in bad times are very powerful indeed.

My colleague from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has already dealt with the jobs issue, which is at the forefront of both governments, and has pointed out that in Ontario we are already spending 10 times the amount that Ontario would receive if the Liberal government delivers on those promises.

Certainly in my riding I have seen the money coming in for infrastructure projects, which of course create jobs; for example, $2 million for fire safety improvements to the local seniors' home, and that is one of very many.

Drastic streamlining of expenditures promised, and rightly so, by the Liberal government have a familiar ring too, but Ontario has already incurred the hassles and opprobrium that come from actually doing it, to the tune of $8 billion this year.

The Liberals have promised to reduce the $4.1-billion consulting and professional budget of the federal government by 15%, and to reduce the size and budget of cabinet ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office. I hope they succeed, but they will have to do a lot more than that to equal our record.

Our cuts have been achieved with minimum job loss, unlike those now hitting in other provinces. Forty thousand jobs could have been lost in the public sector; thanks to the much-maligned social contract, it didn't happen.

The Liberals offer greater cooperation with other levels of government to reduce overlap and resulting waste. Ontario is far advanced in working more closely with lower levels of government to achieve just that. Disentanglement is well under way. We would value the closer cooperation with the senior levels which they are promising.

The very similarity of their expressed aims and what we are doing suggests that an enormous overlap in function between federal and provincial governments exists. They say they want to renegotiate federal-provincial fiscal arrangements to ensure the maximum degree of financial predictability and stability for each level of government. Let's do it.

I'm running out of time so I'll just have to say, can the Liberals bring themselves to acknowledge what we are doing and to learn from it and work with us? We welcome their help. Let us govern --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, you have two minutes.

Mr Paul Johnson: I find it incredibly interesting for members of the official opposition and the third party to say that the resolution I brought to the House this morning was a waste of time. I think that the people of Ontario are very concerned about what happens in the province of Ontario with regard to the economy, their taxes, their services, and certainly how we manage our deficit and debt in the province of Ontario.

I also want to say that some of the members on the other side who said this was a waste of time have brought forward two resolutions which really are out of the purview of this chamber. Indeed, the member for St Catharines talked about the General Motors foundry closure. We don't have any control over corporations to the extent that he would like to think and so he raises that in this chamber and that was most inappropriate, according to what he said.

Let me say this, the member for Carleton brought in a resolution that wanted to abolish the Senate. I agree with him. I think it's the right thing to do, get rid of the Senate. It costs too much. I don't think it serves the people of Canada properly. However, he did bring it in. It is something that certainly is outside of the mandate of this Legislature. However, we do from time to time debate these things and indeed today we had that opportunity.

I want to say that the member for Etobicoke West didn't have the mental wherewithal, I guess, to understand that we had an opportunity to debate the economy of Ontario today, and what did he do? He talked about other things. I think that's most unfortunate, quite frankly.

So the members had a great opportunity here today to talk about the financial commitments of the federal Liberal government, which we all hope it keeps; however, they didn't do that.

ASSISTANCE TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 39 standing in the name of Mrs Marland. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Marland has moved private members' resolution number 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Marland has moved private member's resolution number 33. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Eves, Frankford, Grandmaître, Haeck, Harrington, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Klopp, Kwinter, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Marchese, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Rizzo, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Hansen, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), MacKinnon.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 51; the nays are 4. I declare the motion carried.

FEDERAL ELECTION PROMISES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 40 standing in the name of Mr Paul Johnson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Johnson has moved private member's resolution number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

All members relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It came as a bit of a surprise to me when, earlier in the week, I was advised that there is what is called by the ministry the "re-engineering" of the delivery of crop insurance being carried out even as we speak.

In a letter sent to the people who used to sell crop insurance in the various areas around the province, a ministry official has indicated that no longer will there be any employees who will be selling crop insurance. Instead, these people who used to market crop insurance, who used to advertise about its good side, its benefits, and who used to take back from the producers who had concerns to the ministry the changes that might help improve the program -- we will no longer have that occurring.

Those people have been terminated. Just like last year when the government unilaterally terminated the contract or refused to renew the contact that ultimately had to be renegotiated, this year the ministry again unilaterally has told these people that they will not have work.

There are a number of problems with crop insurance. A number of producers want to speak to local representatives. No longer will that be possible. No longer will local people talk to local representatives. Now everybody is going to be made a government employee, and those government employees I know will not get out on the road and will not be in a position to talk directly to crop insurers.

Even though these people will have an opportunity of becoming yield collectors between the months of August and December, the service will not be the same, and crop insurance, I believe, will suffer.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): We are approaching that time of year when we gather with our families to celebrate the traditions of the holiday season. We're reminded of how fortunate we are to have each other, our health and the opportunity to share joy with friends and neighbours. As we look forward to enjoying our own festivities, it is important for those of us who possess such good fortune to reach out to help and share with those less fortunate than ourselves.

At this time of year we should be aware that local food banks need more help than ever this holiday season to keep the less fortunate fed. For example, food banks run by the Orillia Salvation Army and the Sharing Place have difficulty keeping their shelves filled.

Between November 1 and 22, the Orillia Salvation Army's food bank fed about 200 families and so far has received 200 applications for Christmas hampers. The Sharing Place is spending about $2,000 per month to meet its needs and has fed between 60 and 114 people each day it's been open.

We all have a role to play in ensuring the holiday season is happier for those in need. We can do that by donating non-perishable items to food banks like the Sharing Place. We can also do that by contributing to the Christmas Kettle Fund, donating food, clothing and toys to the Salvation Army or volunteering to help sort and pack Christmas hampers. In doing so, we can help those less fortunate experience the warmth and generosity of spirit that make this season special.

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise proudly today to share with you and the House a logo recently developed by the Economic Development Corp in partnership with the community for the city of Sault Ste Marie. Today I would like to congratulate my community and our local EDC for the innovative and creative logo they have given to our city.

The logo incorporates simple representations of the outflow of Lake Superior, the northern sky and the Canadian maple leaf. The logo evokes a feeling of the multiseasonal change that happens in our area. The name, Sault Ste Marie, is accompanied by a smaller symbol of the city's geographic location at the hub of the Great Lakes.

"Naturally Gifted" is the slogan we have chosen, which best represents the talents and gifts we have in Sault Ste Marie. Good things and good people have come from our community, and this is what this new logo will represent. We are back on track in the Sault with our major industries. The Sault Greyhounds have been successful over the last three years. We've given Canada its first woman astronaut, Roberta Bondar. Some of the best hockey players in North America have come from our community: the Esposito brothers were two, Paul DiPietro, Ron Francis; even Wayne Gretzky played for some time in our city.

We also have had some of Ontario's more outstanding members of this place. I remember, for example, Art Wishart, John Rhodes and Russ Ramsay, and of course Steve Mahoney hails from Sault Ste Marie as well.

My congratulations to Sault Ste Marie, and keep on keeping on.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I appreciate the plug. I don't know if I'm now supposed to be nice, but congratulations to my home town, Sault Ste Marie; we're proud of it.

Yesterday in the House in response to a question by my leader, the Minister of Labour either was mistaken or made an error of some type, I'm not sure. The leader said:

"At a time when 27,000 Ontario businesses are facing WCB rate increases of more than 25%, employers have a right to be angry when they see continued examples of the mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board. Minister, why is the WCB's only response to its financial crisis and its mismanagement to raise the premiums for employers?"

The minister said: "The member...knows specifically that the increase, whether she accepts it or not, is 3%, and that the differences, and there are as many down as there are up, are the adjustments that were made in the classification system."

To correct the minister and the record, the facts are that of 219 rate categories, 67 or 31% went down, while 129 or 59% went up and while 23 or 10% stayed the same. Clearly twice as many went up as went down, which is totally contrary to what the minister said, and I would hope he would want to correct the record.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This summer the government introduced a 25-cent-per-litre tax on beer and wine made in brew-on-premises establishments. The tax is to rise twice more, so that by 1995 the total tax will be 38 cents per litre for you-brew beer or wine. Well, by 1995 there won't be enough brew-on-premises business left to tax. They'll all be gone and their employees will be on unemployment or social assistance.

It's already happening. At the three brew-on-premises establishments in my riding in Brockville, customers have been staying away in droves rather than pay an extra $12 a batch in provincial tax. One you-brew business is now up for sale and the other two have watched their sales cut in half since the tax was introduced.

These two businesses used to employ 11 full- and part-time workers. The owners tell me that by February, when sales are slow, they'll have to let everyone go. The owners will work alone behind the counter and leave the state to care for their former employees.

According to the brew-on-premises association, this tax has killed 186 full-time and 225 part-time jobs in just two short months. These are small business operators working a small niche of the beer market.

I urge the government to leave these owners be. Stop killing small business. Stop future tax increases to this sector and stop killing jobs.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): One of the most difficult challenges facing governments today is the issue of taxation and revenues. All across Canada from province to province we see governments struggling to find innovative ways to stimulate their economies, to create new wealth and to get people back to work.

Later today I will submit a bill to amend the Assessment Act to encourage economic growth.

Currently, when home owners undertake to make an improvement to their properties, they are immediately reassessed and their property tax increased accordingly. This has the negative effect of penalizing people for upgrading their own homes. It also encourages them to get improvements done without a building permit and drives them to the underground economy, thereby depriving the Ontario government of possible sales and income tax revenues.

The proposed bill would give Ontarians an exemption from any increase in property taxes as a result of making renovations and additions. I feel this would be an incentive for people to spend money that they otherwise would not have spent. We are talking about job creation at a grass-roots level, with more building materials being purchased, small businesses creating employment for more tradespeople and neighbourhoods benefiting from increased economic activity.

Stimulating economic activity is this government's first priority. The passing of this bill would be another step in the right direction.

MURRAY WEPPLER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have some news for the people of Ontario, in case they're not aware of it:

"Premier Bob Rae has hired his third communications adviser in a year." That's always known as a spin doctor.

"Murray Weppler, who has worked for two federal NDP leaders and former Ontario NDP leader Michael Cassidy, started working as Rae's chief communications aide on Friday."

He doesn't come cheap. "Weppler will earn a deputy minister's salary -- which ranges from $104,500 to $152,250 -- to help the government coordinate its communications strategy and cast a favourable light on government activities.

"The long-time party loyalist is the third person to act as Rae's chief communications aide in the past year.

"John Piper resigned last November after becoming tangled in" a scandal. "He was replaced by Montreal communications specialist Jean-Guy Carrier last spring....

"Weppler was a reporter at the Ontario Legislature in the late 1960s and started working as federal NDP leader David Lewis's executive assistant in 1971."

Was it Murray Weppler who arranged for the Windsor casino announcement to be made Friday at 3 pm, when the Legislature is not sitting, and when the Windsor Star, which has the most immediate interest in this story, will be unable to have the announcement in its final edition? Do we have another John Piper?

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to tell this House and the people of Ontario about an experience I had yesterday evening as I made a presentation to the Royal Commission on Learning.

As you know, the Royal Commission on Learning has been charged with -- I will read directly from the propaganda it sent to promote its process: "The commission will reach out to, and listen to, everyone committed to quality education."

This House should be aware that the Royal Commission on Learning is not doing an adequate job of listening to the people of Ontario. At last night's public hearing, only four of the commissioners were present to hear deputations. Co-chair Gerald Caplan was not present. After his comments in the Ottawa Citizen that he is "certain there is no hope of drawing a clear message from the differing and often contrary views Ontarians hold about their education system," he has probably decided to give up hearing deputations.

To make matters worse, the commissioners were then divided into two rooms and I was forced to appear before only two members. They interrupted my speech during my opening remarks and asked if I'd be able to summarize my comments. I had taken a great deal of time to prepare my remarks to the royal commission because I felt, as a member of provincial Parliament serving a population of over 50,000 people, I had an obligation to pass on to the commission the many concerns and comments I had received from my constituents regarding education in Ontario.

To be interrupted during my introduction was certainly frustrating. Then to be given a mere 10 minutes was laughable. Stop the farce. Either give the people the time and opportunity to make their full presentation or admit that you have no intention of listening to the people.

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

Mr Tilson: Pretending to listen is worse than not even trying to consult.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I've been rising in the House to remind members of the wonderful programs that this government ha