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

June 29, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

WATER SUPPLY

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

DISTRICT OFFICE RELOCATION

TAX INCREASES

JAEMI AND TAELOR DOUGLAS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CANADA DAY

VISITORS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

AIR QUALITY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

PHOTO RADAR

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

HEALTH CARE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BICYCLING SAFETY

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

SCHOOL FACILITIES

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

ABORTION

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

BEER AND WINE TAX

HEALTH CARE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HEALTH CARE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1993

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): It was with much fanfare that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation announced a new tourism strategy last week. She said the focus of the announcement was to recognize the role that the $16.9-billion industry plays in the provincial economy and build alliances and coordinate activities of tourism partners.

While this sounds like a very interesting gesture, in my riding we are getting a very different message from the minister. Specifically, the Tourism ministry announced a while back that it was closing five campgrounds in eastern Ontario. Just this summer, it was revealed that two more parks would cease operation.

While this news has had a devastating effect, I was vastly relieved when the former minister said it was his business to keep parks open and that he was willing to consider outside proposals to maintain the parks. In fact, the minister stated in March 1991, supported by the current parliamentary assistant: "We are trying to open the parks. We are doing everything we can to look at available options, and hopefully we will have something in the near future."

With this type of supposed ministry support, combined with an ongoing and significant interest on the part of the private sector, it would seem that opening the parks should be a done deal. Nevertheless, some of the parks remain closed, and I have heard many people say that the fault lies at the feet of the ministry.

If the minister were truly interested in a viable tourism sector in eastern Ontario, she would ensure realistic negotiation for the potential investors, rather than continue to obstruct tourism in eastern Ontario.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): The council of the county of Grey has asked me to arrange a meeting for it with both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Energy to discuss its concerns with water taking. They wish to consider necessary changes to the Planning Act which would provide local municipalities with appropriate controls over licensees' operations.

Water taking from wells for commercial purposes has been going on for some time in Grey, but now that bottled water has become a major industry, we wish to ensure that there will always be an adequate supply of clean water for the residents of our area.

While we have not seen any detrimental effects thus far, it may be that zoning laws will be required in the future to ensure public input and local acceptance before permits are issued. It may also be that permits should be given for a limited time frame only and that inspections and assessments be done before a renewal is issued.

Clean, clear water plays a significant role in maintaining aquatic life and associated ecosystems. We wish to ensure that this vital resource is protected for the wellbeing of our children.

To this end, I would request that both ministers find the time in their busy schedules to look into this situation, to assess the needs of both the people of Grey and the local commercial ventures and to effect a reasonable broad water policy which will enable business to function and which will ensure the continuance of an abundance of water for the generations to come.

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It gives me great pleasure today to rise and mark the 30th anniversary of the St John Ambulance in Whitby.

The St John Ambulance has been an active member of the Whitby community, not only in times of crisis but also at fairs, sports events and public gatherings. The presence of their ambulance and personnel is very comforting and ensures that highly professional, competent care is readily available should the need arise.

Of their current voluntary membership of 123, 119 members are trained to assist with casualty care in crises. St John Ambulance works tirelessly with service groups and youth groups, such as scouts and guides, as well as the general public, to teach and to certify first aid. It's estimated that one out of every 13 Whitby residents has been trained by St John.

The St John Ambulance service is also a good corporate citizen. They participate in civic events and are even cooperative education employers.

St John Ambulance has been unaffected by the latest recession. They rely on donations for their operations, and donations have been forthcoming even though these are very difficult times. I am pleased to say that in these rough times they have survived and are looking forward to the challenges of the future.

I thank them for choosing to stay in Whitby and congratulate them on their 30 successful years.

DISTRICT OFFICE RELOCATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Last Friday I met with Rick Blakey, president of Local 335, and Peter Dashfield, the OPSEU staff rep. They are most concerned with the Ministry of Transportation's decision to cut services from an area that is responsible for 275 kilometres of freeway and a population of 261,000 and move it to an area that has no freeway and a population of 62,000.

They want to know what will be done at 3 am in the winter when a plow breaks down, now that you have shut down the Port Hope garage. The Port Hope office used reclaimed sand for the roads; both Bancroft and Kingston use salt. Will these offices now use cost- effective and environmentally friendly sand? Why was the savings, offered by employees, of $500,000 in winter works projects ignored?

How much will it cost to move employees when you consider they get the cost of a home and moving expenses? What will you tell Dave Strong, who has worked with your ministry for 33 years only to be handed separation papers with no notice last week? How can you properly redeploy all these people when the counsellors you sent only had a two-day crash course and can't even answer employees' questions?

The sign shop at the Port Hope district office is considered the most cost-effective in production and erection in the province. Now they're being put out of business and work they do is on hold till who knows when. Today my office was contacted urging me to have the Big Apple Drive signs done. They have been told production has been stopped due to your cuts.

How can you justify these cuts? What feasibility study was done? What impact and cost analysis was done? Can you produce documents to verify this measure? If not, as I suspect, will you put your decision on hold?

TAX INCREASES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Birthdays have always been a time of happy celebration and gift giving, but in Bob Rae's Ontario this tradition is being reversed.

On July 1, Canada's birthday, NDP Treasurer Floyd Laughren will take millions of dollars from the pockets of already overburdened Ontario taxpayers. On that day, the NDP will begin collecting a full year's worth of tax increases over a six-month period, retroactive to January 1, while raising Ontario's personal income tax rate three percentage points, to 58% of the basic federal tax. Provincial income taxes will now be at 61% of the federal rate. New fees and fee increases will pull another $220 million into the NDP coffers.

It is small wonder that Ontario citizens have begun to establish taxpayer coalitions across the province to articulate their concerns about the lack of accountability in public spending. Ontario property taxpayers have had to shoulder the burden of increased education costs. Hundreds of millions of dollars are also being lost annually due to the government's refusal to make our social assistance and health care systems more accountable.

I am pleased to greet today in the Legislature Mr Frank Gue, the president of the Halton Taxpayers' Coalition, together with members of his executive, Barb Newham, Roger Love, Leo Haber and Niel Howie.

The goals of the coalition are to obtain value for tax dollars in public spending, to eliminate waste in public spending and to encourage elected representatives to make responsible judgements concerning these issues. It is my hope that the Premier and Treasurer are listening to their message. The taxpayers have had enough, and they deserve to be listened to.

JAEMI AND TAELOR DOUGLAS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On March 22, 1993, Chris and Geoff Douglas of Burlington, Ontario, became the proud parents of twin girls, and big sister Sierra became the responsible, proud big sister of these twins. Jaemi Nicole weighed in at five pounds nine ounces and arrived about 3:35 pm, only to be followed immediately and very impatiently by Taelor Jordan, weighing in at six pounds 10 ounces, about three minutes later.

Proud of this occasion are the grandparents, Doreen Bauer and Mac and Connie Douglas of London, Ontario, and my good friends Alan and Diana Kalinowski of Ilderton, Ontario, and also the great-grandparents, Josephine Kalinowski of London, Merle Bauer of Goderich and Selma and Maurice Klumpp of London.

The twins and the family are doing well, and I believe the grandparents have their feet on the ground. We wish everyone the best for the future.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Today I'm calling on Mike Harris and the Tories to vote against Bill 48 on third reading. During second reading, the Conservatives supported the social contract legislation. Harris and the Conservative caucus have tried to have it both ways. They've spoken out of both sides of their mouths. First, they bashed the unions and then criticized the government for union bashing. Harris said the $2 billion in cuts wasn't enough and then he accused the NDP of going too far to get the $2 billion.

Before the second reading vote, I repeatedly asked the Conservative caucus to join Lyn McLeod and the Liberals and to vote against Bill 48. Unfortunately, they did not take my advice. But I'm an optimist, and I believe there is still hope. We've seen Mike Harris change his mind before. Do it again, Mike.

Perhaps you'll listen to the words of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. They have great concerns about the future cost of this legislation. Here is what they say: "The entire structure and functioning of Ontario's public sector will be irrevocably changed for the worse." Another quote: They say this legislation "poses a serious threat to private sector employers who provide services to government on a contract basis." They say about this legislation that it is "liable to serve as a deterrent to future private business investments in this province."

I say to the Conservative caucus that bang, bang, bang is bad, bad, bad. This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Do the right thing: Join the Liberal caucus and help us to defeat Bill 48.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This morning I was happy to sponsor a press conference at which the Ontario Safety League, the Driving School Association of Ontario and the Road Safety Educators' Association announced a step forward in road safety.

As of July 1, 1993, the Driving School Association of Ontario becomes the approving agent of driving schools whose courses will be recognized by the insurance industry through premium discounts offered to graduates.

This is the first time that the driving school industry has attempted to speak with a common voice. The move towards self-regulation is a commendable one, and the effort to promote quality and uniform standards within the driving education industry deserves praise.

The work of those involved in establishing this coalition of road safety educators should be commended. This is a model example of cooperation within the road safety industry, as the coalition includes representatives from a variety of road users, including cyclists, automobile drivers and truckers.

Congratulations to the members of the coalition for taking this initiative and advancing the interests of all road users by focusing on road safety through education. Given that over 1,100 people are killed each year on our roads and highways, any step to end this carnage must be encouraged. Raising awareness and changing attitudes through education is the best way to achieve safety on our roads and highways.

CANADA DAY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): In celebration of Canada Day, East York will be holding its 26th annual Canada Day festivities this Thursday. Included in these events is a Canadian citizenship court being held at the East York Civic Centre, a motorcade from Howard Talbot Park to Dieppe Park and a parade marching through East York, ending at Stan Wadlow Park, where a variety of activities are planned.

I am pleased to again be able to participate in this wonderful community event. The involvement of so many local organizations is a reflection of the close-knit community that East York represents.

At my booth this year I will be making available tree seedlings for a small donation to the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. As part of its 1993 fund-raising campaign, the foundation is attempting to raise $500,000 from the private sector. These funds will be used, along with other sources of funding, to begin the rehabilitation of the Don Valley brickworks, a site located in my riding. The brickworks, as many of you are aware, was acquired by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in 1989 and is designated as an area of natural and scientific interest because of its historical, environmental and geological significance.

I hope that in your own communities you have the same opportunity to participate in such a worthwhile activity, and I wish you a happy Canada Day.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Bruce Anthony Chamberlain, the president of the Legislative Council, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He is accompanied by his wife, Mrs Chamberlain. Welcome to our assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am surprised that the Treasurer is not here today. We're getting so close to the biggest tax grab in our provincial history.

I noticed, by the way, and the Premier probably knows this, that they're erecting three booths out in front of the treasury offices even now as we speak. I presume those are probably to take in the extra money they're going to take from all the people starting July 1.

But my question is to the Premier. I'd like to ask if the Premier would -- sorry, the Premier seems to be otherwise occupied at the moment, looking for his answers. He's ready now, I'm sure.

On previous occasions my leader, Lyn McLeod, has asked the Premier to tell the people of the province how his very badly assembled Bill 48, the social contract bill, will operate in certain sectors of our economy. She asked him about how it would affect teachers' salaries and specifically what it would do to the grid system. She asked to have him explain how the redeployment of people laid off as a result of the social contract would work. She asked about the special leaves, the 12 days off for critical activities. She asked about exemptions from the program, and she asked about the effect the social contract would have on Ontario Hydro.

I'm asking the Premier, will he today answer those questions?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): This is question period, and I'll be glad to answer any specific questions that are put to me to the very best of my ability.

Mr Elston: Basically, what he has said was that he wants to gloss over all of those errors in his bill. He doesn't want to answer any of those questions at this point. He could have chosen to answer anything about the teachers' grid, he could have chosen to answer any of those other items that I listed, but let me give him one single issue for him to address so that he can specifically tell us what he thinks the effect of his legislation will be.

While members of labour organizations have said they'd no longer support his program, while the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto says it no longer supports his program because it is flawed, let him explain to the people who work and who are working at Ontario Hydro, even as we speak, on their expenditure control program, which they implemented long before he started his, let him explain how the social contract's new target of some $100 million will affect not only the workers and the people at Ontario Hydro, but the rates that are to be paid by the people who use electrical power in this province. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I can answer at least part of the question. First of all, the rate proposal that's been put forward by the board at Ontario Hydro, which provides for no rate increases next year, stands.

Mr Elston: That was before you asked them for $100 million.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm sorry. I'm being heckled mercilessly by the member. It's very hard to --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's over you, Bob.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: And another one, the member for York Centre, who is absolutely brutal, sitting in his new seat which he himself has referred to as the ejection seat.

I would say in answer to the member, and I've discussed this directly with the chairman of Ontario Hydro, that Ontario Hydro has gone through and is going through a major restructuring and is in the middle of very intensive discussions with its own employees with respect to restructuring and with respect to the impact of this restructuring on the workplace.

What we have said is that with respect to the government's legislation and with respect to the approach that's being taken, in any negotiation the amounts that have already been negotiated by Ontario Hydro will be fully credited to Ontario Hydro and will be fully taken into account in terms of assessing what the bottom line is. The government does not want to do anything which would negatively affect or impact Hydro's financial integrity and its ability to meet its own targets, which are exceptionally important.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Premier: I wonder if I could ask you a very specific direct question along the same lines as the member for Bruce has just done. It has to do with the 12 days that you have suggested municipalities negotiate with their workers to find their savings.

You've admitted, and I think would agree, that in many cases the municipalities are finding a shortfall, that the 12 days simply do not generate the savings, the target that you've asked for. These municipal people have gone to the staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, they've talked to Bill Freeman, policy adviser to the minister, he's referred them to Nancy Bardecki in financial services and Miss Bardecki has given them advice, one of four options.

The first option: If it doesn't meet the target, negotiate more than 12 days. Even though the legislation doesn't allow for that, negotiate more than 12 days. The second option is service cuts. The third option Miss Bardecki has suggested is layoffs. You have said you don't want either service cuts or layoffs. The fourth option, interestingly enough, that Miss Bardecki has given to the municipal sector is to increase property taxes.

Premier, will you confirm that those are the four pieces of advice being given out by senior staff in Municipal Affairs, and which one of those options do you recommend, sir?

Hon Mr Rae: I wouldn't tell a mayor how to run his shop in terms of those kinds of decisions.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You have. That's what Bill 38 is all about.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: What we're providing is legislation which provides a framework and provides an ability on the part of employers and employees to come together and to reach conclusions. There's no one single answer with respect to what we're putting forward. If you say that it could be all of the above, I would say to the honourable member that the mix of options that are chosen and negotiated is precisely the one that your own leader, three or four days ago, was standing in her place and saying, "Give to the local municipalities the power to reach agreements that they can reach." Then we say, "That's exactly what we're going to do," and you turn around and say, "You mustn't do it."

The Liberal Party can't have it both ways. You have to deal with and recognize the problem. If you agree with the need to save $2 billion, if you're going to go around and say to business, "Yes, we're championing your cause," if you're going to turn around and say to labour, "Yes, we're championing your cause," make up your minds. Get off the fence and tell us where you stand on this question of expenditure reduction, because you're not even in the ballpark.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'm informed that he was to be here. He is not yet here. Is he coming? If he is, I will stand down my question to the minister.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The door just opened. He may be on his way if you're lucky. The door just opened and he has arrived.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Mississauga North has the floor. He may wish to place his question now.

Mr Offer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That got the Minister of Environment and Energy out. I'm wondering how many are back there right now.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy and it concerns your lagging commitment to improving air quality, especially in the area of low-smog gasoline.

You will know that nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are the major precursors to smog pollution. Approximately half of the nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds present in the atmosphere today are emitted by automobiles.

Pollution Probe has indicated that Toronto is not only the smog capital of Canada; it has an air quality that is worse than some major cities in the United States, including Chicago, Atlanta and Boston. As you know, summer has traditionally been the worst season for smog pollution in this province, and this year residents can expect it to be no different.

What are you and your government doing to prevent smog pollution which is being emitted largely by automobiles in this province?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I want to apologize to the House. I was dealing with a matter related to a first nation. It came up as an emergency; otherwise I would have been here.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Oh, my, what a busy minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: It was an important matter.

The member raises a very important issue with regard to ground level ozone. There is no question that the automobile is the main contributor to NO x and this is a problem, particularly in the summer months. We are currently working on regulations that will be coming forward in due time. I would say to the member that I appreciate his question and I would certainly look forward to giving him further information on the supplementary.

Mr Offer: I would hope that the minister would have been quite well aware of this very important problem, especially as it affects health. I think you should be aware, from your previous response, that the only conclusion one can draw through watching these parliamentary proceedings is that your government is doing nothing.

I think we have to recognize that the human health effect of ground-level ozone is an increase in breathing disorders such as coughing, wheezing, decreased lung function and increased mortality rates. According to the Lung Association and Pollution Probe, the most at risk are people with chronic heart and respiratory disease, the very young, the very old and also people who exercise vigorously when ground-level ozone is high.

I would like to remind you that when we were in government we took action. The member for St Catharines, when Minister of the Environment, took action to reduce smog emissions from automobiles as a first step within our overall strategy to improve air quality throughout the province.

Since you have been in government you have done nothing while other jurisdictions such as British Columbia, the northeastern United States, such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other states such as California, all have enacted stricter regulations than are now in existence in this province.

We need action. Will you give a commitment today that you will immediately pass a regulation requiring further restrictions on low-smog gasoline as part of a larger strategy to improve air quality in this province and for its citizens?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's question and I would reiterate that we are indeed working on a regulation. I'm sure that he and his party would not want us to immediately pass a regulation without proper consultation. That would be most inappropriate. Obviously, we need to consult with Pollution Probe and other environmental groups as well as members of the fuel industry and the automobile industry and municipalities, to ensure that we have a regulation which is appropriate.

I think it's unfair of the member to suggest that this government has done nothing when one recognizes the tremendous commitment this government has made to urban transit, which is designed to get people out of the automobile and into urban transit as a way of dealing with our environmental difficulties.

Mr Offer: The minister indicates that they do not want to rush into a regulation. For three years, this government has done nothing. They put a new definition to the meaning of "rush." I would like to remind the minister that in 1991 your predecessor signed a national agreement with every provincial minister of the environment and the federal government as well. That agreement committed your government, two years ago, to implementing a plan to reduce smog pollution in this province of Ontario and with other ministers throughout the country of Canada.

Your government has done nothing. In your inaction in implementing the provision of this initiative you have, I believe, breached this agreement. I believe you have to explain to the members of this Legislature and to the people in this province why you have breached a plan signed in 1991, a plan which would have committed your government to action in this very important area.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member should know that this government will live up to its commitments.

The Speaker: New question, third party. The member for Carleton? Is there anyone from the third party who wishes to place a question? The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to say I think we're okay to go now. The leader's ready for his question.

The Speaker: Very helpful.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): That was one of the more appropriate points of order I've heard in a long time. Some of them really aren't points of order at all.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. As early as tomorrow, we may be proceeding with the next stage of the social contract legislation in committee. In that regard, Premier, this morning I shared with you some of our draft amendments in the hope that changes to Bill 48 will address the principles that we want to see met.

My caucus believes that restraint legislation in its final form must permanently and structurally reduce the size and cost of government, not just be a quick fix. Your caucus, I know, had some time this morning to discuss the intent of those amendments and your amendments. Indeed the board of trade has put forward identical amendments to ours in a very responsible, constructive way to make Bill 48 workable. I commend them for that too.

Can you tell me the thinking of yourself and your caucus with regard to those amendments and, secondly, do you agree that with whatever language we end up, whatever amendments and whatever language, the goal is at the end of the control period there will be no snapback provisions, no ballooning provisions, no contingent liability on any of the employers across the province? Would you agree with that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, let me say to the honourable member that I appreciated getting a copy of the discussions, the proposed amendments, and I gather from the covering letter that there may in fact still be others that will be forthcoming. I don't know, but there was that indication. I would say that we take those amendments very seriously.

With respect to what's being suggested --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, Mr Speaker, the noise level is so high, I think I'll have to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say that we are looking seriously at the amendments and obviously dealing with the precise wording of them. I would also say to the member that obviously one of the objectives that has been set out in the government's whole approach to this is that, as a result of what takes place over the three-year period, there will be a reduction in the size of government. That's, I think, very much what is in the cards in terms of the overall size of the public sector.

Some parts of the public sector will grow. One doesn't want to say that no parts of it will ever be allowed to grow, but overall there's a need for greater rationalization, there's a need for a significant adjustment in the size of the public sector. That's one of the reasons we're bringing in the legislation, because we genuinely believe that it requires either a negotiated social contract or negotiations within the context of legislation, which is where we are now, in order to deal with this very --

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

Mr Harris: Premier, I think you would know that we agree with the intent of downsizing permanently the size and cost of government, as does the board of trade, which I met with today, and everybody we've talked to. The principle is really not in question, except for a few people who seem to have a vested interest other than the good of the province.

But in the covering letter today, which accompanied draft amendments, I indicated as well that we were prepared to look at another amendment for which we didn't have the legal amendment language, but I'd like to share this with you today. This amendment would reduce wages by 5% across the board on the next anniversary date of a contract and it would continue for three years.

However, we would encourage with this amendment the social contract talks to carry on for the three-year period, as they're doing with the joint management committee of the medical social contract agreement that was negotiated last year, and that any savings that can be negotiated and achieved in wage costs in the three-year control period could then be redistributed as raises back to individual employees.

This would encourage social contract partners to work cooperatively through the three-year control period to find new and creative and efficient ways that we all want of delivering services. It would allow for gains through attrition over the three-year control period. It would respect the anniversary date of contracts and it would guarantee that it would permanently --

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

Mr Harris: -- downsize the cost to taxpayers by 5% of the wage component of the broad public sector.

Would you or your caucus or in discussions today be supportive of this kind of amendment that would avoid the panic of having to have the agreements finalized before the social contract talks come in but in fact would encourage and provide incentives for the talks to continue through the three years?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, without committing ourselves to any particular wording, the principle of wanting to maintain a very major level of negotiation and discussion between and among all the partners is going to be required. This is not something that, having started in earnest in April, in fact can simply be turned off.

The requirement that people discuss with each other on an ongoing basis the impact of the fiscal realities that surround the province is, I think, essential. We tried to do it through negotiation, without legislation. Now we have legislation which provides a framework and we think a very clear incentive for people to bargain. But we're looking very closely at whatever suggestions are coming forward. If there were any suggestions coming forward from that side, obviously we'd be looking at them as well.

Mr Harris: Respecting the anniversary date is, I believe, an important principle that has been respected by federal and provincial governments in the past when this type of legislation was needed. Secondly, having an across-the-board 5% cut kick in, then with negotiations there to take attrition and other things into account, would truly encourage employees, I believe, to find more efficient ways of permanently downsizing government.

But in conjunction with that, something else we think would be very important: When, two days from now, your budget proposal is to cut the transfer payments to our transfer partners by 5% of the wage component of all those transfer partners -- municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges, universities, all those receiving money -- even though the legislation will not be passed, even though the clear direction will not be there, the intent was to cut those transfer payments as of July 1.

In conjunction with our most recent amendment that we're releasing today, would you not agree with me that the 5% transfer cuts to our transfer partners ought also to kick in on the anniversary date of those contracts?

Hon Mr Rae: We are obviously looking at whatever approaches are being put forward by constructive individuals, and we'll continue to do that.

I would say to the honourable member, with respect to the government's decision to signal very clearly this is the fiscal reality and we all have to adjust to it, that we in a sense allowed the negotiations initially to proceed without taking that step. When the public sector coalition walked out of the talks and tore up the social contract proposal without putting forward an alternative, we at that point decided that we have to send signals through the financial transfers that would create a more realistic climate.

The fact of the matter is that we are determined not to exceed the budgetary requirements that we have. We have made serious commitments to the taxpayers of the province with regard to what will happen in terms of the budget and we have to live up to those requirements. Therefore, we have to meet the fiscal climate that's there, have to reach whatever agreements within that climate. So we intend to proceed with the cuts in transfers on July 1.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, you ducked a question on your government's plan to drive the private sector out of community-based services for long-term care, but it's a question for which you personally owe us, the Legislature, the people of this province, particularly those who will be receiving services and those delivering them, an answer.

We have legislation before us which is intended to cut the wage bill of government, yet your plans for long-term care will add thousands of people and millions of dollars to that same government payroll with this attitude that only government employees can provide services.

This just doesn't make any sense -- on the one hand to be talking about downsizing the cost of government, looking for new, creative, entrepreneurial, efficient ways to deliver services -- for you to be proceeding that way. It makes no sense at all. At a time when we should be looking to the private sector to help provide additional services, why would you deliberately set about with a policy to close down those services that already exist and are being delivered by the private sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The minister has, I think, indicated clearly to the House yesterday and for purposes of, if you like, making it clear from my perspective -- and I've had a long-term interest in this issue. In fact the first speech I gave in the Legislature as leader of the third party, standing in the place of the leader of the third party, had to do with what was going on in Ontario's nursing home system.

I would say to the honourable member, I think to some extent he is misconstructing the government's proposal. What we're saying is that as there is going to be a major expansion into community care and into care that will be provided in the community, the government's preference --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You are trying to put them out of business. You are going to cut services and raise costs.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: We are the government and we are, I think, entitled to state this, just as other governments have done with respect to services: From the point of view of public policy, our preference is to see that services are provided on a non-profit basis by non-profit agencies.

The only area where I would disagree with the honourable member is, for example, when he says people have to work for the government. No, that's not the case. If you work for the Red Cross, you don't work for the government. There are a number of agencies which are capable of providing a service on a non-profit basis. Frankly, we feel that's a more efficient way to proceed, and it ensures and guarantees that the level of services will in fact -- in terms of the expansion of services, in terms of new services.

Mrs Caplan: Higher costs, less services. Every study in the ministry says it is higher cost.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say, Mr Speaker --

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

Hon Mr Rae: I'm being heckled again by the former Minister of Health. When the member for Oriole was the Minister of Health, it was her government that said the expansion in the nursing home sector would take place in the non-profit sector and not in the for- profit sector. So I would say to the honourable member, you practise one thing when you're in government, and as soon as you revert to the opposition, you decide to attack, attack, attack. It's not good enough.

Mr Harris: The Premier is quite right. He is carrying on a policy the Liberals started. We objected to it then, we objected to it when the member for Oriole brought those policies in, and we object to it now.

Almost all the affected workers, the thousands who stand to lose their jobs because of your plans, are women. The industry estimates some 10,000 jobs could be lost. The minister disputes this, but we'd be interested in knowing what studies you have as to how many jobs will be lost or how much money it will save.

If you, as the former government before you, the Liberals, think the non- profit sector is better, more efficient, why are you not prepared to let it compete with the private sector? Why not have them bid on the jobs? Why not let the non- profit sector of course exist and of course be there, but force it to compete and tender and bid to provide these services with the private sector? Why won't you do that?

Applause.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I would say to the honourable member, he talks about which government did what. It was your government, the one that lasted for 42 years, that said the hospitals in the province of Ontario would operate on a non-profit basis. You're the ones who phased out private-profit hospitals. You're the ones who said private-profit hospitals will not be allowed to operate in the province and it will be operated on a non-profit basis.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): We had a balance.

Hon Mr Rae: That was your government that did that. It wasn't a social democratic government. It wasn't a Liberal government. It was a Conservative government that did it.

Why did they do it? Because they decided it was a better way to ensure accountability and it was a better way to ensure that services were being delivered directly to people. It was on that basis that it was decided, rather than see an expansion of the commercial sector. You're the ones who understood that when you were in office. Now that you're in opposition, you'll take up --

Mr Jim Wilson: Read our policy. It was a balance. You know it was a balance. What a bogus argument.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Simcoe West.

Hon Mr Rae: Any grievance, any cause, as long as it gets you a headline and as long as it gets you applause in the Legislature. It's not good enough.

When you were in government, those are exactly the steps you took to deal with it. You didn't expand the hospitals on a for-profit basis. You didn't expand education in the 19th century on a for-profit basis, but we expanded into public education. Every time we've taken a major decision in this province to expand public services, we've done it on a non-profit basis, whether the Liberals did it or the Tories did it or the New Democrats did it.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It's not a matter of ideology; it's a matter of common sense and public service. That's the basis upon which we've made our decision.

Mr Harris: I think if the Premier will reflect on the education system, on home care, on long-term care, on nursing homes, our government encouraged, supported and allowed the private sector to go out there and compete with the public sector, and that's what we're asking you to do today.

Let's face it, your government is charging ahead with this ideologically driven plan without any idea of its impact. You continue to follow the Liberal lead in long-term care for one reason and one reason only. It's the same reason you continue the Liberal housing policies that don't help those who truly need help, yet cost the taxpayer untold extra hundreds of millions of dollars. It's the same reason you're driving the private sector out of day care. That reason is Liberal-socialist ideology at any cost.

How can you on the one hand say you're going to cut the compensation costs of the public sector through Bill 48, and on the other hand continue to increase the size and cost of government with your long-term care plans?

Hon Mr Rae: I always appreciate these tirades from the leader of the third party. I haven't been called a socialist in a long time and I finally have been.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Rae: I knew I'd get someone to laugh.

I would say in all seriousness to the member that, again, I think we have to have a sense of the history of this province. How have we expanded major public services? You make the comparison with child care. I would say to you: Right on, you're right. When we expand child care in this province, we're going to expand it not as a kind of McMuffin approach to child care; we're going to expand it on the basis of a public service. That's the basis upon which we're going to expand it. That's the basis upon which we expanded public education in the 19th century. That's the basis upon which we expanded medicare in the 20th century.

We're not going to turn the public services of this province holus-bolus over to for-profit commercial operators. We're simply not going to do that. We're going to allow a place for the private sector. We're not ruling out a place for the private sector. All we're saying is that the priority, as far as this government is concerned, for expansion will be in the not-for-profit sector, in the charitable non-profit, voluntary non-profit, non-governmental non-profit, broader public sector. That's where we're putting our emphasis, and as New Democrats we're proud to be putting our emphasis there, very proud indeed.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the issue of jobs and the economy. We in the opposition, at least, continue to see an awful lot of pain out there. The unemployment rate -- and we're coming up on three years of your government -- according to your own numbers in the budget, approaches 14%. We see young people unemployed for long periods of time. I think all the members daily have calls from people who are desperate about the economy. We continue to see businesses closing. We see a continuation of pain, and frankly, a fair bit of pessimism out there.

On the other hand, I think you have a different view of it. I think your view is that the recession has ended and that the Ontario economy has turned the corner.

Could you explain to all of the people of Ontario how you have reached this determination that the recession is over and that the Ontario economy has turned the corner?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, I want to say that I guess the honourable member and I can probably agree on more than his question would permit. I don't think any one of us who has eyes and ears and who cares about this province, and that includes members on all sides of the House, not just New Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives, and people throughout the province -- we all realize, and I certainly realize, that there is a lot of pain out there.

I don't think anyone's denying that. I wouldn't deny that for a moment. I wouldn't deny that the recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, the major increase in unemployment that we've seen over the past number of years, and which is only just now beginning to recede, and not as strongly as I would like, has had a very tough effect, a very profound effect on the whole province. I'm not denying that for one instant and I'm not denying that the joblessness has got to be the major challenge facing this economy, facing this country and facing this province.

Indeed, I would argue it's facing not only our economy but the American economy, the European economy, everybody, us included, very directly.

I would say to the honourable member that the signs of recovery are, I think, there simply in terms of the number of things that are happening, the number of moves that are being made --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- the increases in investment and so on, the increases in exports, the increases in industrial and manufacturing and other activity. I would say that it's not as great or as strong as I would like. I'm not denying that for a moment. But I would say that if he's suggesting that somehow this government believes there's no pain or difficulty out there and everything is just hunky-dory, then I think he's got the wrong impression of my own views. I've never suggested that. I have suggested that there are signs of recovery --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and that we have to do everything we can to sustain that recovery. We've also been very candid in saying this recovery is going to take some time to have its full impact across the province.

Mr Phillips: The reason I sometimes, frankly, get angry with the Premier -- I am quoting you, Premier. These aren't my words; they're your words. You said, "The recession has ended and the Ontario economy has turned the corner." You based your budget on that, and in less than two days we're going to see taxes go up dramatically in the province. I realize you may stand up and rail, "Well, we've got to do it," but those taxes going up were based on your determination that the economy had turned the corner.

Now I hear from you today something a little different: weak signs of recovery; things may not be recovering as well as you would like. I quote your words, "The recession has ended." Those thousands of people out there without jobs listening to you don't believe the recession has ended, don't believe Ontario has turned the corner.

Have you now determined that the economy is not recovering as quickly as you thought in the budget, and are we still putting ourselves at substantial risk by a substantial increase in personal income tax in another two days that will take a substantial amount of money out of the economy? We all recognize the need to control the deficit, but that increase in taxes was based on a strong economic recovery. Are we putting at risk more downturn in the economy as a result of your proposals on the tax increases?

Hon Mr Rae: I honestly don't believe we are. Obviously, as a government, we would not be taking steps that we thought would have that effect.

I would say to the honourable member that I appreciate his advice and listen very carefully to his questions. He tells me that the Liberal Party of course accepts the need to get the deficit under control. Let me say that not only is the Liberal Party opposed to tax increases; they're opposed to the social contract and to the deficit reduction, and judging from their questions, they're opposed to the entire expenditure reduction plan.

I say to the honourable member, and I say with great respect, because I spent a lot of time talking to the business community and they're a little bewildered by where the Liberal Party really stands: You're opposed to expenditure reduction, you're opposed to tax increases and you're opposed to the social contract. You're opposed, opposed, opposed, and you also say you're opposed to the deficit. It doesn't add up. The numbers don't jibe.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was under the impression that in this House it is inappropriate to mislead the House. Is that not correct?

The Speaker: The member is correct, yes, of course. At this point I would not accuse anyone of doing that.

Mr Bradley: Then why does the Premier continue to make statements that are factually incorrect?

The Speaker: I knew that the member for St Catharines would not suggest that someone was misleading the House.

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, by indicating that you would not attend the briefing for our new Prime Minister of Canada to make sure that 40% of Canadians' views would be heard before she goes to the G-7 summit, I suggest to you that you sent a signal out, perhaps inadvertently, that partisan politics is more important than Ontario's interest and making sure that a newly elected Prime Minister who does not come from Ontario has the full benefit of the government and the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Are you prepared, as it will cost you nothing more than a few hours of your time and a flight to Vancouver, to reconsider and make sure that our new Prime Minister, regardless of political affiliation, has the benefit of understanding Ontario's very serious situation before she goes to the G-7 summit?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will not rise to the bait and will simply indicate that no, I'm not prepared to attend the meeting.

Mr Harris: As it appears as though at least seven premiers, and perhaps all, do wish to make sure that the new Prime Minister fully understands their provinces' concerns, and as I personally believe that Ontario is suffering through a very difficult period of time, I think before the Prime Minister goes to the G-7 summit she should in fact get the benefit of a full briefing of Ontario's concerns. As you won't go, will you send me?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think the legislative forum is any place where the member for Nipissing should expect to be paid back for his support of the government's social contract legislation.

The Speaker: The member knows he does not have a point of order. The Premier may wish to respond.

Hon Mr Rae: I must confess that the thought hadn't even occurred to me, and I appreciate the honourable member raising it. I would say to him very directly that I really do believe there are major federal-provincial issues that are going to have to be addressed that are substantive, that are deep and long-term and require a major investment of time and energy on the part of whatever government is elected in the next federal election.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Thursday of last week, I believe, the physicians in my community held a public meeting in order to bring people together to talk about some very real issues around the health care sector. Some of the things that were commented on at that particular meeting were somewhat disconcerting, to say the least, not only to some of the people who were there but generally for the public of Ontario.

One of the things that was asserted was that under the plan now in negotiation between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association, OHIP would limit the access to health care and the number of services to people.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I know health care may not be important to some of the members of the opposition, but it's certainly important for the people of northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Bisson: I'll repeat the question, Mr Speaker. There have been allegations made on the part of the Ontario Medical Association that if a child has an ear infection, they would only be able to access the doctor's office once per year. I want the Minister of Health to be able to clarify that particular position for not only the people of Cochrane South, but for the people of this province.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the allegations that have been made, regrettably, by the Ontario Medical Association in its advertising campaign. Let me say as categorically as I can that this government will never do anything that would limit medically necessary services in this province. I greatly regret the fact that fear is being caused in the minds of the constituents of the honourable member and of other people around this province, fear that I think has more to do with not the limitation of services but perhaps some limitations on the income of the people who deliver those services. I think it's completely unfounded.

Mr Bisson: The follow-up to that is one of the issues that was talked about there, a real issue with regard to the number of patients doctors have to deal with over a period. One of the ways the ministry is looking at dealing with that with the OMA is the question of a threshold on their incomes. I know the ministry has been working at trying to deal with the question of thresholds and recognizes the specific difference in northern Ontario: the number of patients doctors need to treat due to the very nature of having a limited number of doctors in northern Ontario. I wonder if the minister can clarify how the threshold would be applied to northern doctors in underserviced areas.

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member will know, that is part of the negotiations we are having with the Ontario Medical Association that are ongoing and that I hope will lead to some long-term and permanent resolutions of what has been a very long-standing problem: how to attract physicians to remoter parts of northern Ontario.

As the member will know, without thresholds and cash and travel incentives, there would be even fewer doctors in the remote parts of northern Ontario today than there were 10 years ago. In fact, I gather the ratio has increased so that the doctor-to-patient ratio is now, in northern Ontario, what it was in southern Ontario 10 years ago. At the same time, we are still having to fly in doctors from Israel, from South Africa, from Australia, because it is impossible to get locums to serve in northern Ontario.

I hope that in negotiations with the OMA we can come to a resolution of those issues, because I know the member's constituents, as well as all the residents of areas that are underserviced, hope that this would be the case.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You know and I know that crime among youth, especially young offenders, has risen severely, in some areas by as much as 50%. You know and I know that there's a desperate need for a secure-custody facility for young offenders in eastern Ontario.

A committed group of citizens in Ottawa-Carleton, including professionals, has been meeting over the last number of years. They have met every criterion of your ministry. In fact, they received complete approval for their project in 1991, a full two years ago.

To this date, no funds have flowed for the construction of this project. Why do you continue to refuse to meet with the board of directors of the William E. Hay Centre, and why do you continue to resist giving them any real reasons for your refusal to flow these long-awaited, much-needed funds?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have to say to the member that I'm not familiar with the particulars. I would be happy to look into it and report back, if need be. I wasn't aware that there had been a request for a meeting that had been turned down, and I'd be happy to look into that as well.

Mrs O'Neill: That answer's appalling. I've got copies of each of the letters that have been sent to the minister, and some of them are as old as three months. The most recent one is six weeks ago. He doesn't get his mail? I get mine. Then I'll have to tell you a little bit about this project.

There are young offenders waiting in Ottawa-Carleton. On a weekly basis, they're being transferred out of our community for stays as short as 15 days to facilities in Uxbridge and in Pickering, hundreds of miles from their families and from the professionals who care for them.

I remind you that we're talking about 12- to 15-yearolds being shunted around this province from eastern Ontario because this government -- and you yourself have just suggested that you don't get your mail, or you haven't got the political will to find out what's going on in eastern Ontario.

Your own ministry has determined that eastern Ontario is underserviced in secure custody and detention for young offenders. I ask you again, will you assure this House of your commitment to provincial funding for the youth of eastern Ontario in a project that has received all approvals; services that are needed and are crucial to the futures of our youth in eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I appreciate the importance of the issue and I do find it unfortunate that the member has chosen to categorize my first answer as being somehow uncaring about the issue. She would know that when she has brought issues to my attention, they certainly have been followed up.

I'm quite conscious of the fact that there is a problem with respect to the general issue of how we provide for facilities. This is not a problem that afflicts only eastern Ontario; there have been other instances in other parts of the province where we've managed to deal with the issue. I will be happy to look into the issue and hopefully be able to look at what resolution may be possible.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Since your government's decision to introduce photo radar, you have failed to offer any empirical evidence of the reduction of accidents in those administrations which already have these devices.

In a recent

article in the Toronto Star, which I'm sure you've read, it suggests that the principal reason for buying these pieces of equipment is revenue generation. I wonder if you could respond to that charge, or is this simply another tax grab?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): With respect to the member opposite, he has a tendency, when we're talking about safety measures, to confuse the issues. It's not a tax grab. Everyone knows that speed kills. It's a safety initiative. We're hoping to break even in terms of revenue; no more than that.

Simply put, and by way of conclusion to the preliminary question, photo radar is an enforcement mechanism for those who exceed the speed limit. It's no more than that and it's no less than that.

Mr Turnbull: I have to say the minister has failed to dispel the concerns that are felt on this side of the House. I would ask you then, would you commit today to dedicating the net proceeds, after the cost of the equipment, to the police force that is operating this and commit that it will not disappear into general revenue, so that those moneys can be used by the local police force for safety enforcement?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member goes from the obsessive to the pathological. This issue is a matter for the Treasurer to decide, whether the pool of money, if any, will go to the general fund. I hear the member loud and clear and I indeed sympathize with the proposal that it should be dedicated or that part of it be dedicated. I will simply pass the comments or suggestion along to the Minister of Finance.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. This government, as you know, has started out on a very aggressive agenda to put Ontario back to work. As part of that agenda, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade recently announced a new initiative to actually put Ontario back to work, which I am hoping will have some significant application for northern Ontario. I'm speaking of the community economic development or Jobs Ontario Community Action fund.

Your ministry has been named as leading this program in northern Ontario. Could you explain to me how you see this helping the north in these difficult times and how it is different from some of the important and helpful things we are doing now?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member.

First of all, how I think this initiative will help the north is in two ways. The member will know, and so will other members from northern Ontario, that there are some very dramatic changes occurring in the pulp and paper and mining sectors in northern Ontario. Many communities are trying to look at economic development in the broadest sense of the word, including tourism, culture, education, social services, health etc. The initiative is focused on promoting that look at economic development in the broadest sense and providing capital dollars to fund those kinds of projects, so it fits very well with the work that is starting to happen in northern communities now.

Secondly, there are a number of changes in legislation that I think are going to be very helpful to northern communities. First of all, we know that many entrepreneurs have good ideas but can't get money from the banks, and sometimes even government programs aren't flexible enough to allow them to fund those ideas, so legislation will be passed in this House that will allow loan corporations to be set up, to allow municipalities or communities of interest to loan money to small businesses to get those ideas off the ground.

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

Hon Miss Martel: A number of communities we know would have liked to have entered into joint ventures with businesses but were not permitted to do so under the Municipal Act. We're going to be changing that act to allow them to do that.

So I think it is different, because we now have capital money that will allow for projects in the broader sense of economic development and the legislative tools to allow communities to enter into ventures with other partners in the community.

Mr Martin: I'd also like to ask the minister, in light of a meeting I had last Friday in my own community in an attempt to try to explain these new and important initiatives, just how it will specifically apply to a place like, say, Sault Ste Marie.

Hon Miss Martel: Part of the aim of the program is to allow many more people to participate in economic development in our communities. Traditionally, economic development has been moved forward by municipal council, and in some cases there has not been a broad representation by many people in the community who have an interest in the community and how it moves forward. We are encouraging projects to come forward not only from municipalities but many other non-profit groups, aboriginal groups, minority groups etc who have an interest in moving their community forward.

The other aim was to coordinate some of the activities of government ministries for the first time. There are a number of ministries in northern and southern Ontario that provide funding for community economic development, but traditionally they have not worked very well together to coordinate those activities on behalf of the communities. In northern Ontario we have a regional team in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, one located in Timmins, the other located in Thunder Bay, and we will accept all of those projects from those groups. I would encourage people in Sault Ste Marie who have an interest and who have a proposal to submit those to the Timmins office.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a question to the Minister of Health. I have a draft of a confidential Ministry of Health policy proposal from the AIDS working group within your own ministry. As you know, this has been in existence for up to a year. A friend of mine was working on this, and unfortunately because of the delay in acting on this policy proposal he has died in the interim from AIDS. There's been a delay on this. The previous minister will know that that person locked himself to your door because of that delay.

As part of this policy proposal, there's a suggestion with respect to catastrophic illness funding for AIDS and HIV drugs, there's a recommendation related to that. Is the minister planning on proceeding with that, and if so, when?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me respond to what I think is the unfortunate

preamble to the member's question, because this province, under my predecessor the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has taken leadership across this country in not only the establishment of an AIDS bureau and an AIDS advisory committee but in fact putting in place education and prevention to try and deal with this disease, as well as programs in place to help those suffering from the disease.

The question of catastrophic drugs and payment for those drugs, as I'm sure the member well knows, is one that has been under discussion and one that is difficult and extremely expensive.

I'm glad to be able to tell the member that I have today released a discussion paper with respect to reform of the entire Ontario drug benefit program, which speaks to the difficult questions and decisions that have to be made, such as, if we are to expand eligibility for drugs for people such as those in need and who suffer from AIDS, how do we do that and at the same time contain the costs and make the program more equitable? I anticipate there will be some very serious public policy debate about that over the next two or three months.

Mr Murphy: I think it's unfortunate that we didn't get a ministerial statement with respect to that plan in the House. However, there are groups in my riding, like AIDS Action Now and others, that are concerned about this issue. Given that there's going to be some more time frame before there's actually action on this, I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to look at some other concerns that the community has.

For example, what is happening in some areas now is finance companies are purchasing the life insurance policies of people with HIV and AIDS at a discounted value in order to give them the money to pay for drugs now. I'm wondering if the Minister of Health would undertake to look into that issue to make sure that people living with HIV and AIDS aren't ripped off.

Hon Mrs Grier: I find it very distressing if that in fact is happening, and I would be happy to look into that and to talk to whichever of my colleagues in fact might be able to do something about that particular issue. But I would urge the member to engage in discussion with the community that he represents around Ontario drug benefit reform. I would say to him that they are proposals; they are not policy positions at this point, which was why there was no statement in the House with respect to that. I anticipate that we will be able to move forward on reform by the end of this year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: to correct the record. I know how important it is for members of this House not to mislead the public who are watching with information --

The Speaker: The member may correct her record. Go ahead.

Mrs Caplan: It was the policy of the Liberal government of which I was a member to support and foster a healthy, competitive environment between the public and private sector in the delivery of services. The Premier today --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for Oriole wishes to rise and correct her record, could she please indicate on what day the error occurred and what it is she wishes to correct.

Mrs Caplan: I'm rising today to correct the Premier's statement, which was inadvertently false.

The Speaker: The member can take her seat. The member knows full well that she can rise to correct her own record, not anyone else's.

Mrs Caplan: I know that the Premier would not want to mislead the House, so it's important that he knows the facts.

The Speaker: Petitions, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My friend the member for Oriole was just trying to help me with my petition. I agree with her that she was correcting an inadvertent error that was left on the record by the Premier.

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to accept the list of signatures on the attached documents and to reverse the decision to close CCAT and the veterinary services diagnostic lab located on Centralia's campus."

This is signed by three people from the riding of Bruce: Norie Campbell, Janet Chisholm and Shelley MacKay. They have attached to their petition a list of literally hundreds who form part of a single petition with over 4,880 names on it.

I endorse this petition and attach my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan, the social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario, will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from many hardworking members of my constituency, people like Stella Arthur, Suzanne Schembri, Bing Wong and Jim Reid, who petition our assembly:

"Whereas we feel the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing a loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel the proposed North American free trade arrangement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in a loss of not only more jobs but also in a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour standards, workers' rights, social rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

I affix my name thereto.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Parliament of Ontario would make it mandatory for every cyclist to wear a helmet when riding on a public road; and

"Whereas the imposition of this proposed helmet law would create a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Parliament of Ontario to reject this proposed helmet bylaw."

That's signed by over 200 residents of eastern Ontario.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's signed by 214 signatures from Norwich, Delhi, Ingersoll, North Bay, Powassan, Sturgeon Falls, Brockville, Fort Frances, Devlin, Tillsonburg and Kitchener, and I've signed by name to it.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition signed by 1,069 people in my riding of Durham East, and they say as follows:

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the facility utilized by St Stephen's Secondary School in Bowmanville is leased, and we request a capital grant to build a new permanent facility there."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from approximately 30 seniors from Bewdley, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned members of the Bewdley Senior Citizens' Club, would like to add our voices in opposition to reductions in health care services through the reform of the Ontario drug benefit program. We feel that the present government pensions for our seniors are not adequate to cover any changes, such as user fees, that would increase the financial burden of seniors of this province."

I have signed the petition.

ABORTION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, protest your government's endorsement of the recommendations of the task group of abortion service providers and the Minister of Health's intention to implement them."

There are hundreds of names on this petition, and I'm happy to write my signature to support it.

GAMBLING

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition sent to me from the Watford-Warwick pastoral charge by the Reverend Aylmer Smith to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. There are about six whereases here that everybody has heard before. I won't bore them with any more:

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

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

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by several hundred persons from my riding, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here from Waterloo North Presbyterian Church, as well as All Saints Anglican Church, with whom they share their facilities. It comes from the minister, John Young. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support my constituents in Waterloo, and I hereto sign my signature.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from St George's Anglican Church in Barrie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principles of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work, and will reduce, rather than improve the prosperity of our province. The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually. We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by myself and 71 residents of the Norfolk area of the province.

BEER AND WINE TAX

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Mr Rae, get out of my pocket. I mow my own lawn, paint my own house and make my own beer. I don't want your proposed tax on brewing my own beer, which is my right. I support small businesses in my community and they in turn provide jobs. Stop patronizing big business lobbies at my expense. Mr Rae, stop the imposition of the tax on brew-your-own outlets."

This petition is signed by over 100 signatures, and I am happy to lend my support to it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by approximately 1,800 people in my riding. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"We, the undersigned, request that Ridgetown and the surrounding district be recognized as an area of the province which has a shortage of family physicians. Specifically, we require exemption from the following aspects of the Ministry of Health expenditure control plan:

"The plan to withdraw older physicians from practice. This could result in a loss of three of the four doctors in our community who service over 10,000 people.

"The plan to reduce fees for new physicians by 75% for the first five years of practice. This will force the two doctors who are planning to start practising in our community in 1994 to leave the province.

"The plan to reduce payments to general practitioners who provide services above a certain threshold. This restriction would discourage the only physician who would be left in our community if the above aspects of the expenditure control plan are imposed on our community."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): A petition to the Legislative Assembly:

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have attached my signature along with some 15,600 others. I can advise that we thought that this matter was progressing relatively well until we discovered that the New Democratic Party is now asking Ontario Hydro to find another $100 million in its restructuring program, which I expect will negatively affect the Bruce A units. I continue this series of petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction of the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is a concern in Bruce county and neighbouring communities that the Rae government will refuse to do rehabilitation and general maintenance work required to keep Bruce A functioning efficiently; and

"Whereas a detailed technical report prepared by informed and objective people has already shown that the maintenance and rehabilitation work is not only cost-effective but profit-generating; and

"Whereas there is concern in Bruce county and neighbouring areas that Bob Rae will circumvent that study by using non-objective people to restudy the cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation and maintenance expenditures,

"Therefore, the undersigned request that the Legislature accept the list of signatures on the attached document addressed to Bob Rae and require the Premier to respond directly to them indicating that he will guarantee a fair assessment of Bruce A maintenance and rehabilitation plans."

This is signed by a citizen of Toronto, and I attach my signature in support. As I've said, these petitions are more necessary than ever since the NDP government is now forcing Ontario Hydro to find another $100 million under the social contract when the workers and the employer have already been working very diligently to do some restructuring, to cut costs and meet a target which all want to achieve in terms of ratepayers' costs of Hydro.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

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

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief comments, Mr Sorbara?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Yes, just very briefly. When this act passes, it will put to an end the century-old practice of allowing the Premier of the province to determine the timing of a by-election. When it passes, it will provide that 70 days after the death or resignation of a member, a by-election is to be held in the riding of that member.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr46,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): The 1993 Ontario Loan Act will provide the government with authority to borrow up to $16 billion over the 18-month period ending December 31, 1994. The amount of the Ontario Loan Act is calculated as the sum of the financing requirements for this fiscal year plus the financing requirements for the first nine months of the next fiscal year.

It is traditional to request authority to meet the borrowing needs for part of the following fiscal year to allow adequate time for the passage of subsequent loan acts, thus ensuring an orderly borrowing program. This year's borrowing program will include bonds, treasury bills, US commercial paper and medium-term notes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions and comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): How much did the province borrow last year, inasmuch as you're coming forward with this bill to give the province the right to borrow $16 billion? How much did the government borrow last year and the year before? Just give us the years since Mr Rae and the NDP came to power.

It's so easy these days for people to come in with bills that are going to give the government the right to borrow, and $16 billion is more money than the honourable member and I will make in our lifetimes, so I'd be interested in knowing just how much.

Maybe, as well, if you could answer the question, how much interest we will end up paying on that $16 billion before it's totally paid off. That is again a second question that every one of us should be thinking of. If you have a mortgage for $100,000 over a 20-year period, you're going to end up paying well over $200,000. So I'd be interested in knowing just how many billions of interest we will be paying on the money that you're bringing before this House.

We have to become all the more accountable, every one of us, on this kind of data, and as one who would like to speak on it further when we have an opportunity, the answer to those two questions would really please me: How much did we seek to borrow last year and the year before and how much interest is it we're going to be paying on this amount of money?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I recall, as we do regularly, having to do the Ontario Loan Act and go through various machinations trying to get information from the government with respect to its plans for the money. Each time that I've been here with the New Democratic Party, leading the charge on the budget, it has failed to meet its targets at almost every level.

I think I would, if I were able to move an amendment to this act, like to require the government to put out a line-by-line explanation of where each of the dollars that is being authorized to be borrowed under this act would be applied, and in fact, if it deviated one iota from that expenditure plan, that it would have to come back to this Parliament to get the approval of the people to the deviation from the expenditure plan.

I understand that for the government to accept an amendment from the opposition, on a budget bill in particular, would be tantamount to admitting a lack of confidence and in fact that would not very well fit in with our traditional way of doing business.

I think the people of the province expect that we will have to borrow money just because of the nature of our business here, but it seems more and more my constituents would like some say or at least some review of all the dollars that are being borrowed and would like to put on what would be described in government circles as executive control, if I can describe it as that. But the executive control would reside on that borrowed money with the people, the taxpayers.

I understand that there is a budgetary plan and all that sort of stuff, but when you come in with the loan act, it would be so wonderful if you would say: "This $100 million is to go to social services, this $100 million to capital projects and we're going to stick to that. If there's a deviation, we can come back." Would you entertain that as a plan, Mr Parliamentary Assistant?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The parliamentary assistant to the junior minister of Health, I suppose, is the one introducing this $16-billion borrowing loan.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Finance.

Mr Stockwell: Finance, I'm sorry.

Yes, it's a significant amount of money. The insufficient information is truly mind-boggling when you talk about $16 billion and it can be parcelled off on a two-page report.

The things that you should be supplying the public out there -- some interesting facts that I think the public would like to know. For instance, you're acquiring $16 billion in new dollars. How much debt are you retiring? That's a scary figure, I think. I think you should respond with that kind of number, because it seems to me the $16 billion we're acquiring and what we're retiring are completely different figures. We're talking about retiring -- I'm not sure how much -- $1 billion maybe, somewhere in that. Maybe you can check it out. We're retiring $1 billion in debt and acquiring $16 billion. That's got to raise some red flags around town.

When you look at the direct debt by current fiscal year-end, it's projected to be $78.6 billion. Look at it this way, he just pops up to spend $16 billion in new dollars. Think of it. Over the past decade Ontario's debt levels have increased by 161.7%. Imagine that, a 161.7% increase in debt in the last decade.

The per capita has increased by 126.3%. Now we just pop up and they're going to borrow another $16 billion. It's frightening, the kind of money they're talking about here. All the while, the 161% increase in debt -- per capita, personal income has gone up by 53.3%. So we have borrowed at three times the rate people's per capita incomes have gone up.

The real question I'd like to get out to the public out there is: You're borrowing $16 billion new dollars. How much old debt are you retiring so you can acquire the $16 billion? That, my friend, is a frightening statistic.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I've listened to the three rebuttals now and all three of them had this grand opportunity to suggest an alternative. It's worth noting on the record that they failed to seize the moment and suggest that alternative.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford, you have two minutes.

Mr Sutherland: In response to the question from the member for Markham, during the 1992-93 year, $15 billion was borrowed. In response to the question from the member for Bruce, he wanted line by line, and the member for Bruce is well acquainted with the estimates process and the estimates give line-by-line awareness of where the money is planned on being spent.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I suggest that we give extended time so the honourable parliamentary assistant can answer all the questions that have been asked.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I only ask unanimous consent -- he forgot to answer my question -- to allow him to answer.

The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent? No. Further debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin the debate on what's called --

Mr Cousens: I'm surprised you're pleased.

Mr Phillips: I'm perhaps not pleased to be debating the issue, but I'm pleased to be debating some of the concerns that we have.

For all members, Bill 25 is the bill that authorizes the government to borrow $16 billion, obviously an enormous amount of money. I wanted to spend some time on the bill because I think Canadians are becoming growingly aware of the problems of debt. I think, increasingly, by the way, that we as a country now are looking at our debt in total. One of the mistakes we've made in the past is that because we're a federal system -- we've got a federal government that has debt and a provincial government that has debt -- we haven't added the two together very carefully.

The international community, of course, now does that and is acutely aware of the debts of the provinces, and as a matter of fact, in many respects is focusing as much or more on provincial debt as it used to on federal debt. By not managing this issue, we're costing ourselves an awful lot of money.

Just as one small example of that, in addition to all the money we spend on the interest on the debt, the province of Ontario has recently lost its AAA credit rating. For many out there that may not seem all that important, but when you lose your AAA credit rating, for each time you lose, if you will, a mark on the rating, it costs about $2.5 million a year in extra interest costs on every $1 billion you borrow.

For all of us who are trying to find ways to economize, having lost our AAA rating, and we now are down to what's called essentially an AA rating -- we could have been AA-plus, AA or AA-minus; we're about in the middle of AA -- that is costing us, for each $1 billion we borrow, around $3 million a year in extra interest costs. You can see that the government plans to borrow $16 billion here. With that one act alone, lost our AAA credit rating, the taxpayers of Ontario are going to be asked to pay almost $50 million a year in extra interest costs just because we lost our AAA rating.

I many people in the province are now aware that this government, the Bob Rae government, is, I think, on the edge of losing the AA rating. That would be extremely significant because if we move from AA to A rating, not only do our interest costs go up, not only do people charge us more interest to loan us money, but we cut ourselves off from a whole range of sources of funds. There are many pension funds and many funds out there that simply will not loan money to an organization that has less than a AA rating.

While we'll get into many other areas on this bill, the government is teetering on the edge with our bond rating agencies. There are four major bond rating agencies. They all have Ontario under a microscope. That's why, in our opinion, Premier Rae had a major change of heart, almost, in March.

I remember, for example, that the Finance minister came to our finance and economics committee meeting in late February and said: "We've been working for months" -- at least two months -- "on this presentation. Here are all the numbers for the finance and economics committee." This was in something we call pre-budget hearings. "Here's what we think the deficit will be." It was around $13.5 billion or $14 billion. "Everything seems to be on track for what we thought was going to happen. We have to make some additional reductions in our expenditures."

That was in late February. Then a month later the Premier announced a completely different set of numbers. I think he went to the caucus and said: "The sky is falling. It's now going to be a $17-billion deficit." Those who were on the finance and economics committee will remember it was only four weeks earlier that the Finance minister came and told us he'd done all the number tumbling and the deficit was going to be somewhere around $14 billion.

The point I'm making is that nothing happened between the time the Finance minister came to our finance and economics committee and the time Premier Rae had the big announcement at the end of March, other than, I suspect, the rating agencies said to the government, "You're in trouble." We've been telling the government it's in trouble. The third party's been telling it it's in trouble. I think the rating agencies said, "You're in trouble." They didn't tell you what to do. They simply said, "Unless you do these things, you will lose your AA rating."

At least for someone outside looking at it, we began this exercise the Premier has been on now for the last four to five months of, I think, quite a disorganized process of trying to manage the province's finances. I happen to think the $17-billion number came out of thin air. It couldn't go up by $3 billion in four weeks. The Premier engages sometimes in being Premier and sometimes in being in collective bargaining. I think he got into the collective bargaining mode and said: "There's going to be a $17-billion deficit. The sky is going to fall. The caucus better get in line, and then all the rest of the province had better get in line."

I believe that came as a result of the rating agencies telling the government that unless it got its financial house in order, we would be down from a AA rating to an A rating. That would be serious for a variety of reasons. Increasingly, as I think most members of the House know, we borrow money outside Canada. I believe the two largest borrowings, bond issues, in the world, outside of sovereign borrowings, outside of countries borrowing, last year were done by Bob Rae's government. There was no other larger borrowing -- two of them -- than by Premier Rae.

Incidentally, the two lead groups that did them were both New York-based firms. Perhaps that had to be. I was, frankly, disappointed that they weren't led by Ontario-based firms for this reason: I happen to think that we have, to use the term, a world-class financial community in Ontario. That is one of our competitive edges. I'm a big believer, and I think most of us understand that if we're going to compete in the years ahead, we have to have "world-class" industries located here in Ontario that can compete with anyone around the world.

What did the government do? The two largest bond issues in the world last year were both done for the Ontario taxpayers, but the government chose two non-Ontario companies to lead those issues. They were very good companies; there's no doubt about that. They, by all accounts, did a very good job. I was somewhat disappointed to see that we weren't able to allow a couple of our Ontario-based firms to do that.

In any event, the bill that we're dealing with here is giving authorization to borrow another $16 billion. As I said earlier, we are on the edge of the bond rating agencies taking our rating down, and if it goes down a little bit more, we have some significant problems.

Managing the debt: As I say, I think we now, all of us in Canada, are beginning to internalize and are beginning to understand why it's important, and are increasingly realizing that the debt isn't an abstract thing, that the debt isn't something that somebody else is going to pay, that the debt is something that we're going to pay.

Just so all of us understand, one way I look at debt is that there are, say, about five million people who work in the province of Ontario, and I don't mean that they have the only responsibility for the debt, but they tend to carry a larger share. If you were to divide the debt among those five million people, those five million people owe the federal government $35,000 each in debt and they now owe the provincial government $15,000 in provincial debt. That's $50,000, and that's not abstract because, whether people out there have fully understood this or not, they have to pay about $5,000 a year just to pay the interest on that.

We can see at the federal level, at the national level, what that's done. What we now find is that for every dollar of taxes we pay, 34 cents of it goes just to pay the interest on the federal debt. We have an enormous problem on our hands because we essentially are getting no services for that, but we're spending 34 cents of every tax dollar.

It used to be, only four years ago in Ontario, that less than 10 cents of every dollar was spent paying the interest on our debt. It now, as I recall in the latest budget by the government, has gone to 16 cents. In 1990-91, 8.8 cents of every dollar we paid in taxes went to pay the interest on the debt. It has literally doubled in the last four years, to 16 cents.

By all accounts, we can see now that the Bob Rae government has doubled the debt in three years. When he came into power, the debt in this province, after 122 or 123 years, was at about $40 billion. We now see that at the end of this year, the debt in the province will have gone to $78 billion, if I'm not mistaken. That's right: $78.6 billion, virtually doubled after three NDP budgets, and the amount of money we now have to spend just to pay the interest on it has gone, as I said before, from about nine cents of every dollar we raise to 16 cents, and we're teetering on it getting out of control.

That's why the bond-rating agencies have increasingly focused on Canada and, taking into account aggregating, adding the two together, indicated that, "Unless Ontario gets its financial house in order, you're going to lose the rating."

So the bill we're debating today, while it's only really one page, is important, because it allows the people of Ontario to understand and focus on the debt/deficit problem that the Bob Rae government has gotten us into.

How did we get here? How did we arrive at this problem? I think people out there are astute enough and smart enough to understand that you can't blame one individual or one government or one circumstance for all of the problems we're in. There is no one reason.

For all of us who understand and watch global events, we see other countries. Europe's struggling right now in many respects, Japan's gone through a bit of a tough patch, and I'm sorry to see that the gross domestic product in the US looks like it's slowed down a little bit in the past few weeks, which incidentally is a problem for us, because as we all know, the Ontario economy depends heavily on a successful US economy and if that slows down we're in trouble; 85% of our exports go to the US. I think everyone right now believes that the reason the Ontario economy is ticking along and showing some modest growth is because of exports. All of our home consumption is very weak.

In any event, how did we get where we are now? World events have contributed to it; there's no doubt about that. The free trade agreement: It's always interesting here in the Legislature, for those people who watch it, that if someone asks Premier Rae why the economy isn't going any better, it's, "The free trade agreement's really devastated us."

I think it is fair to say that if there were a way to implement the free trade agreement poorly, Canada found the way to do that. Whether you agree or disagree with the free trade agreement, I don't think there's any doubt that it has been badly implemented, and to whatever extent we could have taken real economic advantage of it, we handcuffed our manufacturing sector during its introduction.

If you remember, I believe when the free trade agreement was just being introduced the Canadian dollar was at 76 or 77 cents and then went up to 88 cents. That's like taking the price of goods up for our manufacturing sector by 12% or 13%. Just when they're trying to move into the US and compete, the Canadian dollar goes up that much and we handcuff ourselves. That also was the time when interest rates went up very substantially, and went up substantially vis-à-vis the US, and we put another handcuff on our manufacturing sector, plus we'd been through a period of some political instability.

So regardless of one's view on the free trade agreement, I think there is general agreement that the way it was implemented was bad.

I also happen to think that something we haven't as a Legislature really looked at thoroughly enough, and I think it will become increasingly clearer, is that the underground economy, if I can use that term, the non-traditional economy, is far larger now than it was a few years ago and may grow even more. Examples of that we've all got, but the smuggling that goes on in the tobacco and liquor business is substantial.

When I talk about the Rae government doubling the debt and getting us into a very serious fiscal problem, I wanted to point out the other things that really it had relatively little to do with. At the same time, I think it's important to point some things out.

When Bob Rae took over as Premier, Ontario had just had its first balanced budget in 20 years. That's not widely known. It's something the Conservatives don't like us to remind people of; they get angry when we tell people that the Conservatives, for the last 15 years they were in, never balanced the budget and always ran substantial deficits. I know they'd like to portray Premier Davis and the Treasurer then, Mr McKeough, as the great financial managers. The fact is that for the final 15 years of Conservative government here in Ontario, ending in 1985, there were 15 straight years of deficits.

Because one can get into partisan

interpretations of this. I think the people of Ontario really need to simply look at the Provincial Auditor's report. The Provincial Auditor, for anyone who doesn't know, is an independent body that looks at the province's finances and gives the people of Ontario an independent view on the finances of the province. They examine the books and ensure that the government of the day is properly keeping the books and properly reporting them. It's a very worthwhile function.

The Provincial Auditor did two things, among others, in his 1991 report. This was the report that was prepared after the Rae government came in and reported on what we call the 1990-91 fiscal year. What the Provincial Auditor said was, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years." That was the year ended March 31, 1990. If you remember, as I well remember, the Liberal government was defeated in September 1990, so a surplus, documented by the Provincial Auditor, as of March 31, 1990.

I notice the Minister of Natural Resources looking incredulous. I'm not sure that their caucus or their cabinet perhaps is aware of all these things: One surplus in 20 years, the year ended March 31, 1990. Then the Rae government came in, about five months later, at the beginning of September. As I say, there was a surplus when the Rae government came in.

I have to acknowledge that the budget that was prepared and presented in April 1990 by Bob Nixon, Treasurer Nixon, called for another surplus. That 1990-91 budget said there would be a second consecutive surplus. That's the one that ended up with the $3-billion deficit. I know the Premier loves to trot that one out: "You were going to have a surplus and you ended up with a deficit. You misled the people." That's the implication of it.

I want to say a few things about that, because it's important to make sure the record is clear. Again, the Provincial Auditor looked at that. How could it be that we had a surplus one year, that Treasurer Nixon predicted a surplus, and then at the end of the year, it ended up in a $3-billion deficit? Hadn't the Liberals misled the public? Here's what the Provincial Auditor said about how it went from a surplus to a $3-billion deficit.

He said, "The major factors contributing to this variance were" -- he's talking about the fact that a surplus was predicted, then the deficit ended up being $3 billion -- "the extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget," and I think it's understandable that it wasn't foreseen. "Total revenues were down by approximately $1.1 billion due primarily to the influence of the recession on taxation revenues." That's about 2% of the revenue. The Provincial Auditor said that when the budget was prepared, the extent of the recession was not foreseen, so it's not unusual to see a revenue drop of that magnitude.

Secondly, "Expenditures were up by approximately $1 billion, with the increase in social assistance payments the major contributing factor." Again, I think a fairminded person would say, "When you get into that sort of recession for that length of time, it's not unusual that social assistance costs go up," and they did.

The third reason for the $3-billion deficit was that the Bob Rae government chose to make three special payments totalling $924 million. One was to the Ontario teachers' pension fund. That payment was not due until the following year, but the government chose to move $196 million of teacher pension spending up one year, advance the payment. They paid off a $400-million loan to the Urban Transportation Development Corp that was not due, and they wrote off SkyDome, $321 million.

These are good political moves, because it's a good way to say: "We inherited a mess from the Liberals. They said there'd be a surplus, but it's a $3-billion deficit. Woe is me." As I say, it's natural politics.

As a matter of fact, I kept the reports from then Treasurer Laughren, now Minister of Finance, who said publicly, after he'd been in the job for several weeks, that nobody attempted to mislead. He said, "Nixon was simply giving the best estimates of the treasury staff at the time." I point that out, because when we get into a debate about how we got into this, I'm sometimes slightly amused, I guess.

Bob Rae will say, "You left an awful mess for me," but I don't know how you can justify saying "an awful mess," when a balanced budget was certified and presented. The Provincial Auditor acknowledged it, said it was a surplus. All of your own numbers showed a surplus five months before you took over office. How can the sky suddenly fall?

The NDP says, "You people were spendthrifts" and all that sort of thing. Well, here's what Bob Rae's New Democratic Party said when we were preparing that budget. This was when they were still in opposition, when they were demanding more spending and saying, "Spend more, spend more." What was Bob Rae saying in the spring of 1990, before the election? Now he says that we were the spend party, but then he was saying of the then Liberal government:

"The Ontario government has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its liberal pretence, and it's showing its true conservative nature. The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of fiscal financial restraint. The Liberal majority on the finance committee agrees with this conservative philosophy and has recommended a course of restraint.

"The New Democratic Party challenges this defence of the status quo by calling on the government to implement the reform policies needed to bring fairness to our society."

So when members of the NDP government say, "Well, no one warned us that things might be getting bad," and that the Liberals wanted to keep spending, I don't believe it, because the Bob Rae NDP caucus said: "The Liberals are predicting an economic slowdown. The Liberals are saying we need a program of restraint. The Liberals are telling us that we've got to watch our spending. But they're wrong." That's what Bob Rae said before the election. Now in the House you'll often hear him say, "The Liberals wanted to spend and we want to save." Not the case.

Again, Bob Rae says, "I was left with an awful mess." The unemployment rate in the province of Ontario was the lowest of any province in the country by far when Bob Rae took over. It was around 6%. Now, as we know from the budget, the unemployment rate -- and again I point out the chart in the budget that disturbs me the most, where Bob Rae says, "If these discouraged workers were counted as unemployed, Ontario's current unemployment rate would be about 14%." So we've gone from the lowest unemployment rate in the country to where we have an almost unheard of 14% unemployment rate in real terms.

We now find Manitoba has a substantially lower rate of unemployment than we do, as does Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia. There's even been a period within the last year or so when New Brunswick had a lower unemployment rate than Ontario, and I'm very happy for New Brunswick on that, very happy, but for Ontario I'm very sad.

So the reason I go through this is to try and put it into some perspective when Premier Rae says, "Woe is me," and, "I was left with a terrible problem." Well, he was left with the lowest unemployment rate in the country. We now find four provinces with substantially better unemployment rates. So you can't say it's all just a global problem.

We had just had the first surplus in 20 years in the province. That's not to say that there aren't challenges, major challenges presented by a slowdown in the economy, but there was the first surplus in 20 years, the only surplus in 20 years. Premier Rae is often fond of saying, "Well, no one warned me." Well, lots of people warned him; he just wasn't listening.

So what was the biggest problem, what single thing led us to this situation, our fiscal situation? I said earlier that you cannot blame Bob Rae for everything, but I would say there is no doubt that the first NDP budget was a huge mistake. None of the NDP members can ever admit that publicly. I recall the words in it: "We could fight the deficit or we could fight the recession. We're going to fight the recession." A big mistake, huge mistake, and you're paying for it now. The fact is that you should have fought both things. There was not -- well, the member might laugh, but you're going to have to learn to do more than one thing at once.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): How? Gerry, how?

Mr Phillips: You say, "How?" It's very simple. If you understood where this is going to lead, you don't take your spending up 14%, you don't offer settlements that are three and four times the rate of inflation.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): That isn't true.

Mr Phillips: Well, it is true.

Mr Owens: Blame the victim.

Mr Phillips: The members are choosing to heckle, but the thought of continuing to defend that budget is disturbing. I think the most you could do is just hang your head and try and forget you made that big mistake, and it was a big mistake. Now, I tell you, everybody is paying for it because you're clawing it back. You opened the tap and you left it running for two years. I guarantee you any objective analysis of that budget would show it was a huge mistake. I wouldn't defend it. The best you can say is, "I'm sorry, we didn't know at the time it was a mistake." But now the members are wanting to defend the budget; it's indefensible. It was a mistake, huge mistake.

Actually, I can remember, and Hansard will show this, because we, the finance and economics committee, spent that summer, the summer of 1991, touring the province, getting feedback on the budget -- I learned several things at that session. One is, I can recall the Premier's office phoning groups to get out and defend the budget. I thought it was an indefensible budget. I can remember saying to various groups: "Well, suppose the government's wrong. Suppose this is going to slow the economy down, and suppose that rather than spending one's way out of the recession, that's not the right approach, and we should have had some restraint in it. What will you say then?"

I think the critics of that budget -- and, by the way, they were the third party, ourselves; I don't think there was another jurisdiction in North America that thought Bob Rae was right on this. The word "restraint" never appeared in that budget; never appeared in it. It was a huge mistake. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Once you run two years of $11-billion and $12-billion deficits, once you get that built in, boy, it's tough to get it out, as you're finding now, as we're finding now. As I say, it's all got to be extracted, and that's far more difficult than giving.

If there is one thing that I will hold the government accountable for, it will be that one, because the price we'll pay for it has been and will be enormous, not the least of which is -- I'd like to talk about where we are now and how we go on from here, but the exercise we're involved in now on what's called the social contract