Journal des débats 1997-juin-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I am proud today to stand in the House and tell all the members of the Legislature about a Canadian hero who hails from Thunder Bay.

Dave Shannon is a poet, an actor, a lawyer and a remarkable advocate for the disabled community in our country. As a result of an accident in 1981, Dave became a quadriplegic. His achievements since then have been an inspiration to thousands of people, but his latest challenge may be his most remarkable yet.

On April 1st Dave began a cross-Canada tour in his wheelchair to promote education and research for persons with disabilities. He has now arrived in Toronto and all of us in the Legislature will have an opportunity to meet with him later this afternoon.

What we will learn is that Dave believes there is no barrier that cannot be crossed, regardless of one's circumstances. He will tell us that creative thinking and appropriate support systems can combine to bring one past virtually any barrier. He will also tell us that our society, with awareness and partnerships, can continue towards justice, civility and equality for all.

But in order for Dave to reach those goals, we must do our part as well. As legislators, we must recognize that supporting Dave and the millions of people he represents requires this government to bring forward its Ontarians with Disabilities Act that it has so long promised, so that equal treatment for those with disabilities will be a reality and not a dream.

I am proud to call Dave Shannon a friend. All of us in Thunder Bay are eagerly awaiting his arrival back home on July 28th. Let's support his cause by taking some needed action right now.

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to thank the members from all parties of the regulations and private bills committee who this morning supported unanimously my bill, Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton. By virtue of their action today, that bill will now be brought to the House for consideration by all of us, and I hope it will receive the same type of all-party support here that it received at committee.

The essence of the bill is that, for the first time ever in any community in the history of Ontario, a municipality will now have the ability to provide grants and loans in community improvement areas, not just to the owners of the properties but also to the tenants. In many cases we've seen the unwillingness of some property owners to take on the responsibility of these loans, thereby denying the long-term commercial tenant an opportunity to participate in improving their property, improving the area, making the business a going concern, which benefits all of us.

We have a number of community improvement areas in Hamilton. We have some money made available by our municipal council. By virtue of this House supporting the committee recommendation to pass my bill, the city of Hamilton will again show leadership in community renewal, in community building and assisting small business, which is vital for all our cities.

SIMCOE ECONOMY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I had the privilege last Thursday of welcoming the Premier of Ontario to the town of Simcoe in my riding of Norfolk. He was there to open the expansion of the Unilever Good Humour-Breyers ice cream plant, which is known locally as the ice cream factory. This was a very important event for the town of Simcoe as the plant employs 400 people and is the largest private sector employer in town.

This opening is an example of what's happening right across Ontario. This government is building a climate of confidence in Ontario which allows the private sector to do what it does best: create jobs. By creating an investment-friendly atmosphere, places like Simcoe benefit. Simcoe is now the largest manufacturer of ice cream products in North America. The plan is working, a plan that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation to create a foundation for opportunity and prosperity, a plan whose goal is to make Ontario the best place in the world to live, work, invest and raise a family.

I wish to thank Premier Harris for his visit and also to thank the Unilever company for their expression of confidence in the town of Simcoe and the people who live there. On a more personal note, both my daughter and the Premier's son had a delicious tour of the ice cream plant. The opening also involved children from St Mary's school, which is located just around the corner.

SUDBURY ECONOMY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to inform the House today of a strong partnership between the government of Malaysia and the people of Sudbury. Last week a Malaysian delegation was in Sudbury to forge a vibrant partnership involving technology transfer with the Northern Centre for Advanced Technology from Cambrian College. This group and the Malaysian government conducted an international design competition for the design of five laboratory buildings.

I'm very happy and proud to announce that the architectural firm of Nicholls Yallowega Belanger from Sudbury and Ellis-Pastore from Sault Ste Marie are the successful candidates and have been commissioned to ensure that these buildings become reality. It is reassuring to know that countries from around the world realize the excellence found in northern Ontario. It is a lessen indeed this government can learn.

I congratulate Mr Ti, Puan Paute, Mr Choong and Mr Poh on their selection. I also congratulate Rick Yallowega and Dave Ellis for their accomplishments. Your northern roots will help you make your mark on the international architectural landscape. These labs will house testing needs which include drinking water, air samples, industrial and municipal waste and surveillance of the industrial workplace. Indeed we can learn from the Malaysian priorities.

1340

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Since taking on the environment portfolio on behalf of the NDP caucus, I've been pushing this government to do something positive about air quality. One of the first actions they made was to lift the NDP ban on waste incineration, a move that only makes our air quality worse. Then they cut funding for public transit, at the same time gutting planning legislation certain to create more urban sprawl and greater reliance on the car. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Last year when I asked the previous minister about government plans to help control smog, I got answers like: "We're exploring our options." She told one reporter that she didn't like the idea of vehicle emissions testing because people want government "out of their face."

For a while it seemed that my efforts and those of Pollution Probe, the Lung Association and others were starting to pay off. This minister seemed somewhat committed to vehicle emissions testing. But as summer approaches and the brown cloud threatens our cities yet again, we see no action -- nothing but talk and vague reassurances: "Yes, be patient. We're looking at options."

Please, Minister, you keep telling us that smog kills almost 2,000 people a year in Ontario. That is unacceptable and it is something we can do something about. Will you stop talking, get to work and bring in a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program, and will you announce that today?

KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Speaker and fellow members of the Legislature, I rise today to invite all of you to join with Canada's Korean War veterans and their families as they dedicate the Korean veterans' Wall of Remembrance in Brampton.

On July 27 this dream of Canada's Korean War veterans will finally become a reality. After working towards this event for the past 40 years, they will now see the dedication of a national memorial for all Canadians, particularly those who lost their lives in the Korean conflict.

The forgotten war, as it is known, helped secure the future of a democratic, stable and economically sound South Korea. To preserve and protect this nation and the ideas of peace and democracy, 516 Canadians gave their lives. To remember those brave men and women who gave their lives across the world for our country and an ideal, it is only fitting that we recognize their efforts with a monument to their courage and dedication.

On Sunday, July 27, at 11:30 am everyone is invited to Meadowvale Cemetery in Brampton to remember Canadian veterans, particularly those who fell in battle in the Korean conflict. All veterans, their next of kin and their families are invited to register for the Wall and may do so by phoning 1-888-381-BRAMPTON.

This Wall of Remembrance was built entirely with private donations and serves as a reminder that we cannot forget those who served our nation and that, as a community working together, we can accomplish goals we all believe in.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): People in the front lines of the Toronto Board of Education made it clear today that they will not be teaching students the new curriculum this fall -- will not because they cannot.

This curriculum has been rushed through with virtually no consultation with teachers. It has been dumped on schools at the end of June, with no time for teachers to work together to put this in place for September, let alone get any training they might need.

But even more astounding is that the government has been in such a hurry to make a political statement with its curriculum that it has not taken time to put any curriculum materials in place to back up their new guidelines.

How can teachers teach without curriculum materials? How can students learn if they have no textbooks with their new curriculum in it? How can they pass a test if their workbooks don't let them practise what they're supposed to know at the end of the year?

Once again the Mike Harris government is ramming its agenda through without taking time to get the basics right. None of this is about helping students to achieve. This is all about the backroom boys who rewrote this curriculum, who couldn't care less about how well it works, who just want to make a political statement and get on with it as fast as possible and who are doing it at the expense of students. Yes, we need good curriculum, well taught, well learned. We need a government that takes time to get it right.

LABOUR ISSUES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The Harris Tories at Queen's Park demonstrate a sustained disinterest in the continuing high, double-digit levels of unemployment across this province; in the Niagara region alone, levels of unemployment of 10.9% and almost double that for young people under the age of 25.

This government at the same time demonstrates an obsession for the very worst of the southern United States, like Arkansas and Florida, those so-called right-to-work states where minimum wages are virtually non-existent and where low-wage economies don't sustain small business or service industries and force working people into ever lower levels of poverty.

What this government doesn't dare do through the front door it's attempting to do through the back door. The failed Bill 131 is being emulated now by another Tory backbencher who, by a resolution that's to be debated on June 26 this year in this Legislature, wants to suggest that somehow the mode, the hard-won right of trade unions in the workplace to collect fees, dues, from their members, is somehow undemocratic.

This government, with its jackboot tactics in this Legislature for two years now, has increased utilization of time allocation in its stifling of debate, and now the implementation, with no consultation and no negotiation, of rule changes that will limit debate in the most serious manner shows no regard for democracy and no regard for working people. New Democrats are going to oppose that resolution, just like we opposed Bill --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

STROKE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am very proud to rise in the House today to acknowledge that June is Stroke Awareness Month.

The Ministry of Health, in accordance with our visions of providing integrated, patient-focused health care services, supports the concept of coordinated stroke care for patients in Ontario. Recognizing the enormous cost of strokes on individuals and their families, our government has undertaken several initiatives to prevent stroke and improve care for stroke care patients.

The ministry has already expanded services like CAT scans and MRI services and is developing integrated strategies for rehabilitation. In fact, 66 hospitals now have CAT scans in Ontario and we're tripling the number of MRI services in operation in the province from 12 to 35, one of which is due for the Niagara Peninsula in St Catharines by April 1998. We are also proud of federal approval of a new drug we're expecting, which if approved will improve outcomes for some types of stroke patients.

The ministry has developed a five-year provincial heart health program to address the three key risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, including stroke, like tobacco use prevention, healthy eating and nutrition and increasing levels of physical activity. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has agreed in principle to be a partner with the province in this program. This is good news for Ontarians because of their expertise in these areas.

I am very proud too that the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Niagara will have endeavoured to educate the residents and health professionals alike by providing information about early diagnosis, prevention, recovery and treatment options.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's time for oral questions -- the official opposition.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, who we do not see yet in the House so we will be standing down.

The Speaker: Second question? Stand both of them down?

Mr Phillips: Stand down.

The Speaker: First question, the third party? Leader of the third party?

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Minister of Health is not here, the Premier is not here, so I'm not sure who we can ask the question of either.

The Speaker: The Premier's coming.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it's on the shooting death of a first nations person at Ipperwash and the government's role in that. We know there are many unanswered questions about the government's role in this tragedy. These can only be answered by a public inquiry.

The Liberal caucus feels the key to unlocking what happened at Ipperwash rests with the Premier's records. Your trusted long-time adviser and executive assistant, Deb Hutton, attended high-level meetings on your behalf the day before the shooting, the day of the shooting and each day for several weeks after. However, you have told us that never once from September 1 to October 1, 1995, did she ever prepare any briefing note, any file or any summary for you. Premier, is this normal operating procedure for your office, that the Premier's executive assistant would attend critical meetings daily and never prepare for the Premier a note, a file or a briefing summary?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): None of the meetings were our meetings or her meeting or my office meeting or the cabinet office meeting or the Premier's office meeting. So while there were minutes kept, they would be as a result of the lead ministries in this. Native affairs I think had the lead on it. The Attorney General, the minister responsible, can report on that. Those minutes would have been kept and I think have been made available as appropriate through any of the freedom of information requests for those it was deemed appropriate to have them.

1350

Mr Phillips: Imagine the suspicion the people of Ontario have. This was a shooting taking place shortly after you became Premier, the first time a first nations person had been killed in a confrontation with the government, a major crisis. Your executive assistant, your long-time, trusted adviser, Deb Hutton, was there on your behalf every single day, often for three hours, at these meetings. Then your trusted assistant would come back and brief you.

Are you saying that never once in that whole month did she ever write a note, a file, a summary, a briefing note? Are you saying today that you never once asked her to write down for you what took place at those meetings and what advice she had for you? You're saying Deb Hutton never once wrote a memo or a file or a briefing note to you?

Hon Mr Harris: We are going back over a year and a half ago. I know there were minutes kept by others who hosted the meetings and were responsible for that. I don't recall ever seeing a briefing note or a file from Ms Hutton. She would brief verbally and use what minutes were kept by others who were responsible for doing that.

Mr Phillips: I think the public can understand our suspicion. The Premier is saying that for an entire month his senior staff, on perhaps the gravest crisis facing the government, never wrote the Premier a file, a briefing note, a memo. There is clearly a need for a public inquiry.

Amnesty International said today, not yesterday, today: "We've got grave concerns that major human rights violations took place at Ipperwash in 1995. The way, we feel, to address that is to hold a full and public inquiry so people can see, you know, what happened that night." That's what they said today.

We now have a legal opinion by three lawyers indicating that there are, in their language, "no legal impediments to the government of Ontario ordering the immediate commencement of a public judicial inquiry into the incident at Ipperwash." Premier, if we are able to prove that, are you prepared today to order a full public judicial inquiry into the tragedy at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Harris: We've been very clear on this. We've made public, certainly, all of our role in this. The only decision I recall being made was to seek a civil injunction from the whole matter. Other than that, there's been no real involvement other than being informed and relaying whatever information was appropriate to the public. That's all a matter of public record. We've indicated that when all of the criminal matters and judicial matters going before the court are there and nothing could be prejudiced by that, if at that time further information is required, we'd be happy to do that in the appropriate way.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've gained a reputation, as you well know, for refusing to tolerate opposition, whether it's from the public, from members of your own party or from we who happen to sit on this side of the House. I want you to understand that with your rule changes you're going one step too far.

You are simply and effectively about to severely limit the opportunity for full and thorough debate of important public policy. You are about to limit not only our right as members of the opposition to engage in debate but the right of the media to keep our public informed and for our public to gain a good understanding of what goes on inside this chamber.

Premier, good governments listen and learn from listening. Will you please, in the interests of democracy in Ontario, withdraw your rule changes?

Applause.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the applause. The House leader will be pleased to answer.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Contrary to the statements made, this government has listened long and hard to the people of Ontario. We've had public hearings on quite a number of issues, public hearings on many bills that have come back. Hours and hours, days and days of public hearings have helped shaped the legislation that has gone through the Legislature of Ontario.

I'm pleased to say that the House leaders have had extensive meetings on the proposed House procedures. I believe there's a spirit of goodwill and I think that over the next week we will find a new set of House procedures that will be to the satisfaction of all three parties. That certainly is my goal.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you know full well that your rule changes are going to effectively silence the opposition in this Legislature. You know, as well, that you wouldn't even attempt to do this if you didn't think you could get away with it. The fact that you introduced these changes under cover of a federal election day is most telling in this issue.

Opposition is not something you can merely sweep away. It is an integral component of a healthy and vibrant parliamentary democracy. You have a neat and tidy mind, Premier, and that is a dangerous thing in a democracy. We are not merely some kind of obstacle you can overcome, some kind of bump in the road you can run over. I ask you one more time: Will you withdraw your rule changes?

Hon David Johnson: We certainly have no intention of withdrawing the rule changes, but we have every intention of negotiating and discussing with the other two parties. I find it somewhat interesting that many of the rule changes that are involved we have actually taken from the federal Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: Apparently, in the federal Legislature, Prime Minister Chrétien and the members of the House find that the changes, many of which we are attempting to implement here, allow for more members to be involved in the debate, allow for more time for debate, allow for more time for private members' business, and I would suggest to you are more democratic and allow the members of the House to serve the people of Ontario or Canada in a superior fashion.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, sir, you should understand that these rules have been developed over centuries by parliamentarians who understood only too well that in a healthy, vibrant democracy not only does the government have the right to govern, but the opposition has the right and indeed the obligation to oppose. We are Her Majesty's loyal opposition. When we act, we act in the public interest. What you are about to do, Premier, is to take this rule book and put your stamp on it. I want to tell you that it is completely unacceptable to me, to my caucus and to the people of this province, and I'm not going to put up with it.

Here's your book. Here are your rules. They're not mine.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government House leader.

1400

Hon David Johnson: I will say in response to the opposition party, which has chosen to leave the House, that in 1989 the government at that time, now the opposition, the Liberal Party of the province of Ontario, brought in rule changes, brought in House procedural changes. At that point Sean Conway was quoted. He indicated, "We felt we were facing a pattern of obstructionism that was really making this place somewhat less effective and less efficient than the people of Ontario expect it to be." That was his quote in 1989. They brought in rule changes.

In 1992, the government, now the third party, brought in rule changes. This government is proposing and has been involved in a negotiated process to bring in rule changes. I hope that those negotiations will be fruitful, that we can all get together and determine appropriate rules to make this place work better for the people of the province of Ontario, and I firmly believe that we can do that.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier, and I want you to know, Speaker, that we are equally upset about these proposed rule changes because, in our view, they do threaten democracy in this province.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, my question has to do with the Amnesty International report released today. The report covers worldwide human rights violations and for the first time, certainly in my memory, it raises an issue in Ontario. It raises the issue concerning the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash.

The researcher for the report says there are still many questions that need to be answered. We agree with some of his questions: "How did the situation come about? Who was in control? Why wasn't it defused in a peaceful manner?"

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Premier, Amnesty International has asked you and we are asking you again, will you hold a full public inquiry into this so these questions can be --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I know the Attorney General can respond.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We've made it very clear that legal matters are currently before the courts that must be completed before any other options can be considered. It would be premature to make a decision or to comment further while these matters remain before the courts. Certainly I can add that the characterization of Amnesty International I think is incorrect and I disagree with it. I take some comfort in the fact that they are reviewing the way they did the report and the conclusions that they made.

Mr Hampton: Amnesty is not reviewing the report. What they note is that Acting Sergeant Deane has been convicted of a crime in respect of this death but that does not change the need for a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the issues, and that's what your government tries to avoid. You don't want to answer questions as to how someone died. What were the events that led up to this?

You're trying to hide behind a criminal investigation but, Mr Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Canada has already held that in this type of situation, and they refer to the Westray mine situation, a public inquiry can go ahead.

So perhaps you can answer this for people: Why can a public inquiry go ahead in the province of Nova Scotia, yet you cannot hold a public inquiry here in the same sort of factual scenario in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harnick: The prudent course and the clear course is that legal matters that are presently before the courts must be completed. That is the wise and prudent course to take. That is the course that we indicated very clearly we would take and that is what we will do. When those legal matters are completed, we will review other options.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): There are too many unanswered questions that remain in the Ipperwash events. The refusal of the government to hold a public inquiry continues to poison the atmosphere. It's creating a very difficult situation and making a bad situation even worse.

Lawyers for the George family today held a press conference in Ottawa. I'd like to quote briefly from a legal opinion they presented at that press conference.

"There was a deliberate political decision by the Ontario government to use violence against the protesters in the park. That decision was made at a very high level, and quite possibly by the Premier personally. We believe that this political decision to use force against native rights protestors was a critical factor in the death of Dudley George."

You must have an inquiry that deals with all the events that led to the tragic death of this unarmed man. Will the government now do what is the right thing, seek the truth through a full public judicial inquiry that does not in any way impinge on further court decisions?

Hon Mr Harnick: That is a question that we have answered many times. I want to say that there has been no refusal, as the member poses in his question. Options remain open.

The one thing I want to take issue with is that there was a decision by this government. The decision by the government was a decision to seek a civil injunction. That was the course the government took. It has been reiterated time and again by the chief of the Ontario Provincial Police that there was no political involvement whatsoever in determining police actions. Quite simply, those are the facts and that is the history of this matter.

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

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Have you made a decision to close the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and turn over its operations and assets to some other body?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): No.

Mr Hampton: Perhaps the Minister of Health can explain this. This is a copy of a work plan for the creation of something called the Addiction and Mental Health Services Corp for the amalgamation of the Clarke Institute, Donwood and the Addiction Research Foundation and the takeover of Queen Street by this new entity. The work plan indicates that this process will be complete by September. Page 9 indicates clearly that the new corporation will, by the end of September, be in a position to acquire Queen Street.

Minister, your hospital commission has yet to release its final report on Metro. It is supposed to be making final decisions based on public input. We hear through the grapevine that the commission may not release its final decisions until September, yet apparently you've already got a process under way to start this new corporation. Can you explain how this can be happening behind closed doors, without public input?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member has to be the last person in the province to know about this process. It's been a very public process. In fact, there were protests a couple months ago in front of this building when your party and others went out and said we'd be closing beds at Queen Street. The process is driven by the Clarke, by the Donwood, by the ARF and by Queen Street. They're trying to get together in terms of governance to be more efficient. They're having discussions, which I think is a very healthy thing. They're all in similar businesses, yet they've run separate institutions for years. We assured them that if they come up with some agreement and it's consistent with the Health Services Restructuring Commission -- the commission is fully aware of it, as is everybody else in the province who has an interest in these areas -- it's a very positive set of discussions that are going on, and they're being driven by the local area, not by the Ministry of Health.

1410

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, in addition to the report we have, we also have a copy of your ministry's letter to Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the HSRC. On page 3 of that Ms Mottershead says: "We believe it is essential that the community services be established ahead of the downsizing and decentralizing and that all resources currently utilized in the delivery of mental health services be retained in the restructured mental health system."

Yet, even though you're questioning the recommendations in that initial report in terms of bed numbers, in terms of the community services -- your own ministry is doing that -- here you've gone ahead with an implementation report when the commission has not even reported. Minister, you really have a lot to answer for when you have talked about how this system has integrity when you are going ahead with an implementation plan that's to be in place in September when the restructuring commission has not even released its report. How many severely mentally ill people at Queen Street are going to be thrown into the street?

Hon Mr Wilson: None. We've reversed the trend of the previous two governments, and not one mental health service has been cut by this government. We've increased mental health services in your own community, on Queen Street, we've put a moratorium on the closure of beds. You closed hundreds of beds in the province and people went out on the street. That was the history of the last 10 years. We put a moratorium on: no beds to close.

These discussions among four institutions are driven by the four institutions. I've not personally been involved in them at all. The commission is fully aware. It has met with the parties involved. They're trying to get their governance and administration streamlined and share resources so there will be more money available for front-line mental health services, a very positive move and one you should be applauding, not condemning.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Premier in regard to the rule changes his government has brought forward, supposedly for discussion, on federal election day.

I want to refer to what happened in this House yesterday and juxtapose that with comments made in 1992 by the Premier's colleague the Minister of Finance, when he was House leader for the third party. The member for Parry Sound said at that time that if any government proceeded unilaterally with rule changes in this place, the assembly would become a very acrimonious place. He also said that rule changes of that sort would not work, that unless there was trust and respect among members in this House, the Legislature could not work.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Wildman: With that in mind, you saw yesterday the reaction of the public to these changes, which they believe to be undemocratic. This is not just about reducing the rights of members, it's about the public and their right to have input into legislation. Two months ago we held up your megacity legislation to give the public a chance for a fair debate. Do you think the public should be shut out of public debate, as your rule changes will do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, of course, and that's why this government has had more public involvement, pre- and post-introduction of legislation, in the history of the Ontario Legislature.

Mr Wildman: These rule changes are about getting the government's agenda through quickly without proper scrutiny by the public or in this assembly. I predict, as the member for Parry Sound predicted, that this place will become even more acrimonious if you insist on proceeding in this way. We don't subscribe to the divine right of kings theory of government. The government must be scrutinized and criticized and must listen to the opposition. Why don't you do the democratic thing and withdraw these rule changes so we don't have the kinds of difficulties we're obviously now facing in this assembly?

Hon Mr Harris: I suggest to you that the rule changes being proposed are to facilitate the operation of the Legislature and its committees to maximize the opportunities for debate by all members and to maximize the opportunities for input from the public. I suggest to you that they are consistent with the statement by the member for Cochrane South in 1992 that said:

"We're doing rule changes because it's very, very necessary to have rules that allow the legislation in this House to go through in a smooth and effective manner. When you've got opposition parties playing games, it is quite, quite, quite something."

The rule changes, which are quite reflective of other jurisdictions in Canada, particularly the federal House of Commons, are there --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: -- yes, to try and prevent using up hours and hours and hours and days and days of time in non-productive debate and replacing it with --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. You recently introduced new legislation to update the obsolete Game and Fish Act. This new bill, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, if passed by the Legislature, will increase wildlife protection in Ontario.

As you're aware, outdoor groups have long believed that effective management of fish and wildlife will provide huge environmental and economic benefits. Could you clarify for my constituents and for the outdoorspeople of Ontario what some of the proposed changes are under the new bill and what the rationale behind them is.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Oshawa for the question. I know he has a keen interest in this issue, as do many of his constituents.

I'm sure all members in the House would agree that the Game and Fish Act needs to be updated. This act hasn't been revised in more than 40 years. This new bill, if passed, will lead to improvements in a number of areas, including tougher enforcement of the game and fish laws and expanded protection of a number of species.

Let me speak first to the enhancement of the enforcement provisions. First of all, the new act, if passed, will dramatically increase fines for offences. For example, the maximum fine for commercial offences will be increased to $100,000 and up to two years in jail from the previous maximum fine of $25,000 and one year in jail.

Once passed, this bill will improve our ability to investigate offences. We're looking to give enforcement officers more time on cases, and --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Hodgson: -- the limitation period on prosecutions will be extended up to two years from the current six months, to give our officers more time to investigate the tougher cases. Tough enforcement --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Ouellette: As you know, the Toronto Star headline last Wednesday stated, "New Fish, Wildlife Act Tries to Protect Birds, Bears -- and Hunters." There has been a great deal of concern expressed by citizens of this province as well as the Legislature about the protection of wildlife. Outdoor groups have long felt that this province's natural resources should receive effective long-term management.

The other reference in the headline concerned hunters. The treatment of hunters in Ontario is a concern of many of my constituents and a large number of outdoor groups throughout the province. Could you please clarify for these groups what this legislation is seeking to accomplish.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Again I'd like to thank the member for Oshawa for the insightful question. It's true the new bill includes an anti-harassment provision to protect hunters and anglers. In fact, Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in North America that doesn't already have this type of protection in place. As many people in this House would know, this is an important step forward. It may not be of crucial importance to the third party, but it is important to most of the members in the province.

Essentially, our provisions would protect people who hunt and fish or trap from unwanted harassment. This measure would make it illegal to interfere with lawful hunting activity. It will make it illegal to damage traps or to scare wildlife away while someone is legally hunting.

This government recognizes the importance of the hunting and fishing heritage in this province. Just this past Saturday morning I was a guest on the Barclay's outdoor show, the radio program on the Fan 590. I was reminded of the valuable contribution --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm answering, Mr Speaker; this is an important issue and it requires a bit of elaboration -- the outdoors community makes to preserving our wilderness --

The Speaker: If you hadn't wasted that time, you could have got the answer out.

1420

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. In your answer to my colleague the member for Algoma, you said your newly proposed rules would maximize the opportunity for public input. As we read the rules and as others have read them, your proposed changes would essentially allow you to ram legislation through here in four days. Can you tell me how that would maximize the opportunity for public input?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the House leader would be pleased to answer this.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): One provision, for example, at the federal level is that the lead speakers, rather than having 90 minutes, would have 40 minutes; subsequent speakers, rather than having 30 minutes, would have either 20 or 10. This allows many more speakers, many more members of the Legislature to get involved in the debate. That's a provision in the federal Legislature whereby they feel that many more elected representatives get involved.

I have indicated that it has never been the intention of this government to ram legislation through and it's not the intention of this government to ram legislation through. I am certainly interested in negotiating with the opposition parties provisions whereby the length of time in the future, after the new changes, would be no shorter than the length of time as it exists presently.

Mr Hampton: My question was very clear. I asked about public input. We understand that your definition of democracy is that a government is elected and then it gets to do whatever it wants for four years. That's become very clear. It became clear with Bill 7, it became clear with Bill 26, it became clear with your attempts around the megacity. You simply wanted to ram through the legislation with no opportunity for the public to understand what was happening, with no opportunity for the public to respond to what you're proposing to do.

I asked you that question and your response was that you don't want to talk about the opportunity for the public. I put the question to you again. The text of the proposed rule changes would essentially shut the public out of the democratic process of passing legislation. The public would have no time to understand what is being proposed, the public would have no time to respond. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. Why are you trying to shut the public out of the democratic process with your rule changes?

Hon David Johnson: I wish to assure the leader of the third party that that's far from the factual situation. In fact, the rule procedures will allow for extra debate in this Legislature, will allow for bills to receive second reading. We have involved the general public far more than the previous government in terms of hearings in Toronto, in terms of travelling across the province. We have a record that's unmatched, certainly by the previous government, in terms of hours and days of public hearings. I can assure you here today that this government fully intends to involve the general public in the future as it has done in the past.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The minister is not -- yes, she is. It's amazing how you knew she was coming, actually.

Mr Pettit: In the federal election of June 2, the people of Canada sent the Chrétien government back to Ottawa for a second mandate. During the previous mandate a number of key issues were discussed regarding a fair share for the provinces in certain areas of federal spending and on rebalancing certain areas of federal-provincial responsibility. Will you please tell my constituents high atop Hamilton Mountain and all Ontarians what expectations our government is putting on federal-provincial relations for the next mandate.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to answer the question from the member for Hamilton Mountain by saying that we have had good working relationships at the intergovernmental level with the government in Ottawa and we are looking very much forward to even improved federal working relationships with it.

Since our government took office, there have been numerous constructive discussions. However, we've made it clear that we do have a couple of challenges in not receiving our fair share of funding. That's not new. In the case of training, we do not receive our fair share and, although in EI we give to the federal government net profit to them of $4 billion, we have some work to do. Also, in the area of the CHST we're looking for our fair share. Over the next mandate of this particular federal government we will seek to redress these imbalances and we look forward to some success in this area.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Minister. That's very positive. I believe it's important that we continue to pressure the federal government to ensure that the needs of the individual provinces are accounted for, and yet not at the expense of the federation. Will the interprovincial social policy council continue to work with the new government and the federal ministers responsible for social policy issues to ensure that Ottawa effectively meets the needs of the provinces and does not intrude into areas of provincial responsibility?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're extremely pleased that the Prime Minister saw fit to appoint to his cabinet some continuity with ministers, and I will say that we particularly enjoy working with the Minister of Human Resources, Mr Pierre Pettigrew. I'd also like to say that we look forward to the positive work of the social policy council.

It is continuing. I was in Calgary last week where we were discussing a number of items to do with -- I might make it blunt from our point of view -- children and jobs, and mechanisms to work better with our colleagues across the provinces and certainly with the federal government. This work will be presented to the premiers this summer at the annual premiers' conference in New Brunswick, and I will finish by saying that we are very much looking forward to continuing our work once again, to see some action at the Prime Minister's level with the premiers in this regard.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Chair of the Management Board. Minister, you got caught, didn't you? The Ontario Grievance Settlement Board said last week that your efforts to require private contractors to hire existing public service employees were a total sham. That was their ruling last week. As a matter of fact your privatization efforts have even violated your own agreement with OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. Now you have to go back and redesign the whole process.

As I've asked you before in this place, will you, when you reopen those requests, assure us that all RFPs, requests for proposals, across the government contain a clause that guarantees disabled people will be hired when a service is privatized?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): There's a little bit of embellishment in terms of "a total sham," etc, but this is a normal Grievance Settlement Board process. There was an application to the Grievance Settlement Board regarding a contract that was put out in the Chatham area. A judgement was made involving the human resource factors for that particular contract. Yes, we're reviewing that situation and certainly the government will comply.

There is another grievance associated with the contract associated with the mail messenger services, so there's very little I can say about that particular situation other than that we have extended the closing for two months on that particular bid and we certainly will be looking at the judgement of the Grievance Settlement Board.

1430

Mr Laughren: I don't think we're asking for too much here. We're asking, in particular in regard to the mail room employees to whom you yourself refer, that when you extend the deadline for closing you simply build into the new -- I don't know whether you're going to issue new requests for proposals or not; why would you extend the deadline unless you're going to do that? -- that when do that, you ensure that the RFPs say that disabled people must be assured of employment with a new employer.

I think it was just last week that your Minister of Community and Social Services talked about the importance of bringing disabled people into the mainstream of society and she said, and I quote, "not to protect them but to work with them to realize their own potential." What better way of showing that you mean those words than to ensure that disabled people now in the employ of the government will be able to continue their employment if you privatize the service where they are now employed?

Hon David Johnson: The human resource factor was built into those situations whereby a piece of the corporation is contracted out, goes out to the private sector, so that the private sector would perform that sort of service. Through the process involving the Chatham contract, there have been questions raised about the human resource factor, whether it was sufficient or not, and the Grievance Settlement Board has made a decision in that regard.

It is an attempt to ensure that all employees, regardless of their situation, have a better opportunity to maintain employment under a private sector contract. We will be looking at it. We will certainly look at the Grievance Settlement Board's proposal, and I can assure that over the next period of time we'll be doing everything we can to comply in all contracts, including the mail messenger contract.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to Minister Ecker, the Minister of Community and Social Services. A recent article appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record in my riding indicating that there was a requirement for single mothers with children over the age of three to participate in workfare. It goes on to say that single fathers with children under three years of age are not exempt from workfare. Minister, is this a double standard? Could you clarify this article that appeared in the Record?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the opportunity to make sure that this has been clarified for those residents in Kitchener-Waterloo. Sole-support parents with school-age children, whether fathers or mothers, will be part of Ontario Works, our work-for-welfare program, and the reason we are doing that is because we believe they deserve the same opportunities as those singles on workfare to take advantage of the programs to get off welfare, to get into paid jobs, which is where most of them certainly want to be.

We have made sure that the rules are very flexible so that those parents with school-age children will be able to undertake their activities at the time the children are in school, and if indeed there needs to be child care, there are resources there that will help those parents with appropriate quality child care if they are needed.

Mr Leadston: Minister, you've shared with us the importance of assisting single parents back into the workforce and how you are helping to achieve that goal. What are doing and what is your ministry attempting to do for the young children in our communities that are caught in the system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are two changes we are making, which we think will help young people and families. First, we are making mandatory the dental and vision benefits for a child if the family is on welfare. For many families on welfare those benefits were discretionary, whether the municipality chose to provide it or not. We are making those a mandatory program because we think that dental and health and vision benefits for children are extremely important, so that will be a mandatory service.

The other change we're making is that those 16- and 17-year-olds who have been able to leave the family home and obtain welfare will no longer be able to do that. If there are exceptional circumstances, of course, supports will be there as needed, but we want to make sure that a 16- and 17-year-old, if they're leaving the family home, has to be in school or in an appropriate training, educational, whatever, activity. They have to have adult supervision, and if there is indeed financial support that's required, it will go through a trustee. We don't think we should try and fix family problems --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, contrary to public pronouncements you made and that junior minister Jackson made regarding full province-wide public hearings on your WCB attack called Bill 99, you have only allowed four half-days here in Toronto and six days for the rest of the province in the summer intersession. Yet this is for a bill that completely replaces the WCB act that you have said is complex and far-reaching. When we did Bill 49, your changes to the Employment Standards Act, which you said were minor and housekeeping in nature, you agreed to four full weeks of province-wide public hearings.

Knowing that there are hundreds and hundreds of groups and individuals that want an opportunity to speak to this bill that's going to have such a fundamental effect on their lives, how do you square such a few measly days on Bill 99 and yet four full weeks on Bill 49? How do you do that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I think it's important to remember that when we were in opposition we had already put forward our plan for overhauling the WCB. What we are simply doing in Bill 99 is building on what we had indicated in opposition we would do.

We have been meeting with our stakeholders since early 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 until the present time, so there certainly has been ample time for consultation. In fact, the Premier felt it was so important he designated Mr Jackson with responsibility for WCB reform, and Mr Jackson spent a whole year travelling this province and meeting with stakeholders.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, just before your supplementary, we refer to the ministers by title. It's the minister without portfolio responsible for seniors.

Mr Christopherson: You mean when I said "junior minister Jackson," that's what I should have said?

The Speaker: Yes. It's minister without portfolio.

Mr Christopherson: I will follow that direction in the future, Speaker.

The fact is that we had overflow crowds here on the first day of hearings into Bill 99. You have not been meeting with injured workers and their representatives. They have specifically asked you for one large meeting, which has been done in the past, so that they can all, together, with the support they receive from one another, give you the stories you need to hear if you were truly listening.

We listened to the Premier earlier today talk about wanting public input. Here's your opportunity to prove it. Prove that you and the Premier and your government care about what the public have to say. Prove that we're wrong when we say your rule changes will stifle people's opportunity to have input. Prove me wrong when I say you're afraid to meet with injured workers. Prove me wrong by standing up now and saying you'll extend those public hearings and allow all those injured workers who want and deserve an opportunity to bloody well be heard.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you well know, every MPP in this House, from the time they're elected, meets with injured workers. We have all been meeting with injured workers. We continue to hear the stories, and obviously the stories impact us. I would indicate to you that during my term as Minister of Labour I have continued to extend an invitation to the injured workers to meet with me. As recently as January 29, 1997, I wrote a letter to them extending an invitation, and I have never yet received a response to the letter I sent to the Toronto Injured Workers' Advocacy Group. I will simply indicate we are more than willing to meet with injured workers at any time.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): My question is for the Solicitor General. According to press reports yesterday, Ross Hastings, the chairman of the National Crime Prevention Council, stated his opposition to the establishment of the strict discipline facility for young offenders, which is commonly referred to as a boot camp.

According to the report, "`The kids who go to boot camps, whether they go for three months, six months, nine months, don't come back better kids -- they may be fitter, they can run away faster, they can get into more trouble, but they're not better citizens,' Hastings said."

Minister, would you please indicate to the members of the House the goals you are striving to attain in the establishment of the strict discipline program and what research your ministry has completed which makes you believe the goals are realistic.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I read those comments as well and I'm not sure how Mr Hastings reaches those conclusions, since this is a pilot program and a made-in-Ontario program based on the best of a variety of programs we've studied throughout North America. I would urge him to hold off on reaching conclusions until we've fulfilled the pilot tenure, which is three years.

I think the comments were essentially reflective of the views of the government that appointed Mr Hastings. We've had resistance from the federal government with respect to new initiatives and this is a new initiative we feel is clearly justified by the fact that about 80% of the individuals who are residing in provincial jails are folks who have had experience in the youth justice system. Almost 65% of the individuals in the youth justice system are repeat offenders, so clearly we have to look at new initiatives, new alternatives, new directions, and that's what we're doing.

1440

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Hastings has also suggested that the educational and rehabilitative aspects of the strict discipline program we are introducing in the province will merely result in graduating a better class of young criminal.

I know that my constituents in my riding of Kitchener, and many other people throughout the province, have great concerns about the apparent increase in youth crime. Minister, will the strict discipline program include educational and rehabilitative components? If so, what are your expectations as to the effect of these programs on young offenders continuing to break the law when they are released from the program?

Hon Mr Runciman: Yes, Project Turnaround will have specialized educational opportunities, programs such as substance abuse, anger management and a variety of courses which will be available to repeat young offenders who will be housed in Project Turnaround. We have had the program based on the outline that was made public some time ago, endorsed by the London Family Court Clinic, the Clarke Institute, a number of very well respected organizations and institutions.

I think the comments of the federal appointee are reflective of the federal government's view towards young offenders. They have ignored the frustrations of the public with respect to the Young Offenders Act, the fact that it simply is not doing the job. They've ignored recommendations form this government with respect to very meaningful changes that should occur with the act. They are cutting back on our funding. In fact, they're suggesting that they're going to reduce our funding by $3 million in the upcoming fiscal year, the only province in Canada to suffer a reduction. The federal government is not in a position to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Solicitor General. New question, third party.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the minister against the environment. Minister, for nearly two years --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No, do you know what? You've said it now, we have to do it properly, and I ask the member for Riverdale to withdraw that comment and refer to the minister by the proper title.

Ms Churley: I will withdraw it. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. For nearly two years I have been demanding action from you and from your predecessor, Brenda Elliott, on the auto emissions that create dangerous air pollution in our province. I have the Hansards here of the weasel words this government has been using to avoid taking a position on this, like, "We're exploring our options," like "We want to see how well it works on a public basis." The minister acknowledges that almost 2,000 people a year are killed in Ontario through this. Will you bring in a mandatory auto emissions program?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I, of course, have said that air quality is of great concern to me and to this government. Smog is caused by a number of factors, including the emissions from automobiles and cars and trucks and everything else in terms of the transportation area.

We are looking very seriously at a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program. We are, however, cautious about how we're doing this, because in the 32 states in the United States, and in British Columbia, the first program each of those jurisdictions introduced failed and they had to go to a second, and in some cases a third program. So we are looking very carefully at the options before we go ahead so that we can ensure, number one, that we get the emissions reductions we are aiming for and, number two, that the public will buy into this particular program.

Ms Churley: Minister, why don't you look at the many programs that are working, like BC's, for instance? You keep talking about the ones that have failed. The previous minister, in one of her responses, let her mask slip a bit. She said, "The Conservative Party believes people want government out of their face." This is an approach that puts free market ideology over the health of our people. Remember, and let me remind you again, as you yourself said, nearly 2,000 people a year die in Ontario because of smog. Part of that is contributed, as you know, by the automobile. There are many safe and workable programs in existence already. I ask you again. There is no reason to stall any more. Our government started with an experimental, voluntary one. It worked. It is time to get on with it.

Hon Mr Sterling: I appreciate the concern of the member and her knowledge with regard to this matter. However, it is true that the programs in the United States have met with varying degrees of success in terms of what they have achieved. It is our hope that we will be able to bring forward in this province a program which will meet our needs.

The kinds of reductions that are aimed for in other jurisdictions do not necessarily match the same kind of reductions we are looking for here. In the end, we will have a program. We will have a program that affects the areas that need this kind of protection, we will have a program that will be accepted by the public and we will have a program that is fair to all the citizens of Ontario.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. One of the big priorities in my constituency in the last provincial election campaign was welfare reform. The people in my constituency said the welfare system was broken and they wanted major change.

Home ownership is one of the important goals for many hard-working families in my riding. While many struggle to save a down payment, they watch others on social assistance enjoy tens of thousands of dollars of equity in their own homes and sometimes own their own homes outright. Can the minister inform the House if this is fair for the working poor of Ontario and how she would propose to change this in the Ontario Works legislation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): In the reforms we did on welfare legislation we set out some very clear objectives that we wanted to achieve with the reforms. The first one is to ensure that the program is a transitional program of last resort to help people get back into the work force, that the program must be fair to those who are in low-income working positions, and third, that people should be better off working than they are on social assistance. So one of the policies that we have put forward in our legislation is that we would, in certain circumstances, place a lien on a house, not forcing people to sell but it does give the taxpayers the opportunity to recoup the investment they have made in this person's future.

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the legislative authority to restrict going topless in public places; and

"Whereas sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code relating to public nudity be clarified to provide better protection of community standards;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the province of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to clarify legislation on going topless in public places."

I submit this petition by signing it.

1450

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): It seems I can't go into a restaurant or a store in my riding without receiving a petition on health care. I received these last night from ladies who run Hewitt's Dairy Bar near Hagersville. There are well over 400 signatures from Tillsonburg, Simcoe, Delhi, Townsend and Port Dover, as well as many points beyond my riding.

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities; and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I affix my signature to this.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature and it reads:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules for the Ontario Legislature which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll just go to the NDP, then come back to the Liberals. There was a mistake made at the beginning. So to be fair with everyone, I would now recognize the member for Hamilton Centre and after that the member for Port Arthur.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time. I'll explain again: There was a mistake made at the beginning. There was a member from the government who was recognized, and a second one was recognized. In order to correct the mistake, I will now recognize the member of the NDP, a Liberal, and then start the rotation again to be fair with everyone. Good. The member for Hamilton Centre.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you, Speaker. I'm sure all members would want to give proper respect to a petition from Ontarians regarding WCB and workers' health.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, like injured workers, I'm just going to keep trying and trying and trying.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government's contribution to prevention services made through the WCB has been reduced from $62 million to $47 million, with no explanation as to where this money has gone; and

"Whereas the prevention services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and other safety associations, thereby increasing the demand for the prevention services provided by the centre; and

"Whereas the government has gutted the certification training standards for health and safety committee members and is replacing them with minimalist performance standards which, in combination with funding cuts, have resulted in a 40% reduction in the staff of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre is facing further cuts of $2.3 million to finance the establishment of several new employer safety associations, thereby duplicating administrative costs and services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the gutting of the funding of prevention services provided by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

Further we, the undersigned, demand that the moneys taken from the health and safety prevention services of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the other safety associations be returned to them."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I read this on behalf of the backbenchers of the government party as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from members of the Service Employees International Union, Local 268, in Thunder Bay. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has begun a process to fundamentally alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations with the release of the discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas these changes threaten to deregulate the health and safety protection for workers and reduce or eliminate the rights of workers and joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the ministry intentionally organized meetings in a manner which allowed only marginal opportunity for workers to discuss with the ministry the issues raised in the discussion paper; and

"Whereas workers deserve a full opportunity to be heard regarding the proposals that threaten the legislated provisions that provide them with protection from workplace injury, illness and death;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the deregulation of workplace health and safety and any erosion of the protection provided workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Further we, the undersigned, demand that province-wide public hearings be held once any amendments to the act are introduced," and certainly a lot more than the measly few days WCB is getting.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition signed by 700 people in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, support our OPP, especially Sergeant Deane, in their testimony and actions taken at Ipperwash park; and

"We believe all of the OPP acted properly in their line of duty."

1500

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario are incensed about the Mike Harris plan to kill debate in the Legislature. The petitions are rolling in with signatures from all across the province. This petition reads:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to sign my name on behalf of many other constituents as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, OPEIU, Local 343. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre has provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre has made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre."

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I add my name to theirs.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 49 tenants from 2500 Bathurst Street in my riding.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have yet another petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

I concur and will affix my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I request leave to present the 39th report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mr Laughren: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation

Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services

Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY / ADOPTION DU BUDGET DES DÉPENSES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to call orders 44 to 52 inclusively so that they can be moved and debated concurrently.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the understanding that this is for purposes of debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that's what it is. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I move concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Ministry of Natural Resources

Office of Francophone Affairs.

I really don't have any particular comments to make other than that this is an important debate and I know that all parties will participate. It's a debate that involves the estimates of the province of Ontario, so essentially it allows the members an opportunity to speak about the spending in any of the ministries I've listed, Education and Training and Health being two big ministries, but all of the other ministries which are important to the people of Ontario.

I might say what's behind this, although it's maybe not too visible, is a great deal of effort by each individual ministry to bring forward its plans and its expenditures for the fiscal year. There's a great deal of thought and effort that goes into it. There's a great deal of thought and effort that goes into it from my particular ministry as well, Management Board, in terms of analysing the estimates, in terms of ensuring that taxpayers get value for the dollars they spend. We know that taxpayers pay a great deal towards the running of the province. The expenditures are about $50 billion a year in total for Ontario.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): And billions more in interest charges.

Hon David Johnson: As my colleague across the way is saying, interest charges unfortunately make up a very high proportion of the total expenditures, and this is something that has been carried over for a number of years. The reason those interest charges are there is that the debt of the province of Ontario has gone up, particularly between 1990 and 1995, that debt being over $100 billion at the present time.

1510

The good news, though, in that regard is that the annual deficits which register the shortfall between expenditures and revenue -- unfortunately, we spend more than the money that's coming in -- are going down. This year the deficit will be about $7.5 billion, which is still much too high but at least it's on a downward track. By the end of this term that deficit will be eliminated.

The other piece of good news is that actually the revenues are coming up. Not only are expenditures for the province going down, which is primarily what we'll be talking about today -- the government has cut its cloth to suit its means and has reined in expenditures across all ministries, has reduced expenditures at the same time as developing efficient programs to serve the people of Ontario. To tackle that deficit, not only have the expenditures come down but the revenues are very buoyant. That is partially a result of the fact that more people are working in Ontario.

In the last three months, according to the statistics -- I guess it's Stats Canada which keeps these statistics -- some 100,000 more people are working in Ontario, which is good news. It's good news for those people who are working, certainly, but it's good news for governments too, because of course if 100,000 more people are working, then they're paying taxes. Many of them are coming off welfare, for example, many of them want to get off welfare and get working, and they are getting that opportunity. By getting that opportunity and working, they are earning money, are paying taxes and we have more taxpayers now in the province. With more taxpayers, more money comes in and helps to reduce that deficit.

It also helps with the excellent programs we have in Ontario. I know that many of my colleagues in the House on all sides will be talking about those programs -- education programs, health programs -- that we are proud of that we are delivering to the people of Ontario, not to say there can't be improvements in those programs, but I think we recognize in the province of Ontario that in many regards we're fortunate to have excellent health care, good education programs, good justice programs, and we need to work on them and make them even better.

There is reason to continue to work hard on the financial picture, the expenditures of the province of Ontario, but there's every reason to say that at least we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We see that the expenditures are coming under control from the various ministries. We see that expenditures are coming more in line with the revenues we have. We see that expenditures now are sustainable into the future years and that those very programs we enjoy and have enjoyed will be sustainable in the future years for the younger people, for our children and our grandchildren. That I believe is important to us.

We see that revenues are coming up, we see that more people are being employed, we see that we're heading on the right track, but the job is not finished. The job is never finished. We need to continue to work to improve those programs and to ensure that the expenditures in each ministry are focused on delivering the best service to the people of Ontario, giving the best value to the people of Ontario that we can possibly achieve.

With those few comments I will sit down and allow the debate to carry on with the other members.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on supply and on the government's financial plans.

I think the people of Ontario, as they watch the Legislature, periodically are somewhat perplexed about the place because the opposition has one view and the government another and they may wonder where are the facts of the matter.

I would say to the people of Ontario that we've had in the last week, I guess the last 10 days, three very professional organizations whose job it is to look at the fiscal plans of governments, companies and organizations and to assess those plans and to rate their creditworthiness -- these are organizations which get paid by organizations that are going to loan money to governments or to companies. Obviously, how much interest you pay depends on how creditworthy you are.

The organizations that have issued their reports on Ontario in the last few days are Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Service, all three of them highly reputable international companies whose judgement is respected in the financial community.

They looked at the government's finances and all three of them reached the same conclusion, that the government is putting the fiscal health of the province at risk with its tax cut. So for the people at home who are watching, as to the 30% tax cut, without question, the government's numbers show that people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars -- $250,000 -- a year are going to get a $500 million tax break.

What Moody's, Standard and Poor's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service all say is that is a risky proposition. It puts at risk the fiscal health of the province of Ontario. Moody's the other day said that in their opinion we are at the midpoint of the economic cycle, that we should expect, as normal, a downturn, perhaps in two years, and that at that point in time the government is going to have to cut deeper than they had planned to keep the fiscal house in order.

While Mike Harris is very proud of his plan for the 30% tax cut, the independent agencies that look at the fiscal health of the province have raised real concerns. Interestingly enough, I remember Mike Harris was absolutely apoplectic at Bob Rae. Mike sat right there somewhere and Bob Rae sat over there. Mike Harris used to rail at him about the credit rating of Ontario because it used to be AAA and it was downgraded to AA+, AA, AA-, and Mike Harris essentially said that is unacceptable.

What do we find? All three that have looked at the financial plans of the province of Ontario have given Mike Harris exactly the same credit rating they gave Bob Rae. This is looking at the budget and looking at the future.

You are putting the fiscal health of the province at risk and many of the programs that the people of Ontario have come to regard as fundamental to a quality of life -- our programs for our seniors, our health care programs. Incidentally, as the doctors' agreement said, we are going to see the population grow by about a million and a half people over the next 10 years, with the people over the age of 65 increasing dramatically, but we've decided that the province can afford a 30% tax cut that benefits the best-off in this province, and Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Service have all said to us that is high risk.

What else are we doing to put at risk the future financial health and our programs? One way the government has decided to get its spending down, to cut spending so that it can do the tax cut -- what have they done? -- is they've loaded expense on to property tax. I keep saying this to the Legislature because in less than a year now the people of Ontario are going to get a huge shock when they get their property tax bill. One of the reasons they're going to get a huge shock is the province of Ontario decided to dump, to download, to add on to property tax, about $660 million of new cost. They've taken costs that used to be the provincial costs and they've pushed them on to the municipalities. That alone takes property tax up by about 5%, just that one item.

1520

By the way, I will add, particularly to the seniors in this province, all of the social housing now is on property tax. It used to be handled by the province out of broadly based taxes. It's all going now on to property taxes. When we recognize, as we in the Liberal caucus do, that a majority of social housing is for seniors, as it should be -- I think the measure of a society is how it deals with its young people and how it deals with its seniors. But the government has decided to dump all of the social housing on to property tax, 100% of social housing. I absolutely guarantee you that, as our seniors realize that in difficult times they're going to have to go to city hall when property taxpayers are hard-pressed and they're going to have to be begging for the local property tax to continue to ensure they have quality accommodation, we're simply asking for problems.

I would add further that the dumping went on to dumping on to rural municipalities the cost of a program for our farm community. It used to be that there was something called the farm tax rebate, paid for by the province, and with good reason; supported by all parties, I might add. But the province says, "No, we want to cut $170 million out of our support for our farm community, so we're going to discontinue that program but we're going to insist that the municipalities pick up the cost of it."

When we were dealing with the property tax bill, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said: "You can't do this. You are dumping $170 million of new cost on to rural municipalities." Certainly our farm community deserves it, but the rural municipalities can't afford it out of property taxes. But somebody has got to pay for the tax cut. That's how the province has decided to fund it.

They've added about $180 million of policing on to property taxes. I have a saying about Mike Harris: He's all badge and no money. He loves the photo opportunities with our policing community, loves to drive around in the OPP cruisers with the nice hat on, but they've cut $180 million out of police financing for our municipalities.

The reason I raise all of this is because the government has to find the money for the tax cut. Now people are beginning to realize and ask, "How am I paying for it?" They're paying for it by user fees on policing and fire services. Now our seniors' housing is 100% on the property tax, and I repeat that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario begged our committee -- Mr Pouliot and myself were on it -- "Don't go ahead with the dumping of these costs on to our rural communities." But no, the government had to push forward with that.

Another way the government has decided to manage to cut its expenditures is that now, for the first time ever, the province is going to set the property tax mill rate for education on businesses and on residences. That used to be something that was handled by the local municipality. A local school board would set the local rate. Now, for the first time ever, the province is going to be setting the educational mill rate.

My friends in the business community thought education was coming off property tax. I said, "No, none of it, zero is coming off." The only issue, and there's a group going around the province now, is whether some businesses are going to pay more and some less. But the province is determined to raise the same amount of money, and similarly with the residential.

I remember very well early in January something called mega-week, when Mike Harris said: "It's unfair to have residences paying education property tax. We're going to take it off completely." Of course, they hadn't done the numbers. They made the announcement before they did the numbers. When the numbers finally came out, they had to begin to wipe some egg off their face and backpedal on it. Those people who heard the chamber of commerce speech by Mike Harris, that they're going to remove education from residential property tax, have had quite a little surprise, because Mike Harris found out he couldn't do it. Now, of course, it's heavily back on to property tax.

Also going 100% on to property tax are some of the health areas. Any debate we've had on health here in Ontario for the last 15 years probably has been about the need to have a totally integrated health system, to find ways, to use the jargon, to make it seamless. Yet, surprise, surprise, the province has actually decided to fragment health care. Now, surprisingly, public health and ambulances are 100% on property tax. Rather than this well-integrated health system, we're finding that the way the government is getting its spending down is by dumping a substantial amount of cost on to municipalities.

I would just say to the municipal politicians who are, hopefully, watching at some stage, I really think you do the property taxpayers a disservice by not raising the fact that they are picking up a substantial amount of the cost of the Mike Harris income tax cut, because, as we all know, when property taxes go up, people get very, very angry. There's no doubt in my mind that a year from now, when those property taxes come out, they're going to be extremely angry.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wondered if you would ascertain whether or not there is a quorum here.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The thing that often surprises people who watch proceedings here but aren't intimately involved with them, and that's understandable -- I say to them, "You realize that the province isn't going to balance its budget until March 31, 2001." That's what the government says: March 31, 2001. As a matter of fact, that's a year after the latest possible day of the next election. I say to them, "You realize that Mike Harris has decided to" -- and this was in the budget; you just get yourself on page 32 and you look at the cumulative deficits, how much they are adding to the debt of the province from the time he became Premier. You can see it's $30 billion. Well, $30 billion is a lot of money. It's equivalent to the debt that was accumulated over the first 120 years of the province. Mike Harris is adding $30 billion to the debt of the province.

We all understand the need to tackle the deficit, and that's why children on social assistance have had to take a 20% reduction in the level of support for them. I think there are half a million children on social assistance. They're getting by right now with 20% less than they did before, because we have this terrific deficit problem. That's why seniors have had to pay a user fee, even though Mike Harris guaranteed there would be no user fees on drugs. But the seniors have had to pay a user fee because we have this deficit we have to tackle. Actually, the people of Ontario are quite understanding of that. They know they have to get our fiscal house in order.

Then I say to them, or they often say this to me -- "If we have such a huge problem with the deficit" -- people on social assistance, seniors, our educational community; we've got to close a third of the hospitals in this province, all to get at that deficit -- "tell me again how we can afford a tax cut that will give people making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, $250,000 a year, a $500-million tax break?"

1530

There is where people question the priorities of Mike Harris. If we have to do all of these very tough things -- and I might add, there are more tough things coming -- to get our deficit and our debt under control, tell me again how we can afford that sort of tax cut and one that, without question, the more you make, the bigger the benefit.

The government itself says, "What is the impact on revenue losses as a result of the tax cut?" Here it is. The revenue changes, the tax cut, cost $4.815 billion a year, and that's in 1996-97 numbers, and it goes up to about $5.5 billion. You can see it actually in the government's own revenue estimates. You can see they've said that personal income tax revenue in 1995-96 was $16.3 billion, then it goes to $15.6 billion, and this year, 1997-98, they're predicting $14.5 billion.

The reason I raise all of this is that without any question of a doubt, the income tax cut represents a substantial loss of revenue. The government's own numbers show that. Every single penny of that we have to go out and borrow. We are going out to borrow the money to fund the tax cut. I say to my business friends, if you are running this like a business, and that certainly is not the way it's being done, would you declare that kind of dividend when you're still running those huge deficits? The answer, of course, is no.

So why is the tax cut being done? The first and foremost reason is because the Reform Party was going to enter provincial politics in 1994 and the only way you could keep them out, the only way Preston Manning would not run candidates here, was for Mike Harris to put together a Reform agenda -- and it worked. The unfortunate deal was that Mike Harris had to promise he wouldn't support Jean Charest in the next federal election, and we saw what happened there. Jean was left hanging out to dry as Mike sat on his hands, and the Reform Party said some things that I don't think were in the best interests of the Progressive Conservative federal party or of Canada. Anyway, that's the price that Mike was prepared to pay: "Reform, don't come into Ontario. We'll give you a Reform agenda anyway."

As a matter of fact, many of the members are supporters of the federal Reform. They make no bones about it. During the campaign I saw several of the provincial Conservative caucus on television at Reform meetings and making no bones about it. Many of the members have been active in the federal Reform Party. I know that. I understand all of that. I'm just saying, if the deficit is such a huge problem, how can we afford a 30% cut in personal income tax? You can say, "Well, it will stimulate the economy." If you want to borrow that kind of money to stimulate the economy, perhaps.

On the job front, here in the Legislature we do get into an argument around numbers: "A thousand jobs a day created." "No, no, it's something different." Just in very simple terms, there are more people out of work today in Ontario than the day Mike Harris became Premier. That is fact. That is absolute fact.

Many people on social assistance actually voted for Mike Harris because he said, "I am going to make sure you get a job." In fact, here's the language that Mike used: "There are more than half a million people unemployed in this province." He railed against that in the Common Sense Revolution. Guess what? Today there are 505,000 people out of work in Ontario, as of May 1997.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy is youth unemployment. As long as there's no recognition by the government that it's a problem, it will never be solved. If Mike Harris simply wants to say, "The revolution's working; don't worry, youth unemployment is not a problem," we will never solve this. If you look at the numbers that are happening right now, in 1997, the unemployment rate for the first five months in 1997 among young people was 18.5%. Last year at the same time it was 16.3%. It is a problem. Believe me, it's a problem.

I take my hat off to some of the private sector people. I repeat this. There's an organization, Careers First, that is working hard at trying to help young people in the workforce. I attended a session a couple of weeks ago sponsored by one of the major banks, the CIBC; a very fine job by them looking at the issue of youth unemployment and putting together a group of corporations that would help to begin to deal with it. But as long as Mike Harris says, "This is not a problem," we'll never tackle this.

I say again, there are more people out of work in Ontario today than when Mike Harris became Premier. The reason I say that is that people on social assistance, for whatever reason, I'm afraid are an easy target for a society that can be angry about things. It's perhaps understandable, but if you're on social assistance and you are looking for work -- all of us in our constituencies deal with people on social assistance. We know that the overwhelming majority of them would like nothing better than to have a decent job, but when we have more people out of work today than when Mike Harris became Premier, clearly it is a challenge for people on social assistance, or any people, to get a job. And we all know many, many young people who are desperate to find work. I say, as part of the government's approach, there is a terrific danger that we are dividing this province along the lines of those who have and those who don't have.

I mentioned earlier about how the government is dealing with cutting its costs. Clearly one way they're doing it is loading them on to the property tax. I would just say that we had been promised a bill by the Minister of Finance. He said he would have it in the spring. Well, spring is here, spring is almost gone, and the bill isn't here. What was that bill supposed to do? It was supposed to help small business property taxes. I can guarantee you this: The bill that the Legislature currently has passed, over our objections, over the NDP's objections, because we saw that it was going to hurt small business, does not allow municipalities to in any way assist small business.

By the way, the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, raised this issue with us and with the government. They said, "We've been calling for property tax reform; ironically, this is going to hurt us." What's going to happen there, in a rather technical way, is that something called the business occupancy tax is gone. That's $1.6 billion. It's all going to be added right back on to the realty tax and that's going to drive realty taxes up dramatically; more on small business, less on large business. So large business is going to benefit and small business is going to be dramatically hurt.

I also want to say just a word about the 407 because it will in the end prove very interesting to us. Its opening has been delayed for six months; it was supposed to open January 1. It now looks like the costs are obviously escalating, because the interest is growing on the fact that the tolls have not started up.

1540

It's positioned as, "This road's going to pay for itself." I will be very interested in seeing the reports on it. That's what it's supposed to do, but it looks to me like the cost is well over $1 billion. The tolls are going to perhaps be $50 million to $60 million and the costs $20 million. We're looking at net tolls in the $50-million range to carry a $1-billion cost. It doesn't work. I gather that today they announced the expansion of it. We will be looking for the finances of that project to ensure that it isn't simply a way of the government borrowing more money off the books.

I want to close by saying how concerned we in the opposition are about the approach the government takes. I call it a bully approach. I've seen it in Ipperwash. I continue to feel very strongly that the government made the key decisions involved in handling what I call the Ipperwash affair, the Ipperwash incident, where a first nations person for the first time in over 100 years was killed in a land claim confrontation with the government of Ontario.

We have been told the government had nothing to do with it. We find minutes indicating the government made the decision to get those natives out ASAP. We know the Premier's executive assistant was at daily crisis meetings, often for three hours, instructed to go back to the Premier, to advise him on what was happening, and we're told there was never a minute or a note or a motion kept, forever, which is just unacceptable. We're told they can't have a public inquiry. We find there's precedent for holding public inquiries under similar circumstances.

That's why we're so angry about the rule changes. The day we forget we are here to represent the public -- the public simply gave us the authority to come down and represent them, not to come down here and do whatever we want. Furthermore, the public has elected what's called an opposition to challenge and ask questions and examine. Nobody has the right to dictate their agenda.

There is no question that the rules that have been laid before us -- I hope the public will appreciate that what Mike Harris really wants to do is have the authority to do whatever he wants, at whatever speed, with as little debate and input as possible. That is not what the public wants. The public expect an opportunity for their government to explain what they're doing, to outline what they're doing. If they are proceeding to do things that the public feel aren't appropriate, the public wants a chance for input on that before it becomes law.

If you tried these rules on a municipality, the province of Ontario would step in and say: "That municipality is a dictatorship. The public are being shut out." But we now find these rules that are attempting to gag and to stop legitimate debate by opposition. I know from experience the public watches and has difficulty in getting agitated about rules, but fundamentally, I guarantee you that if you give any government authority to do whatever they want and that power, any government becomes abusive. Every government needs to be held accountable. This government is asking for the authority to become abusive.

I'm pleased to add to the debate on our budget bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Vous me permettrez bien sûr de participer aux débats émanant du dernier budget provincial où plusieurs ministères ont subit, ont été assujettis à des coupures sérieuses.

The last provincial budget was a bit like Bre-X. The package looked very good; the budget book reads quite well. But when you open and scrutinize, when you indulge in due diligence, you find out it's quite deceiving, that there is a focus on changing responsibilities, downloading on municipalities, in order to attempt to make ends meet.

The people at Standard and Poor's of New York, the people at the Dominion Bond Rating Service -- I trust they are based in Toronto -- and the Canadian Bond Rating Service -- I know that one is based in Montreal -- have been poring over Ontario's books for weeks now. They make it their business to assess the books and the performance of large borrowers. The province of Ontario continues to be a very large borrower.

The bond rating agency has issued a caution to the province. When you read between the lines, once you get past the legalese, they're asking, "Is it wise to get an extension on your credit card, or is it wiser to pay your debt?"

1550

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): You tell me.

Mr Pouliot: I'll tell you, and you should know. What they're saying is that you should forgo all future cuts in taxes in order to upgrade your rating. As the people opposite know, every level of rating accorded by the agencies represents 25 basis points in the interest rate, which translates into approximately $25 million. If the province of Ontario was to achieve an AAA rating, it would need to upgrade three times, and this would result in a saving of 75 basis points, translating into $75 million that it could hit the deficit with, maybe put a little more money into hospitals, into health, into education. It would make immense economic sense to hit the deficit as opposed to opt for a tax cut.

But life is not so simple if you're a member of the Conservative-Reform Party of Ontario. They went out soliciting big-time prior to the June 8, 1995, election. This lot would have done and did practically anything and everything to get a majority government, to form the government. Some of their promises they're coming close to keeping. Others have gone by the boards.

I read in the paper the other day someone mentioning that it was the big lie, after going through the program. I'm not the one saying this, Mr Speaker -- it is not parliamentary -- but this is what I read. It said the government shied away from the truth.

Recall, and I don't see it in the budget, that they said there would be no new taxes, that there would be no user fees because a tax is a tax, no matter what you call it. Yet if you're a senior, you've been punished, you've been levied for the first time. You will pay a $100 deductible for prescribed drugs if you are not straight on the poverty line. If you are among the less fortunate, you will pay a minimum of $2. They will show no mercy. They don't call it a user fee, but if you use prescribed drugs, you have to pay the fee. You can't get around it. You can't be hypocritical about it. A fee is a fee.

Then they had the audacity -- the program started on July 15, 1996 -- to state that not only were the seniors going to get hit with this new levy, but once a year the process would repeat itself. They couldn't wait. They quickly became insatiable, so they went to the seniors again in April -- not in July -- eight and a half months after, and said, "Open your purse, open your pocket, because we're here to pick it."

An honourable member, when presented with this situation, would have one opportunity, one exit, and that would be to resign. I can assure you that if a similar situation had occurred when we were the government, having been fortunate to be a minister of the crown, I would have tabled my resignation. I would have had a great deal of difficulty showing up in the House. They got caught. No new fees --

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Like the social contract.

Mr Pouliot: I see the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines, who takes a great deal of pleasure in interjecting. In 30 seconds he can tell us a lot more than he knows.

I want to share with him, since he's responsible for northern development, the vehicle population statistics for northern Ontario: passenger vehicles, 354,663; motorcycles, 10,925; commercial vehicles, 178,424. In the last election there were to be no new taxes, no user fees. Guess what? The budget decrees that if you live in northern Ontario, you will pay $37 for your licence plate. You know the geography. Winter is a long affair where we live. We measure distances on a different scale. We have no alternative mode of transportation. We pay as much as 15 cents more per litre for gasoline. So you're right, Speaker, we give at the pump.

The discrepancy was the recognition that since we pay so much at the pump, we would get a bit of a break. We had counted on the government not to increase, not to levy for licence plates, because they had said they would not, but they couldn't resist. Recall the health levy? There were going to be no new taxes. Let's listen to what the seniors have to say. There were to be no new fees on licence plates, and the list goes on. The government is playing a bit of a shell game. They lure people. It's a bit like snake oil at a cheap circus that's about to leave town, a tombola.

We're spending more money on health care? The population of Ontario has increased some 700,000 in the past five years. In 1993 health care costs per person were $1,607, and this was during a very acute, very harsh recession; it is now $1,563 per person. When they say they are spending more on health, it's not true; they are spending less. You can see it yourself. For every citizen in Ontario it was $1,607; now it's $1,563. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but certainly when you're reduced to this level in order to get your message across, when you push all the right sensitive buttons -- this is the government that hit the less fortunate by 21.6%, the poor people.

Then some of the backbenchers will remind us at every opportunity about the children, that they care for my children and the children of others. Their actions betray what they say. They're talking about their children, and in many cases, their children are going to be just fine. What about the other children, who won't have the same chance? "Oh, well, if they fall upon hard times and they're on general assistance, I guess it must be their fault." That's the message. That's what this government says.

I'm happy. This is perhaps one of the last times that we will have the opportunity to debate freely in this House. I understand that the team of misery has gathered and developed a concoction with which they will change the rules. The opposition will be handcuffed. In a matter of a few days, the opposition will be straitjacketed. We will be muzzled. Democracy will suffer yet one more assault.

C'est quand on regarde chaque ligne du budget, chaque ministère, qu'on s'aperçoit que la véhémence, que l'idéologie de ces idéologues de droite, se retrouve à l'intérieur de tous les ministères. This is what the ideologues have decreed.

Education and training: The budget in 1993-94 was $8.691 billion; this fiscal year, 1997-98, it is $7.7 billion. So talk to me about not cutting in the classroom. They're cutting. They're going right to the heart of the program, and when you listen to the women and the men who are in the classroom, they know that there is a dark cloud on the horizon. They're about to be taken on by the government. They have been targeted. They will shoot to kill. They will withdraw their democratic right, one way or the other, to go to a legal work stoppage under a state of siege, and they will pick their pockets, because $5.4 billion -- that's a heck of a lot of money by any account -- is the tax cut, and yet you've got this looming deficit, this albatross.

The choice is quite clear. But no, they're on the hook because they court people who are quite fortunate in life, people's whose pockets are full of money, coupons, debentures. The more you make, the richer you are, the more the tax cut is tailored for you. This is not a tax cut off the rack; this is tailored to help those who need it the least. Alas, you must pay; there is no free lunch. The hand that gives and the hand that takes, except that the hand that takes takes from those who are the most vulnerable, who need it the most. The hand that gives gives to those who really don't need it at all.

1600

You do a tax cut and on the one hand, you turn around and you padlock the most essential service, that of health care. Hospitals are being closed. We've heard of some incidents, most unfortunately, of people dying in the corridor, and it's well documented. We get up and we say, "Our condolences." Who's next on the list? No one means for that to happen. I don't meet anyone who wouldn't be troubled, but those things will happen, most unfortunately, most regrettably, when with the power of the pen you dedicate less money. What are the consequences? What are the ramifications? What are the results of cutting social services? You will find them.

The government has a right to scrutinize, to conduct due diligence, to make sure that the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario indeed get full value for their tax dollars. But you must take the opportunity to represent all Ontarians, not only those who can run the fastest, who can best defend themselves. This is not survival of the fittest. For some it is surviving the day, and they place a great deal of confidence in the most important tabling, that of the budget.

You've missed an opportunity. You had the chance. There is a recovery, and yet the money won't be coming in in terms of tax receipts. What will you do when the cycle hits? What will you do? They pride themselves -- the Minister of Northern Development always talks about balance and equilibrium. My God, what denominator does he use? Northern development and mines -- get this, Minister -- in 1993-94 $83 million. That's for us, to get a little bit up north. It's gone down by more than half to $41 million. When we were the government it was $83 million, now it's $41 million.

How many civil servants are out the door, are walking, got the ticket, got the pink slip? But I guess it has a certain forum, a certain audience. If you say, "Do you have too many, just enough, not enough civil servants?" we know what the answer is likely to be. But the sad reality is that you do things progressively. You must digest, you must assimilate the changes.

In my travels I don't hear anyone say they are opposed to changes. But what I hear a lot is that they should think things through more thoroughly, that in some cases they'll come up with 30 to 40 to 50 amendments to a bill before implementation, which means it hasn't been all that well thought out.

The Chair of Management Board, while opening the debate a few minutes ago, mentioned that they will balance the books, that they will reduce the deficit to nothing in this term, verbatim, and Hansard will attest to that. Yet the Treasurer says in the budget book that this will be done in the fiscal year 2000-01. Some of the backbenchers who will not be returning will sleep better tonight because there will not be an election before the year 2000. There can't be because I believe what the Chair of Management Board says. Not that he's going to balance the books. This is trickery, this is bad magic. You can't do it. It cannot be done. That's what the experts are saying. A simple matter of mathematics. No matter what snake oil you throw to people, no matter how many conjurers of illusion, cheap magicians, cheap tricks, this will not reconcile the books. Good fiscal management will, a program, a timetable, while caring. That's what does it.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you ascertain whether or not there is a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you check if a quorum is present?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: Speaker, you will allow me to personally thank the good office of the member from Beaches for reminding the government that it's their duty to have the House duly constituted, to have 20 people.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, I think we're all aware of that, but thanks for reminding me.

Mr Pouliot: It's a long walk from the Toronto Club or the Boulevard Club. Just for some of the members, happy hour takes precedence over House duty.

I want to go back to -- oh, this government is tough on crime. If they had their way, they would have boot camps for members of the opposition. This is how tough they are on crime. Let me share something with you. The budget of the Solicitor General and correctional services: $1.095 billion. It used to be $1.168 billion four years ago. Those women and those men in blue who are protecting and serving are not getting the support. This does not lie. These are straightforward figures. The cash is there or it's not. You can't hid from reality. You can't spin your way out of the estimates, out of the book.

If you're one of the 550,000 Franco-Ontarians, they'll talk the sweet line but they don't walk the walk. Your budget has gone from $3 million to $2 million.

Office responsible for women's issues -- get this, Speaker: $23 million in 1993-94, down to $20 million. But do they ever care? That's by their own admission. They're gutting ministries, they're slashing.

The Ministry of Transportation, in 1995-96 $1.054 billion, in 1997-98 $715 million, a 30% decrease in the Ministry of Transportation. You've heard of potholes, you've heard of flying truck wheels, of people ditching and totalling a vehicle? What do you expect? They've cut one third of the budget. Live by the sword, die by it. They do so at their own peril.

1610

We're not getting the services because you must find $5.4 billion. You've got to pay back. It's payback time if you're rich. They supported you; they had all kinds of big billboards against our government. This government was to do better. Now they're into debt when they have an opportunity to get out of debt. They're not managers of prosperity.

The bond rating agencies are saying you shouldn't be in debt. This is the opportunity. These are good times. There's some consumer confidence. We're export-driven, we're resource-based, and the money is coming in. Well, no, it's not. There is a decrease in receipts, in revenue, because of the tax cut. Yet it doesn't go to everyone. Many people can hardly notice the difference in their paycheque.

Ordinary Ontarians, you take the pay stub and put it on your kitchen table and talk to your family. What will you do? Hopefully you'll be able to save a few dollars, because you're going to need it. You will need it. You cannot depend on the safety net from a government whose ideology resides on Bay Street, whose friends, whose golf companions, threesomes and foursomes, come with a calling card, presidents and vice-presidents of major corporations and, yes, the banks. They don't court the same circles. They go with what they refer to as the successful, those who can buy their way into every situation and those who can buy their way out of every situation.

The opposition has time and time again reminded the government of the need for balance, that you cannot run it like a shop, like a boutique, like a business. You can't do this. Miss Jones is 74 years of age, one of our citizens; she needs a helping hand, she needs care. Most unfortunately, she will never show a profit. We don't give her the back of the hand; we offer our hand.

There isn't enough of this direction in the budget, so I refer to it as a missed opportunity. You've had your chance. You could have said yes. You could have redistributed more equally so that everyone would have had a chance to grow. But no, you have chosen to wear blinkers and to direct your efforts for those who need it the least.

Consequently, and in conclusion, health care in Ontario, unless there is a change of heart, a change of direction, will suffer; education will no longer be what it has been, houses of excellence, will for many cease to exist. You will see an increasing division, a gap between the middle class, the poor and those who can best defend themselves of unprecedented proportions. I don't wish to sound like a merchant of fear, a prince of doom -- we have a lot to be thankful for and we wish to keep it that way -- but this will be the consequence of ill-thought-out policies, of policies that focused, that selected a few at the expense of far too many.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): A week ago I spoke to a group of people in my riding in the city of Kitchener. It was interesting that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said to the people who are watching, "What are the facts?" It's very interesting because I gave the people at this meeting the facts. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot was at that meeting and he will agree that I was loudly applauded for giving them the facts. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you about the facts.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): You have an ego. Let's hear it for Wayne.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Mr Laughren. I appreciate that.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt plays footloose and fancy-free with the numbers. He was talking about how the DBRS had maintained our credit rating for the province the same as it was under the NDP government. Of all people in the Liberal Party, he should know that there is a lag: It takes three to five years for a government to turn things around.

Ms Lankin: Then our bad credit rating was really the Liberals' fault.

Mr Wettlaufer: I would agree with that, Ms Lankin. Your bad credit rating was really the Liberals' fault.

Actually, I would like to point out that during the best years Ontario has ever enjoyed economically, in 1988 the Dominion Bond Rating Service put Ontario's credit on a rating alert. That was when the Liberal government was in power. Why did they do that? They did it because the Liberal government was spending money, spending far too much money, much more than Ontario's economy could stand.

When we came to power in 1995 we had a $100-billion debt; we also had an $11.2-billion annual deficit. I think our economic policy has worked quite well. Our deficit this year will be $6.6 billion.

When we came to power, the people elected us because we had some promises. We promised that we would create an environment in which business could provide jobs for Ontario. We didn't promise, as other governments did, to create jobs. The NDP government promised that a long time ago, and we saw what happened in their five-year administration: There was a reduction in jobs.

We hear constantly from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we are underperforming in terms of job creation. Okay, let's talk about facts. Again there is that three- to five-year lag, a drag effect, as we know. We did provide an environment in which the private sector created 90,000 jobs in the first year. In addition to that, Ontario is creating 1,000 jobs a day; that's 60,000 jobs created in the months of March and April. Since February, 156,000 jobs were created in all of Canada; in Ontario alone, 101,000 jobs. We are the leader in job creation in the country. How are we doing in the job creation field? I would have to say that as government we're doing pretty doggone good.

Mr Laughren: Oh, you're great.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Floyd.

Ontario exports: In the first quarter of this year, Ontario exports rose by 5.8% over what they were a year ago. Let's make that even more significant. Ontario's real trade balance in 1996 was $17 billion higher than a year ago, and then in the first quarter of this year it has risen another 5.8%. How are we doing? Pretty good.

Housing sales: This is a bellwether in the growth of a province's or a country's economy -- housing sales and auto sales. Housing sales in 1996 jumped by a rate of 20.2%. In the first four months of this year, housing starts are up 62.2% over 1996, more than twice the level in the rest of the country.

Then we have auto sales. Auto sales last year rose nearly 20% year over year. Up to the end of March of this year, we were up 25.7% in unit sales and 30.5% in dollar terms; for the first three months, up 14.4%

1620

I think we're doing exceedingly well as a government. We're providing jobs. We're providing a stable economy. Isn't that what the people of this province want?

The primary role of government in job creation, we know, is to provide a favourable economic climate. What can cause a problem in a favourable economic climate? High taxes definitely can do it. We're reducing the taxes. The $100-billion debt can cause a problem. We can't rectify that problem until we have rectified the deficit, which was climbing annually. We've got that down to $6.6 billion and we will reduce it to zero in the last year of our term. Government interference causes a problem, we know it causes a problem, and we are reducing the level of government interference.

We also know there is another big factor in economic growth in a province or in a country, and that is confidence level. All the experts tell us the measure of confidence in the province and in the country is way up. People are more confident that they're going to hold on to their jobs. People are more confident that their income is going to remain stable, and they are once again buying.

I want to talk about what Moody's said, because the member for Scarborough-Agincourt kept talking about Moody's. Moody's Investors Service on June 13, 1997, said: "The province's AA3 rating for domestic and foreign currency obligations is stable for the medium term. Among the strongest reasons for the agency's conclusion are the relatively low ratio of debt to GDP, continued fiscal discipline and a solid, diversified economy." In its report, Moody's notes that "the province is engineering a realignment of the spending base that should lead to further improvement in financial performance. For 1997 we anticipate a pick-up in the pace of economic activity, with real GDP posting in advance of 3%," about 3%. "Lower interest rates, tax cuts and some job gains will boost disposable income this year and thus provide for a rebound in household spending. From an economic perspective, a more competitive tax regime can enhance the long-term growth potential of the province."

That's what Moody's said on June 13.

Dominion Bond Rating Service on June 5, 1997, said, "The ratings reflect the province's strong commitment to achieving its deficit targets, reduction of program spending to a more sustainable level and a well-diversified economy that is beginning to grow at a stronger pace."

That speaks volumes about what we're doing. Before I came to this House, I was a businessman. Many businessmen have to borrow money from time to time, and I sure do like to know what it costs me to borrow money. What is it costing the province to borrow money? The difference between the Canada bond rate and what we are able to borrow money for in the province of Ontario is 16 basis points. That's the lowest spread in 10 years; in fact it's the lowest difference in this province's history. Let's make a comparison. In that time when the Liberals were in power, the time they like to talk about as when things were so glowing, the year the Dominion Bond Rating Service put Ontario's credit rating on a rating alert the average spread was 48 basis points -- significant dollars, very significant dollars.

We know the Liberals have problems with numbers from time to time. They've been running around the province telling everyone our health care spending is down. In fact the Liberal health care critic in the estimates committee last week was having some trouble with those numbers and I brought it to his attention that he wasn't reading the numbers correctly. From the estimates, if one reads them accurately, it's pretty evident that we've increased spending on health care, on program spending alone, by $400 million this year. Total spending on health care has actually increased by $1 billion. What's the problem? Why can't they understand these figures?

We know the middle class has been suffering for years under the weight of increased government taxation. Douglas McCready, who is an economist at Wilfrid Laurier University, said he would argue that for the last 20 years we've been going through a change in income distribution that has damaged the middle class with government growing. He says, "I'm not so sure that is happening because the government is moving out of certain services." Well, I know it's not happening because the government is moving out of certain services. As a member of the middle class, I like to see that my taxes aren't going to continue growing for services this province can no longer afford.

It is very important that we increase the importance of education in the classroom, and that is what the Minister of Education is trying to do. It's very important that we foresee what the needs of health care are going to be for the next five, 10, 15 years. We must look down the road. We have changing needs. We've had revolutions in health care. We've had three or four revolutions in health care in the last hundred years. We're facing that again, because older people want to recover at home. They don't want to be stuck in a hospital for a week or two weeks or three weeks; they want to be cared for at home. I had a seniors seminar this past weekend. We heard that loud and clear. The Minister without Portfolio for seniors, Mr Cam Jackson, came and spoke, and he heard that with me.

We have many concerns about the changing needs in this province, and we are addressing those changing needs. We are trying to increase the economic stability of the province, and I think we have demonstrated that we are doing so. Growth in jobs, growth in the housing sector, growth in the auto sector: The only thing that isn't growing is taxes. What a pleasant change.

1630

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I always enjoy the member from Kitchener. There's only one place that he's more interesting to see than in here, and it's on the front page of the Waterloo county press. I have to say that I don't think there's an opposition member that lacerated the government of Ontario, particularly the current Minister of Health, about hospital restructuring quite like the member who just spoke on the front page of the Kitchener Record when it came to "that hospital that kept me alive." It was a very powerful and passionate commitment that the member made and one that all reasonable people would want to associate with.

I could quote other aspects of the member's observations. It's too bad I don't have the article, but I remember being in Waterloo or Kitchener a year and a half ago, and the member who just spoke, Mr Wettlaufer, had some truly rich observations about the welfare agenda that was on the front page of a local tabloid. Since I don't have it, I can't make reference, but I'm sure I could find it with a little bit of time and encouragement.

But I do want to agree with Mr Wettlaufer in a couple of important respects. I think we all take pride in the fact that the Ontario economy is getting better; it's obviously getting better. I see in the financial press today that growth rates for the next 18 months are improved. The expectation is that the growth this year will be something in the neighbourhood of 3.5%; it's projected at 3.8% or 3.9% for next year. That's very good news. That's going to mean that government coffers are probably going to be in better shape than the budget that we're debating this afternoon projects.

It also is certainly going to, hopefully, mean that employment is going to get better. In my part of eastern Ontario, as I observed the other day, we have excellent news from the high-tech corporation that is known as Nortel. We had in Renfrew county just this week reports that one of our major employers, Haley Industries, is enjoying a very good level of economic growth and activity, and all members, government and members of the opposition alike, certainly want to celebrate that good news.

I think there isn't a minister of finance, nationally or provincially, who won't be pleased to see that inflation remains very, very low and interest rates are correspondingly low. Most of the gains, and I'm sure the member for Nickel Belt has made this observation, that finance ministers have made in terms of their improved numbers over the last couple of years have come as a result, in the main, of substantially lower-than-expected interest rates. That's again good news, and it is expected to continue.

I want to make the point again today, however, that it is not good news everywhere. If we look at the current unemployment rates for Ontario, we see that they are coming down, generally speaking. They're down now, at last report, to 8.5%: too high, we would all agree, but coming down. But if we look more carefully at the specifics of those unemployment numbers, we see one of the true cancers of this North American economy today, and that's the cancer of youth unemployment.

I noticed in a report the other day tabled by a national foundation in Canada that the current unemployment rate for young people is 17%. We know that. But it is very interesting if we look inside that 17%. According to the report issued by the Canadian Youth Foundation just a few weeks ago, the jobless rate in this country for those people with some high school education is 23%; the jobless rate for those young Canadians with a high school diploma is 14.7%; for those with a community college diploma, it's 12.4%; and for those with a university degree, it's 9%. It couldn't be clearer that the people most at risk in this society today in terms of their employment and economic prospects, are young people, particularly young people who do not have any kind of post-secondary education.

Against that backdrop, I want to make reference to a story that appeared on the front page of today's New York Times. Let me quote from the front page of the New York Times today, June 18, 1997, an article by Peter Applebome under the title of "Rising College Costs Imperil the Nation, Blunt Report Says."

"The nation's colleges and universities need to cut costs dramatically or face a shortfall of funds that will increasingly shut out the poor from higher education and from economic opportunity as well, according to a blunt and far-ranging assessment of American higher education that was made public yesterday.

"The report, by a panel of public and private university officials and corporate executives, says that rising costs, falling public spending and a coming surge in demand are making the economics of American higher education increasingly unsupportable."

Going on to quote former governor of New Jersey and now university president of some place called Drew University, Governor Kean -- he is a member of this panel, and he's quoted in the Times article today as saying: "The facts are irrefutable.... We are heading for a crisis at the very time we can least afford one."

I'm not going to read any more. I'm sorry the member for Scarborough East is not here, because this American data make it very clear about the rapidly increased cost in American universities, both public and private, in so far as student costs are concerned. If you look at the charts that are presented here, it is very evident that since the middle 1980s the actual cost of attending American private and public universities is going up very rapidly, and public support for these institutions in the United States is going down correspondingly. I haven't got the Canadian and American data. My guess is that while the lines are less severe, the trend to be very much the same.

What have we got? In a time when, as the previous member indicated, we see improved economic prospects, we've got in this country -- and I will only speak for Ontario, obviously, this afternoon -- a situation where unemployment rates for young people are at 17% at the very time we are saying we are not going to be supporting in a public way our public educational institutions, our colleges and our universities, as we have in the past and as is clear or should be clear we are going to need to do in the future.

When I go home to the Ottawa Valley every weekend and I talk to the middle-class parents the previous speaker talked about, the one persistent concern they've got, understandably, is the educational and employment opportunities for their kids. They're concerned about the rising costs of getting into Algonquin College or Sir Sandford Fleming College or McMaster University or Carleton University. They're keenly aware that those costs are going up and up and up at a time when public support is going the other way, not just provincially but nationally as well.

We keep hearing from not just these American blue ribbon panels, but I noticed a report the other day from the Globe and Mail of June 9, 1997, "Educated Employees Get Most Training." This is from a Statistics Canada report looking at who gets the training in our workplace today. Who gets most of it? Most of it is the already-well-employed, the already-well-educated, well-positioned individual. Those high school kids we talked about, those high school dropouts, are having the toughest time of all.

The question has to be asked, what are we doing about this cancerous problem? I don't expect a 1960s solution. I'm not here to argue that it's just about more government money, though we will have to spend more public resources in this area locally, provincially and nationally. There is no escaping that reality. Even the most hard-bitten Republican in the United States is coming to understand that.

I see in recent days one of the banks, and I think it's the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and I think the Toronto-Dominion -- I shouldn't mention specific banks, but there are corporations in this province that are undertaking more of their responsibility, and that should be applauded. My question to this House and to the government is, when are we going to insist that the rest of the private sector corporate leadership take its responsibilities to our young people in this province at this time?

1640

There's a great debate and the centre-left has heard it for the last 10 years: "Just give us smaller government. Get out of our way. Let the private sector provide the growth and the opportunity." Well, we've got a smaller public sector, to be sure. Even the Democratic President of the American republic said a year ago, "The era of big government is over." All right. My question to this House and to this government is, what are we going to do to the business leadership, large and small, to encourage them -- not just to encourage them; I hope it begins with encouragement. But to the extent they do not meet their social obligations, what are we going to do to hector them and to make them do their share of this work?

I want to say that those corporations, big and small, that have taken their responsibilities of providing more employment for young people should be congratulated. We should be holding up those people as good examples. But we need to see a hell of a lot more than we've seen to date. I was at the youth employment centre in Pembroke on Friday, and I'm telling you, there is some progress, but I hate to think of what those high school kids in places like Pembroke and Renfrew and Beachburg and Petawawa are going to face when they hit the streets in 10 days' time, because I don't think there are going to be very many jobs left.

It's quite clear that governments have cut back in terms of their summer employment from where they were five and 10 years ago. So let me say again to the private sector, where are you? Where do you think the skilled workforce is going to come from? What are you doing to ensure that the bright young 17-year-old high school student from Belleville is going to have some kind of meaningful summer job so he or she can advance not just in the workplace but in education-related endeavours?

I repeat, the recent research in this area is a very serious indictment of what's not happening. Let me just quote from an article that appeared on the business page of the Ottawa Citizen last month under the headline "One Fifth of Youth Jobs Have Vanished."

"One in five jobs held by young people before the last recession has disappeared, all of them full-time positions." Quoting Al Flood, the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, he says, "Youth employment and underemployment are the most important social issues facing Canada today." It's hard not to agree with him. So I say to the government and to the business leadership, what are you doing about your responsibilities in this respect? There is some progress, yes; there is not enough progress.

I have to say what I said some time ago. The rhetoric I hear from some of my baby-boomer class that part of the solution surely is to raise the cost of college and university tuition I think is a positively breathtaking argument from those of us who basically got free education in the 1960s and early 1970s. I can't think of a more brazen, arrogant position for some 45-year-old university-educated person in 1997 to suggest than this, and many are doing it.

I got my college and university tuition not free but nearly free, and I got it in the 1960s and early 1970s at a time when there were three jobs waiting for every one of us who graduated. We stand up and tell our kids in 1997: "Oh, we've got a cure for you. We think what you should get is college and university tuitions that are triple, quadruple." You can't make them high enough fast enough. I just think that's an absolutely astonishing argument for the 45- and 50-year-olds to make today for their kids. We've just accepted it around here. We just accept that the 19-year-old graduate of a high school in Belleville or Pembroke or Listowel should walk into those colleges and universities and the sky's the limit in terms of tuition.

We better all think about what the implications of that are. I think people like Flood and company, who have been talking in the public domain in recent weeks about the cancer that's out there, are giving us very telling advice. I was struck this morning when I read in the New York Times another panel saying very much the same thing. They said a lot of other interesting things that I will talk about on another day.

Yes, there is growth, yes, there is opportunity, I say to the member for Kitchener, but if you're a 19-year-old or a 23-year old in Ontario today, you are not sharing proportionately in that opportunity. We have an obligation, both as politicians and as business and labour leaders, to provide a better opportunity for those young people. If we think there's going to be social security, much less economic prosperity, with this kind of foundation, whether we're Tory, Liberal or New Democrat, we had better think again.

Let me just say that we are not, any of us, doing enough to associate ourselves with the concerns of young people, their educational future and their employment prospects. I don't make this as a partisan observation. I sit here many days and I just listen to the debate and I say to myself, "If I were the 22-year-old in the Beach or in Belleville or in Barry's Bay, how relevant would this debate be to me?" I'm afraid the answer is, "Not very."

One of the interesting things about the federal election that I think my federal colleagues understand perhaps better today than they might have a month ago is that the disadvantaged out there are not going to go quietly. The Atlantic region surprised a lot of people, not just the Liberals but the pollsters and a few others, by saying, "We do not accept the conventional wisdom that it has to be the way it is." If people in this chamber think that the disadvantaged, the underprivileged, the underemployed --

Mr Pouliot: The marginalized.

Mr Conway: -- the marginalized are going to go quietly, then I think we all better stop and take stock from the perspective of our comfortable pew, of whatever.

I want to take a few moments as well this afternoon -- does anybody know how much time I have? This clock makes no sense to me. Thank you.

There are today before us concurrences not just in education and training, health, natural resources, transportation --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, I take seriously the opportunities to come here and speak about issues. I'm glad to see my friend from Hastings. I want to give him public praise for being the only man in my time who has actually built the new bridge over the Moira River in Tweed. I can't imagine a more lasting political epitaph than, "I built the new bridge at Tweed."

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): He helps you get home.

Mr Conway: He gets me home in more ways than he might imagine.

If I could have Harry Danford's type running the department of health, people like myself and Runciman wouldn't be in the public press every day complaining about this wretched mess we have with kidney dialysis in eastern Ontario. I, for one, am fed up. The member from Belleville is here and I'm sure he's tired of getting the calls that he's getting. My friend from Lanark is here looking sagely, as he always does. He's a little more careful in these matters than I am, perhaps even more careful than the member from Belleville.

The Renfrew and Belleville proposals had nothing to do with that fiasco in Ottawa that's gone to court and is going to be at court for another few months -- nothing. So I have to go home every week and tell these 60- and 70-year-old people who live three hours north and west of Ottawa: "Oh, there's some court case, so just bear with us for months more to come. Just get in that car three times a week." I've got people from places like Rolphton and Barry's Bay going to Ottawa three times a week for what is a six-hour round trip and a five-hour medical treatment that is not an easy treatment. I ask people to think about that.

I was talking to one of these constituents the other day and he was telling me that one of his assignments is a Saturday night. Can you imagine, from west Renfrew, having to make arrangements with your family or somebody to take you for an appointment in Ottawa at 6 o'clock on a Saturday night, stay for the five hours and then drive you the two and a half hours home?

Mr Pouliot: What do you do in February?

1650

Mr Conway: The member from Nipigon says, "What do you do in February?" These are patient people; they're not unreasonable people. But it's been 18 months since the promise was made. I repeat, Belleville and Renfrew have nothing to do with the national medical fiasco in Ottawa.

I for one am fed up taking this specious, spurious crap from lawyers at the Ministry of Health saying, "We can't do anything about anybody until the grand assize is held in Ottawa." I do not find that sufficient comfort to provide to a 70-year-old constituent of mine who is three times a week, every week for the rest of their lives, faced with that kind of transportation.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What did we tell them before we had it in Renfrew?

Mr Conway: What did we tell them before we had it in Renfrew? That we were going to work to improve those services.

Mr Jordan: You haven't had a darn thing about it.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend, we have made progress. We've even made progress at Hydro. When I think of the things I used to defend at Hydro when people like my friend from Lanark were there, drawing a handsome salary and doing, I know, all kinds of good things. Now we're told by no less a person than the member from Manotick, "Those were the bad old days."

I'm not here to say that everything Mr Jordan did at Hydro was bad or excessive or whatever. I'm sure he did lots of good things. I don't want any revisionism about what he did at Hydro or what we did. Of course we didn't get it all right; we made lots of mistakes. I'm simply saying that commitments have been made. We know what the data tell us about the rising incidence of kidney dialysis. That's why the programs have been expanded. I commend the government for the initiative, but it's becoming a very hard sell, particularly in places like Hastings and Renfrew, that you can't do anything because we have a situation that is all tied up in court.

Just a couple of other quick observations. There's been a lot of talk lately about the welfare reform. God, we spend a lot of time in here about welfare reform and welfare fraud. Let me say that if there is fraud, I want it rooted out. I would root it out in places that would probably provide the highest level of discomfiture for members of this assembly, particularly my friends in the government caucus. If they want to get into dealing with fraud, I'll take them in places where I'll prove to them that their pain tolerance is not nearly as high as they might imagine it to be.

After all, the leader of the "Let's clean up welfare" campaign is none other than the Premier of Ontario, who for 15 years billed the taxpayer for his golf membership. Think about that. I mean, it's just mind-boggling. I want the viewing audience out there to know that for 15 years, from 1981 to 1995, Mike Harris, the Taxfighter, billed you an average annual fee of about 1,000 bucks for his golf membership in Nipissing, all the while talking about, "Let's clean up welfare." That's chutzpah. It would be like me, Conway, getting up to make a speech about the importance of brevity and silence. I would expect the whole damned place to roll out the door in uncontrollable laughter. But Mike Harris, the welfare-basher, the Taxfighter, I remind you, billed the taxpayer for over 15 years for his golf membership, among many other colourful items. But that's the way it is and nobody seems to care, so why should I bother?

All of which is by way of introduction. I noticed in the Globe and Mail the other day a front-page story that said, "Ex-broker Charged With Fraud Over Stealing $22 Million From His Clients." It's only a charge; he'll have his day in court. It is a wonderful article. You know, I haven't heard a word in this chamber about this kind of chicanery. We are too busy trying to find some single mother in Four Corners, Ontario, who mightn't have reported 10 cents of government income. We haven't a word to say about these birds who are ripping off millions from -- in this case it was a delicious irony because one of the people he apparently hosed was a firm -- he defrauded clients, including one of Canada's biggest security fraud investigators. Do I hear a word in this place about this?

Main street understands that for there to be an acceptance of change, there's got to be some fairness. If we're going to ask the retail clerk on the main street of Chatham or the farmer in Dover township or the logger in Renfrew county to make a sacrifice, they'll make it in the public interest if they think it is fair and evenhanded. But you know, there's too much of this stuff. There's altogether too much of it for people out there who get a sense that governments are much more interested these days in hammering the hell out of little people and turning a blind eye to some very big, powerful corporate interests.

I thought it was interesting here not too many months ago in the early days of the final days of the Eaton operation -- wasn't that delicious? Did you see what the Eaton family was up to? All kinds of suppliers out there just being hosed, and what were the Eatons doing? As the bloody ship was going down, they were taking millions of dollars in dividends on to themselves which, to their credit, once they were found out, they were prepared to give back. That's all we know; that's all that's been reported. Those are just two incidents I can think about and talk about over the last couple of months.

The people I represent in Renfrew county want the government to be prudent and sensible. They want a positive government. They know out in the Ottawa Valley that if they don't have a friend at court in government, they're in big trouble. The fact that Her Majesty in right of the Ontario government owns 50% of the real estate in Renfrew county also is an interesting fact.

By the way, they also notice that Her Majesty's land agent, in the person of the Minister of Natural Resources, has been very busy in the last couple of years raising crown fees in eastern Ontario, and certainly throughout our so-called Algonquin region. I'll be perfectly honest. A lot of my constituents support a number of the initiatives this government has undertaken.

Mr Pouliot: Members' pensions.

Mr Conway: If somebody wants to talk about that, let me tell you, I feel no nervousness. If this is about proving who's got a high pain tolerance, I won't start it. If anybody else wants to start it, I'll play the game, and I can assure you when it's all over I will not be the one crying. So just don't tease the bears. I don't mean this as a criticism of my friends in the new democracy, because I always said if I had a choice of negotiating for my own pay and perquisites or turning that job over to Mike Harris and Normie Sterling, there would be no doubt in my mind that giving it to Mike and Normie would be to my advantage. I'll say no more.

I make the point seriously that I don't sense today that there is among my constituents a feeling that things are very evenhanded. People who rip off $22 million from clients in the marketplace are people, we're almost led to believe, to be honoured, revered, duplicated. Because we're too busy in government and politics today: "Hey, there's some single mother out there who didn't report $10.12."

I repeat, if there are people who have defrauded the system, let them be brought to justice. There's much with our entitlement systems I could quarrel with. I spent five and a half years in cabinet losing some of those battles. But I repeat: I believe in a positive government. I think government has a positive role to play in the life of the citizen and of the community. I'm not one of these people who wants to engage the current debate that everywhere and at every turn you denigrate government, you denigrate the political class.

One of the most extraordinary aspects of the current Conservative Party and government in Ontario is how they've related to, for example, local politicians. I remember the era of Les Frost, John Robarts and Bill Davis, where one of the truly great strengths of Ontario Progressive Conservatism was a positive relationship with local government. They were past masters at it. If you were a county councillor in north Perth or a city councillor in Cornwall, I'm going to tell you, you had a very good, positive ongoing relationship with the Ontario Tories at Queen's Park.

1700

The Harris crowd -- and I don't understand this because there are so many good people from local government over there. I look at people like -- I won't mention them but many of them are before me today. How is it that these people who come out of that world allow people like this Snobelen character to get up and say the things he said about school trustees, or some of these other characters who just trash local politicians? That is truly a revolution. If you can get away with that -- I wouldn't try. I've got some good hardworking Tories in local government at my county level and I can't imagine even --

Mr Rollins: Your county is well looked after then.

Mr Conway: Well, but I'll tell you, I would not out of respect to the commitment they've made to their community say the kinds of things that Mike Harris and Snobelen, among two, routinely say about them. I think it is discourteous and I think it's quite disgusting.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've never seen Mr Conway sit as quickly as he did. It took me a bit by surprise there.

I want to follow up on one of the comments made by the member from Renfrew and I think it's a very salient point, which is the view that we have as citizens when it comes to the degree to which people are ripping off the system. He makes the point, and I think it's a good one because we've all seen it in our constituencies, if you hear of somebody out there who might have cheated the welfare system or the WCB system, my God, everybody in town knows and everybody wants to see the person hung from the yard-arm and they want to see them drawn and quartered.

There's a real feeding frenzy on the part of the public to see the government do that, to really bring these cheats out and make sure that justice is done. But you know, there are all kinds of examples that I've seen over the past years where we see ripoffs in the billions of dollars, where it really is extolled as being a virtue of the private sector. I think of Bre-X as one of those examples.

We had in the case of Bre-X literally billions of dollars that were invested by hardworking people across Canada and the world in this particular mining venture. Most of the money that was invested in Bre-X I would say was not invested by people with lots of money at the beginning, investing billions of dollars. They were people investing their life savings. There are people in my community, in the city of Timmins, who invested $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, hardworking people who tried to make a dollar on speculation on the stock market.

I watched that whole process unfold when we looked at what was happening with Bre-X and knowing something about the mining sector and knowing something about speculation in the mining sector, looked at that go on and watched with great amazement how, when we started seeing that that was really a ripoff of a magnitude this world has never seen when it comes to the ripoffs that we have seen the stock market, it was seen as something really smart and wonderful by the private sector.

In the end, who are the people who got hurt? A whole bunch of hardworking people who tried to invest $15,000, $20,000 to try to make some money on speculation. The way that we compare people like Mr Walsh and Mr Felderhof, who made literally millions of dollars on the backs of working people and on the backs of investment funds and mutual investment funds, it's not seen the same way. We look at the Felderhofs of the world and we look at the Walshes of the world as being kingpins and being good business people who really know how to run a great enterprise, but the reality is, what have these people done? It is to the magnitude of nothing we've ever seen before.

In fact they should be put in jail for what they did, because in the end, they were the corporate welfare bums, as my good friend in Ottawa used to say, our former federal leader of the NDP, Mr Lewis. These are the people who stood there and sucked money out of the system and sucked money out of investors and somehow they are seen as being a positive thing in our economy.

Yet when we see the woman who has a $10 overpayment on welfare or the gentleman who has an overpayment of $1,000 on WCB and that is seen somehow as a fraud, we've got to spare no expense, we have to stop at no end to be able to root out the waste, as Mike Harris would say, and root the fraudulent people out of the system. I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think I would have less difficulty trying to accept what this government is doing if they were to treat both classes of people in the same way.

Imagine, during the Bre-X thing, when you think of the magnitude of the amount of Ontarians who lost money in Bre-X, think of it. There are literally tens of thousands of people in the economy of Ontario who lost millions of dollars at the very least, probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that were invested in Bre-X. Did the government ever stand in this House or make any kind of public announcement that they were going to do something to try to get at what had happened, that they were going to look at the Toronto Stock Exchange about how they dealt with freezing the trading and how they brought it back on again and what that meant to investors and how many more people got duped by the actions of the Toronto Stock Exchange?

Mike Harris sat on his hands with the Minister of Finance, his minister of social services and the rest and did absolutely nothing because they viewed: "Oh, that's private sector stuff. So what if people got ripped off for the only $30,000 they had? They should have known better. It was a private sector investment." Well, I say you should try to balance that off. If they're going to go after welfare fraud, something the government thinks there's a lot of, they should do the very same when it comes to the other side.

I think of some of the other examples we've seen over the past number of years when it comes to the kinds of things that we've seen in the private sector. Supposedly the private sector does everything best, the private sector is so much smarter, the private sector knows how to do absolutely everything so well that it does it without any error.

I think of things like Canary Wharf. I think of the investments on the part of the Reichmann family that lost probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars by bad decisions and bad investment and bad management. I look at what happened with Campeau with his real estate empire, where he invested on the part of his shareholders in the hundreds of millions of dollars into the United States and into Canada. Because of the mismanagement and because of the bad decisions of these so-called moguls of the private sector, hardworking people lost their dollars.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that we judge that differently than what happens to a person when they happen to mess up when it comes an overpayment on WCB or on welfare. I say to this government, it sounds to me like there's a heck of a double standard.

To the point of concurrence in supply: The government people should know, every now and then they have to come before this Legislature, according to our rules that are being changed, which is another issue for debate, to ask for a motion to be able to get the dollars from the treasury to be able to pay the bills and to transfer the money over to the ministries.

In this particular case, we're talking concurrence in supply for everything from the Ministry of Transportation to the Office of Francophone Affairs to the Ministry of Health to various other ministries so they can carry on doing their business. It allows us as members a unique opportunity to be able to speak about almost anything that those particular ministries do.

I'm going to take that opportunity because I think it's important that we bring to the attention of this Legislature, when we get the opportunity, to the attention of the government and the members here, what some of the decisions that they're making here in Toronto mean to people back in their communities.

I want to talk about health care as just one of the issues that's being affected. I remember the last election. The Mike Harris government campaigned in the last election saying they wouldn't cut a penny out of health care, they were going to make sure that health care dollars were going to keep on flowing. In fact, they campaigned and said two very important things. One of them was that they were going to do something to reduce the waiting lists for people waiting to get into cardiac surgery, for cancer treatment, for dialysis treatment and all kinds of other treatments in the health care system. They were going to root out the waste and root out the duplication to be able to shorten waiting lists.

I want to tell you some stories about what some of the people in my constituency have had to put up with over the last two years since these actions by the Tories have started. It was always difficult to get in for bypass surgery if you weren't deemed to be critical. Let's be clear about that. If you were in a situation where you needed bypass surgery but you could wait for a bit, it always took a month and a half -- a month, sometimes two months -- to be able to get in to get bypass surgery at Sudbury Memorial Hospital, but eventually you got in.

If you needed to get surgery right away because it was life-threatening, they pushed you to the head of the list and you got in, but generally you had to wait for a couple of months. I know what's happening in my constituency office and I know what's happening in constituency offices across northern Ontario, offices like Tony Martin's, Len Wood's, Mr Pouliot's and others I've talked to, and I imagine Mr Brown has the same thing.

1710

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): That's right.

Mr Bisson: You end up with more people coming into our constituency offices today who are saying, "I have been waiting for bypass surgery at Sudbury Memorial," how long? A month? No. Two months? No. They're waiting upwards of nine to 12 months to get surgery. It's unacceptable and in many of cases, some of the people are not living the amount of time that it takes to wait to get in to get that bypass surgery. I've had a couple of constituents I know of who have died literally waiting to get in for bypass surgery at Sudbury Memorial. Is there a connection between the length of time you have to wait to get in for bypass surgery and what is happening here at Queen's Park? Most definitely.

The Ministry of Health in this government has embarked on a whole process of saying there's all kinds of duplication in our health care system. They're trying to make people believe it's an inefficient, ineffective, overregulated, overgoverned, overstaffed, over everything kind of health care system and that they've got to be able to fine-tune it to make it work better for people.

Well, I'll let people know back in Cochrane South that if you get sick and need to get in for bypass surgery you're having to wait three to four times as long to get in to get bypass. I've had two or three cases in about the last month where I've had to call, on behalf of constituents in my riding, Sudbury Memorial and work with their doctors trying to get them in for bypass surgery. I had one case that I raised in the House here two weeks ago where a gentleman from Monteith has to wait until June 1999 to get a spot at Wellesley Hospital for orthopaedic services that can't be established --

Mr Pouliot: You mean 1998.

Mr Bisson: No, 1999 -- I didn't get my years mixed up; June 1999, that's over two years away -- because of the cutbacks that are happening in the health care system. This government is trying to make people believe that all is well in Ontario and all is well within our health care system and there is absolutely nothing wrong. "Don't worry." Well, I'm here to say there is a problem.

What's even more frustrating is that I come into this House and I listen almost day after day to the Minister of Health stand in his place when he's asked a question and try to say: "We're not doing anything to affect the health care system. Oh no, not the Mike Harris government, not at all. It's that bad old hospital restructuring committee, it's that bad old committee that's travelling around the province and making all these decisions about which hospitals will close and which ones will remain open and which ones are going to be merged in with somebody else."

I want to remind people -- and the member for Lake Nipigon is right, it's exactly the point -- who's in charge of the Ministry of Health? Is it the hospital restructuring committee or is it the government of Ontario? Is it the Minister of Health, Mr Wilson, and is it the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris? I say it is the cabinet of this province and it is the minister. And they have the gall to stand in this House and say, "It's not us closing down these hospitals; it's that hospital restructuring committee."

Let's remind people how the hospital restructuring committee came to be. Why did it come to be? Because this government wanted to pass last fall, and was successful in doing so, what we called, in the words of Speaker McLean -- how did he say it, the "ominous" bill? I can't remember, but it's the omnibus bill, Bill 26. Bill 26 contained a section on health that said, in short, the legislation gives authority to the Minister of Health to appoint people to a hospital restructuring committee for the explicit purpose of restructuring hospitals across Ontario.

The government says: "We did that because we didn't want to be political. We didn't want to politicize the whole process of closing down hospitals." What bunk. Come on, do you think people were born yesterday? Of course it's you guys who are doing this. You're the ones who appointed the people to the commission, you're the ones who gave them their marching orders. They're the people who are meeting with you and coming from decisions from the Ministry of Health about what's going to happen in the end.

I was a member of a government, and nobody is going to try to make me believe that the hospital restructuring committee, the very committee that was appointed by the government of Ontario, handpicked by Mike Harris and Mr Wilson, the Minister of Health, doesn't come back to the government after it finishes its work in a community like Toronto or Ottawa or Sudbury or Thunder Bay and doesn't sit down with the Minister of Health and say, "These are the recommendations that we make as the hospital restructuring committee." Nobody is going to make me believe there isn't discussion between the hospital restructuring committee and the Minister of Health and the rest of the cabinet; of course there is.

Mr Pouliot: And financing the right.

Mr Bisson: Well, we can get into that old debate about how there has been political influence at the hospital restructuring committee on the part of the Solicitor General and on the part of the Minister of Finance himself. Nobody is going to try to make us believe that.

The point I'm getting at is that it's you guys who are setting up this agenda, you're the ones who are responsible for the closure of hospitals in this province, and I get really, really insulted, along with the rest of the people in this province, when I hear you guys trying to hide behind the hospital restructuring committee. We know in the end it is you and it is the cabinet of Ontario that are responsible.

You have to bring this to the next step: What is this government really doing in health care? Why are they going around closing down all these hospitals? Why are they doing everything they're doing as far as all the changes in health care? Part of it is that there are some changes that need to happen, because health care is changing with time and how long we need to go when it comes to getting into hospitals and as far as stays are concerned is changing because technology is changing. But that would have happened under an NDP government, a Liberal government or a Tory government.

This government is doing what our friend the Minister of Education said when he was appointed to the cabinet as Minister of Education back in the summer of 1995. Madam Speaker, do you remember what he said? I certainly do; I've got the videotape. He lined up his chief people within the Ministry of Education and said, "I will create a crisis in the Ministry of Education so that I am then able to set the stage to make the kinds of changes that I want to impose, ideological changes on the Ministry of Education." That's exactly what they're doing with health. Why? Because in the end they want to give the private sector more business opportunity in the sector of health. That is what they're up to.

If you're able to put the Ministry of Health and our health care system into a crisis and you're able to lengthen the amount of time people have to wait to get into hospitals, what will end up happening is that you will create an opportunity for the private sector to come in and say: "We have a solution. If you allow us to open up this private sector health clinic that will charge extra fees above what is normally charged by the Ministry of Health, you will not have to wait six or seven months to get whatever service done."

Once you open that door, you could have a hard time trying to close it again. Why? Because you'll be conditioning people to the idea that if you want better health care, if you want quicker health care, if you want increased health care, you're going to have to pay extra. You'll move to what we call now in this jargon a two-tiered health care system. That is exactly where this government is going with health care. We see it. Why? Because, again, in Bill 26 the government gave itself the power to be able to appoint private sector companies to deliver health care services in Ontario.

Why would they put that in the legislation if they didn't intend to introduce the private sector into our health care system? Madam Speaker, you were a minister of the crown. Would you put something in legislation unless you didn't have a reason to use it? Of course not. They try to make us believe, "Oh no, we just did that because we want to cover off all the bases." Come on, give me a break. Give your heads a shake.

The reality is that you are putting in place that kind of legislation because you cannot privatize the health care system in two years; you're smart enough to realize that. First you've got to set up the mechanisms to allow the private sector to come in, and how you do that is a change to the legislation. You've done much of it already; you've got more to do. Then you underfund our health care system, you start to put the system in crisis, so when the private sector comes in and says, "We have a solution for you," the public says: "Oh, you know, maybe that's an option. All I know, you know, is that old Harry needs to go in and get this operation. He's got some extra dollars in the bank. He worked hard all his life. He managed to put away $100,000 or $120,000 for his retirement, and spending $60,000 will get him in now and maybe he'll live that much longer or maybe it'll save his life."

I know what family members will do. They'll choose to spend their life savings to make their loved ones well again or for the hope to make their loved ones well. That's what happens in the United States, and that's what this government is really all about. I say today here in the Legislature that if these people are given a second term in government, you will not recognize the province of Ontario compared to what it was before.

Mr Froese: I hope not.

Mr Bisson: There we go. Exactly. As they heckle across the House -- "I hope not," they say, and that's the point. They don't believe in a province of Ontario where citizens in this province have access to health care based on if they're sick or not sick, not based on how much money they've got at the bottom of their pocket.

Mr Pouliot: They will not have a second term.

Mr Bisson: The member for Lake Nipigon makes a point. Again, the member for Lake Nipigon is right; I hope you're right. Hopefully the people of Ontario will wake up and start to say, "Well, Jeez, if we give these people a second term in office, it's going to be a disaster."

They tried that with Brian Mulroney. Do you remember what happened with Brian Mulroney? We're now seeing the effects of Brian Mulroney down at the federal level with free trade and the rest of it. That's another speech, but we can get into all of that.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: There they go, heckling on the other side again. You always know you hit a nerve when they do that.

The part that really bothers me -- never mind that it really bothers me -- the part that really is a travesty about what this government is doing is that really they're very incompetent at what they are doing when it comes to managing change. They turn around and they say: "We're the Conservatives. We're the fiscal managers. We know how to manage government. Get us there, and we're going to do it for you, and we're going to do it well." But there are examples all across Ontario of how the Tories have mismanaged the change they have been trying to introduce.

1720

Mr Pouliot: Big time.

Mr Bisson: As the member from Nipigon says, big time. They are trying to do too much, too fast.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I'm giving the members some extra time of debate; it's my right.

They are trying to manage too much, too fast, and they are not able to manage the change. I want to give you some examples of what happens when you try to manage change too quickly. People, in the end, get hurt, because the system breaks down. I have a couple of my riding whom I've been dealing with for some time, Richard and Theresa Madore. They have had a problem with the insurance company for some time and have been trying to get justice from the Ontario Insurance Commission. So that people know, the Ontario Insurance Commission is the appeal body that citizens have if they want to go before the commission to appeal a decision of an insurance company when it comes to the settlement of no-fault benefits.

It's a long story, but the point is that these people, in the long and the short, really got it in the ear by the insurance company. This guy, because of the way the file was handled and the way the policies were at the time, got himself into a position where he was not getting what was justly his.

We worked with him to try to make an appeal and get it forward. Do you know how long it took by the time the appeal actually went to the OIC and how long it took for him to get back his decision? It took 24 months. Why? Because what's happening is that in this rush of change that the government is making, they are throwing the entire system into chaos. It's difficult for agencies and for ministries of the crown to properly administer the change as it goes on, and a whole bunch of things they normally do in the everyday course of business, as ministries and as agencies, end up not working very well.

In the case of Richard and Theresa Madore, what ended up happening is that their whole case, which should have taken, at the most, four to five months to get a decision, took 24 months.

In the end, they didn't get what they wanted before the commission, and that's a question of policy. If the injury had happened under our no-fault legislation, they would have been all right. Unfortunately, they got caught in the previous no-fault legislation that was introduced by the Peterson government.

The point I make is simply this: These people should not have had to wait 24 months to get a decision out of the OIC. These people should have been able to get a decision at a fairly expedited pace in order for them to go on with their lives so that they would know what they had to do, but for 24 months they waited, they called, they faxed. We did the same on their behalf. I don't know how many times I sent letters and faxes and made telephone calls to the Ontario Insurance Commission to get an answer, and 24 months later they finally got the opportunity to respond to their case. Those are the kinds of things that happen.

Another good example is the family support plan. In the case of the family support plan, the government of Ontario threw the system into chaos. How many of you on the other side of the House have had people come into your office to talk about the absolute mess that was created by the Attorney General when it came to the family support plan?

The FSP has always been a problem. The first problem was that we had no enforcement mechanism. In the case that delinquent fathers were not paying support for their children, there was no mechanism to get the money. The Attorney General of the day under the NDP government, Mr Howard Hampton, put in place what were called the family support plan regulations, which basically said if you didn't pay, you were going to be garnisheed at work and the money would at least end up going to the kids. That fixed about 80% or 85% of the problem, a huge step forward.

The Tory government, on getting elected, decided they were going to do something different. They closed all the regional offices, the one in Sudbury more particularly for us up in Timmins, and all the files that were at the regional office in Sudbury were just stopped at one particular date in August 1996. They were all packed into boxes, and they were left in the dark somewhere in Sudbury for a number of months.

Meanwhile, all these people had problems and changes of order and all the different things that happen. For example, if the father changes jobs, the support order has to be changed so that the money can be deducted from the new job. There is a change in support order as far as the level and how much payment. There is a change of address of the wife or the children, or one of the kids moves away from home, whatever it might be.

All those things were falling through the cracks, and we were getting literally hundreds of people per month coming into our constituency office in Timmins, complaining about inaction on the part of the family support plan. Why? Because the Ministry of the Attorney General, in trying to privatize the services of the family support plan, which they eventually did with the Bank of Montreal, had packed it all into boxes and said: "The private sector will fix this up. Just put the files in the boxes, and it will be fine. The private sector will take care of it for us, because they're a lot smarter."

To this day, people are still not getting answers, and that is even after they have managed to transfer some of those responsibilities over to the private sector. Fortunately, it took actions on the part of Shelley Martel and Peter Kormos to go there --

Mr Pouliot: Bonnie and Clyde.

Mr Bisson: Bonnie and Clyde, as they have been called -- to go into the family support offices in Sudbury to expose the truth, something we, as New Democrats, had been saying in this House for how many months?

We would come into the House, and we would say to the minister: "The system is in a shambles because of your actions. Files are sitting in boxes in Sudbury." Eventually, we had to tell them, when the files were moved, that they were sitting in Downsview. "No, no, there's nothing wrong; there's a fully staffed operational office," he would say. But it wasn't until Shelley Martel and Peter Kormos went there one morning with cameras that the truth was exposed and the minister finally, at the end of a fairly long process, had to admit that they had messed up.

In fact, the Ombudsman reported just recently the travesty and the pain and the suffering that the Ministry of Attorney General had inflicted on the people of Ontario. On the basis of what? On the basis of this government saying: "We know best how to manage the system. We know best how to do things. We're going to fix it for you. We're going to give it all to the private sector. They're going to make everything run better. We know how to manage change." Their changes wrought havoc on a lot of people.

We ask our government for one thing. We say if you're going to make change, at least manage it. At least try to make the change in such a way that when change does happen people don't fall through the cracks unnecessarily. But that's not at all what this government has done. This government has been, quite frankly, pretty inept when it comes to making change.

The other thing I want to point out is -- I remember this, Madam Speaker, you were a member of this government and my friend the member from Nipigon was a member of the government as well -- under the Bob Rae government, when we undertook to make some changes in how the municipal and provincial partnership operated, we started a process that was called disentanglement.

I remember when we went through that process how difficult it was to try to get municipalities and the provincial government to come to terms with who should be doing what. I remember the criticism back then, because we had made a number of changes in how you transfer dollars to the municipalities and who is responsible for what, but we were doing it fairly slowly and fairly methodically. Rather than trying to make a wholesale change where you try to change everything immediately with regard to how municipal governments and the provincial government, in partnership, deliver services such as welfare, maintenance of roads, snowplowing, homes for the aged and all that kind of stuff, we had decided you can't move that too quickly, because if you do, there are going to be problems, people will fall through the cracks, and in the end people will get hurt and you'll probably not save any money.

This government knows better. The Harris government gets elected, and they say what? They say: "Oh, no. We're going to put together this Who Does What committee and they're going to tell us how to do this in six months" -- they're going to change the municipal-provincial partnership in six months, something that took over 100 years to develop in Ontario -- "and we want it all done and in place for the municipal elections in 1997." The havoc they have caused within municipalities across this province has been nothing but a travesty.

I have been part of some of the discussions with councillors, mayors, reeves and aldermen across northern Ontario who have to deal with the reality of what these changes mean to municipalities. Do you know the thing that is really difficult for those people trying to manage this change? They have absolutely no idea what the government is going to do next. I don't even think the government knows what it's going to do next when it comes to municipal government.

All I do know is it's the largest download on to municipal governments that we have ever seen in the history of the province. What's really interesting about that is that in the last Common Sense Revolution -- do you remember that document, Madam Speaker? I've got to show the cover. I keep a copy of it. It's quite good. It's called the Common Sense Revolution. It has a picture of Mike Harris on it and it says, "The Common Sense Revolution: Join Mike Harris -- 1-800-903-MIKE."

Do you know what it says inside that when it comes to municipal disentanglement and when it comes to how government should be able to operate? I've got to read this, because I believed it then. I thought this was pretty good back then. We'll see how it plays out.

1730

They write in the Common Sense Revolution: "Historically, municipalities have responded to provincial funding limits by simply increasing local property taxes. There may be numerous levels of government in this province, but there is only one level of taxpayer -- you. We will work closely" -- I underline the word "closely" -- "with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes." The two operative phrases in that promise the Mike Harris government made were: "We will work closely," and "We ain't going to raise property taxes."

How close has the Mike Harris government worked with the municipalities in Ontario? With a sledgehammer. That's how close you guys have done it.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Very close.

Mr Bisson: Oh, very close. I just can't get over how excited the mayor of Iroquois Falls, Ken Graham, the mayor of Matheson, the mayor of Timmins, the mayor of Kapuskasing, the mayor of Bell River, the mayor of Hearst and all those mayors are, Joe Mavrinac in Kirkland Lake included, with how closely you've worked with municipal governments.

You should be parties to the council meetings that are happening across northeastern Ontario. You should go sit at council meetings that are happening in the cities of Toronto and other cities around the city of Toronto. They're sitting there and saying: "At least if you're going to do the change, tell us what you're going to do. Work with us. Tell us how you're going to manage it."

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Cochrane South, your time is up. I just thought you needed a reminder of that. Further debate?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly pleased to have this opportunity to make some remarks about the 1997 budget and put on the record some of the things this government has been doing contrary to the views of the opposition parties opposite.

I'd like to start by saying that when the Ontario electorate put the Mike Harris government in power two years ago, we were given some very strict instructions about how to deal with the serious financial problems the previous two governments had left this province with. We were told to fix the problems. We were told to do something about the problem of high deficits and high taxes, but most important, we were told to create lasting jobs for Ontarians and to make Ontario more attractive for business and investment. I think we have come some distance in the last two years in starting to realize that objective.

Before we get into where we ought to be going, we need to set the tone and context of where we had come from. In that mode, I'd like to mention that we had accumulated many problems in our province over a long, long period of time. For far too long, governments at Queen's Park financed their huge and growing deficits by, voila, raising taxes rather than bringing spending under control. It was always the spending side that was ignored in the last 10 years.

I'm proud to say that the 1997 Ontario budget is proof that the tax-and-spend principle that guided the previous two governments is over once and for all. Our plan is to put money back into people's pockets, into programs that will yield high, productive jobs and boost job growth by reducing the size and cost of government, and particularly by reducing provincial income tax rates. Undoubtedly, if you look at the most objective economic identifiers, those economists who are always studying the Canadian economy, we are getting there. Our plan is working.

Here is some of the proof. We are going to implement the next two phases of the provincial income tax rate reduction down to 47% of the basic federal tax on July 1 and 45% next January, for a 22.4% reduction since 1995. That is significant because it is one of the keys to job and economic growth stimulus.

It's been mentioned by some of my other colleagues earlier today that Ontario's private sector is creating nearly 1,000 jobs a day. This shows that the rate of confidence in our economy and in our society is coming back. That's 45,600 jobs created in March alone.

Third, Ontario's economy recorded its strongest performance in the third quarter of 1996 with a 3.8% growth rate. As I mentioned earlier, consumer confidence has increased by 22.3% over last year's rate. Exports and motor vehicle sales are up significantly and Ontario leads the country in business optimism. According to the Royal Bank, the national economy will create nearly 700,000 jobs over the next two years, with Ontario leading the way in creating almost half of these projected jobs. Most gratifying for this government, 193,000 fewer people are taking social assistance today than when we took office two years ago.

I know these facts are unpleasant to the opposition parties across the way. They really hate good news, although a couple of them made efforts today to incorporate and be somewhat fair in some of their remarks about what is going on out there as economic realities. These facts I've mentioned are not propaganda, not fiction, not wishful thinking; this is the reality. These numbers aren't lying, because all you've got to do is look at StatsCan stats or at the banks or any of the other folks in the think tanks and you will see. If they were all that way, then there must be a massive conspiracy going on if it were the other way.

I want to focus for a minute on tax reduction rates and how this will stimulate our economy in Ontario.

First, this government has been the first government in 10 years and longer to leave more money in the pockets of Ontario citizens. Men and women across the province will be able to make purchases, consumer choices, as they decide. I heard earlier this year that the opposition thought this was a dreadful idea. Some of them even said: "Imagine, some of these folks may use this money to save for whatever purposes, for their children's education, by putting it into a registered education savings plan. They may decide to buy more insurance. They may even," imagine this, "decide to invest." That's the sort of decisions we need, private individual investment decisions to get this economy moving, not massive government intervention by pitching more money, $6.4 billion of the previous federal government --

Mr Klees: Taxpayers' money.

Mr Hastings: The taxpayers' money, as my colleague from York-Mackenzie says. Leave it with those folks to make their private decisions. When they go out and save or spend at a later date or pay down their mortgages, whatever decisions they decide to make in this area, they eventually create jobs, sooner or later. Now we're starting to see that those who saved the money are putting a little more out in a careful way for decisions on things they prefer. Imagine people having the choice today to decide what they might prefer for personal pleasure: a vacation. That was mentioned, in fact, as if that were a criminal act, by the opposition across the way last winter.

Second, families who have been struggling to get by and going into debt will be able to pay off their debts sooner, as if that were somehow a criminal act as mentioned by previous opposition critics. What does that do? It leads to the point that these people increase their net worth, significantly or in a small way. It reduces debt. It increases their future purchasing power and increases above all the pool of savings available for new investment, again leading to job creation.

Third, lower taxes will provide more incentive for entrepreneurs to form small businesses and for existing business owners to reinvest. This too will create new jobs. One of the particularly important events and items of assistance in the 1997 budget is to help people grow their small businesses.

Fourth, people with specialized skills will have an extra incentive to choose Ontario as a place to live and work, helping to build industries that can compete worldwide, and that creates jobs.

I recently had the opportunity to visit the University of Guelph with the kindly welcome and leadership of the member for Guelph. We had the opportunity there to see what is happening in the world of biotechnology and how a lot of future jobs in biotechnology in the agricultural sector will lead to tremendous job creation in terms of new drugs.

1740

I'd like to make particular mention that in the March edition of Fortune magazine there is an article called "Gene Chip Breakthrough." This particular article focuses on the human genome project and the genetics revolution within the biotechnology revolution.

Mr Bisson: Baa.

Mr Hastings: For the folks across the way to "Baa" and dismiss this -- they keep talking about, "Where are the jobs?" I've been trying to listen. When we heard the member for Renfrew North speak today so eloquently on youth employment, I was waiting: Okay, we now have the analysis. Where are the solutions? He was talking about higher tuition fees, which is a common phenomenon across North America and throughout the world. How do we deal with that problem? How do we deal with the problems of youth employment today in terms of the underemployment, in terms of the overemployment? We have to look at these new areas in which there are many promising job prospects. I will later get to the way in which some of these things can be created.

Interjections.

Mr Hastings: Madam Speaker, would it be possible for the folks just once to hear? I listened with some respect to the member from Cochrane and I did make two interventions, but we seem to have a continuing humdrum over there, which points out how disconnected from reality he is becoming, increasingly every day.

To get back to the point of the prospects for job creation within the biotechnology revolution, I simply wanted to make one quote:

"When future historians finish deflating the late 20th century, an era acutely distended by hype, they'll probably be left with just two events worth entire chapters. One was the advent of the computer chip, which let us embed our smarts in everything from bombs to greeting cards to cellular phones. The second is even more momentous: Scientists have cracked open the human genome, our ultimate life stuff."

Translating that back to what is going on at the University of Guelph as one example, the folks who are running the agricultural school at the University of Guelph see enormous potential in the transgenetic chickens and supereggs, as I called them when I was there, which we will see in healthier livestock that will prevent disease prevention down the road. A lot of these are high-value research jobs, not only in the research sector, but also in terms of the support staff that will be available --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, come to order, please.

Mr Hastings: The member for Cochrane North some day may even have to go out and renew his certification in plumbing and electricity, because that's one of the areas that has to be updated since the 1964 act. We're all looking at, where are the jobs coming from? In my estimation, the overall objective of this budget is to lay the building blocks in terms of dealing with the value-added jobs that we will need in the economy.

Before we can get to that point, we have to get our taxes in a more competitive strategic advantage. I wanted to ask the question today, how do Ontario's taxes compare to our international competitors and trading partners? This is rather alarming for the folks across the way, especially the official opposition, whom I would describe as the high-taxing, high-spending party we've had for the last 15 to 20 years, particularly at the federal level.

Ontario taxes are 7% more than those of our top five trading partners between 1964 and 1994. Direct taxes on individuals increased. I know across the way they don't see this as very significant, but when you just think of the percentage, even if you tend to doubt it somewhat, direct taxes increased 2,500% on individual citizens in this province, compared to citizens living in the adjacent jurisdictions around us. Indirect taxes increased by 975% and corporate taxes by 649%.

Two thirds of those increases happened between 1985 and 1994. When we compare our personal income tax rates to residents in the US -- imagine, now, anything this government quotes as an American source is immediately suspect, but across the way, whenever they want to use an American reference, it's perfectly acceptable, perfectly legitimate. I don't understand the dichotomy of that. As an aside, it seems to me when we look at our personal income tax regime to residents in the United States, Americans are paying no more than 39.6% in income tax on incomes greater than US$250,000.

Get this: Ontario residents, by contrast, move into peak income tax rates of 53.2% on incomes greater than C$67,895. The fact that future generations must pay more than today's newborns means that current policies cannot be sustained. This is why our government has acted swiftly to reverse the tax-and-spend policies of the previous two governments that have nearly bankrupted our province.

If higher spending were the solution to everything around here, then I don't understand why in the previous regime of the NDP there were any waiting lists for any kind of health care in cardiac surgery or hip replacement. It's only happened since we've reduced the income tax rates? Not quite true when you look at the sharp disconnection by the member for Cochrane North in making that assertion. If higher income taxes were the solution to our problems and poverty, then we shouldn't have any poverty today. It should be completely eliminated by the tax-and-high-spend regimes we've had for the last 10 years.

When fully implemented, all taxpayers will benefit from our income tax rate reduction by 30.2%. All taxpayers with incomes under C$60,000 will receive an income tax reduction of 30% or more. I'd like to know what is wrong with that when we're talking about simply getting Ontario back to where it was 10 years ago -- nothing more; nothing less. The way they describe it over there, you'd think it was the most radical restructuring of the tax regime ever conceived. What we're doing is rebalancing the mess created by the two previous governments.

Some 64% of the benefits from this income tax, it needs to be stated again, will be concentrated on middle-income Ontario citizens earning between $25,000 and $75,000 a year. Of course, we hear the definition every day across the way, their traditional religious mantra of the wealthy getting a tax break: $53,254, as set by the previous Treasurer. So if you earn a penny more than that, under the previous Treasurer of the previous NDP regime, you are considered wealthy.

That means every member in this House, including the members across the way, is wealthy. I'm sure they all turned in their income tax reduction when they got it, so we could have the deficit reduced. I haven't seen too many of them doing that, when you look at the number of citizens who donated to that fund that the Treasurer set up -- about $9,000. I could safely assume that a large number of the citizens in this province kept their income tax, what they got refunded through Revenue Canada. I suspect the vast majority, probably 99.999% of the members of this House, did the same thing, despite all the posturing we've had around here for the last year on this issue.

Just as tax rate reductions create jobs, so do they create hope. The 1997 Ontario budget reduces taxes for 30,000 low-income families. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't hear any criticism from across the way on that point. Twenty thousand families will pay no Ontario income tax. That's an achievement. All told, provincial income taxes have been eliminated for 655,000 low-income Ontario families.

1750

In fact, there are no fewer than 20 job-creating tax reductions in the 1997 budget. These range from more cuts to tax-killing payroll taxes to an extension to the land transfer tax rebate for first-time home buyers. I think there's a connection there, when the member for Kitchener was talking about a huge increase in the number of people who are buying their first home. Imagine the number of jobs that creates in the economy, indirect and direct, in the construction industry.

There's an extension to the retail sales tax rebate for farm building materials; a 10% tax credit for employers to create 45,000 internship spaces over the next three years; five different measures to boost high-tech job creation in research and development; and new tax incentives to encourage loans to job-creating small businesses.

Those particular measures are essential building blocks in the 1997 budget in terms of how there is a major challenge facing this government to create new jobs for those people from the low-income and disadvantaged group in our society. For a moment I would like to address the issue of how we create the jobs in that particular area in the new economy.

Mr Pouliot: Slavery.

Mr Hastings: We hear from across the way the usual facetious remark, "Slavery," when in fact what we need is to be hearing from the members opposite how we can get more computers into every classroom when we don't have the money, how we can recycle the high technology so that those folks who are disadvantaged economically have access to technology.

There are many ways, and I'm going to have the opportunity to join a group in Boston on Friday to figure out those ways in which we can get thousands of computers that the Minister of Education and Training has targeted for this province into every school so that all our kids have a real advantage in getting some computer technology expertise, because it doesn't matter whether it's the highest-tech job or the lowest-tech job, all entry-level jobs today are computerized to a greater or lesser extent.

It seems to me this is one of the key building blocks, through research and development, through targeting of very small amounts of money in connection with the private sector and with the foundations, with which we can get this particular goal accomplished. If we do not, the Ontario and Canadian economies will be at high risk compared to what is going to be happening and is already happening in the United States of America, where the Clinton administration and Vice-President Gore have committed to making sure that every child throughout the United States has access to a computer.

When I talk about computers, we're not talking about them as the be-all and end-all. They are simply a tool, another step up to help our citizens move into the global economy. It doesn't mean you have to spend tremendous amounts of money to have the latest 586 type of computer. A 286 or 386 with the appropriate software is one of the best ways that can be done.

These are some of the measures, through the building blocks in the 1997 budget, through the biotechnology revolution that's occurring in this province and through the community colleges, which are trying to create higher, enhanced-value jobs in the plastics industry and in many other key sectors of the economy, through which I am confident we can achieve, with the private sector, the 725,000 jobs we were talking about when the Common Sense Revolution was announced back in 1994.

I have to remind the members opposite that it is not government that creates jobs, generally speaking, except when they hire specific people for specific functions in either the provincial or federal governments or at the municipal level, for example, in roads development, as roads engineers or science specialists in gene research that we saw at the University of Guelph.

Overall, I'd say probably 95% to 97% of the 725,000 jobs that were mentioned in the CSR and have been alluded to in the last two budgets will come through the private sector. How government can help to remove a lot of the barriers that are job-killing in the present economy -- and we have a lot of bills in front of us. If we could get some cooperation from the opposition, particularly on the red tape bills that the NDP has claimed need to be examined in so much detail -- they are in fact hurting the Ontario economy in terms of some of those red tape barriers.

All you have to do is look through Bills 118 to 122 and you can see in the securities industry, in the racetrack industry, in the hotel industry, in the travel industry, a lot of things that can be removed -- in the mortgage industry, for example, that we want to get on with. Yet the third party over there says: "No, we're not going to pass these bills as a group. Each one has to be examined in detail." Does that help to create jobs, which was the lament of the member for Cochrane North all through the winter last year? Here he has an opportunity to help us, help the Ontario citizens and help the Ontario economy. What do they do? They refuse to pass them. Incredible, but not surprising.

Let me end by saying that the 1997 budget that Finance Minister Eves has brought forward -- a lot of the effort of my caucus members, in the caucus committees, in the policy advisory committees, in suggestions presented by many interested citizens have focused to renew job creation, which is the raison d'être for future excellence in other budgets that will come up in this government before the next election. I'll be proud to go to the people of this province with what we have in these budgets and in the future ones.

Report continues in volume B.

18 juin 1997