Journal des débats 1998-oct-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a certificate of the by-election in the electoral district of Nickel Belt.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers):

"Mr Claude L. DesRosiers "Clerk of the Legislative Assembly "Room 104, Legislative Building "Queen's Park "Toronto, Ontario "M7A 1A2

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the 24th day of August 1998 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and was addressed to Jean Parri, returning officer for the electoral district of Nickel Belt, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Nickel Belt in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Floyd Laughren, who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Nickel Belt has resigned his seat. This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Nickel Belt on the first day of October 1998, Blain Morin has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the 10th day of October 1998, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"Warren R. Bailie "Chief election officer "Toronto, October 12, 1998."

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Blain Morin, member-elect for the electoral district of Nickel Belt, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the member take his seat.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): For many years I've been working with outdoor enthusiasts to change the regulations with regard to all-terrain vehicles. Lobbying, letters and my private member's resolution have all asked that ATVs be regulated in a similar fashion to snowmobiles.

Why? Because ATVs are important and useful vehicles to explore Ontario's vast crown lands. ATVs provide access for many young people and old people with disabilities to experience the crown lands.

The Ministry of Transportation has been conducting an interminable review. It's time for the studying and reviewing to stop and time for the ministry to change the regulations to ones similar to those that regulate our snowmobiles. My private member's resolution has the unanimous support of all political parties. The changes will assist municipalities, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the police.

Clearly, it's time for the government to respond to the Espanola Fish and Game Club, it's time to respond to Mo Welyhorski and his energy, and to stop studying, reviewing and procrastinating and make the changes in the name of safety, access and good sense.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The Liberal federal member for Sarnia-Lambton, Roger Gallaway, is currently chairing a committee which is examining if possible Canada's child custody laws. He was heard recently to make comments that lead me to believe he ought to be removed from that post. I have the support of many people who work in the area of family violence. Roger Gallaway claimed that women work at creating an epidemic of false claims about abuse in order to win custody cases. He suggested that women went to shelters with the purpose of trying to establish an abuse case, and he claimed that in most of these cases children's aid societies were not able to substantiate claims of child abuse.

I think in this place we know that children's aid societies have a great difficulty in substantiating those concerns. We need only point to the case of Randal Dooley, the seven-year-old who was killed last week and for whom claims of child abuse in April were not able to be substantiated.

It is very serious when a chair of a federal committee makes prejudicial comments that make it seem that all the submissions that have been made around family violence as an issue in child custody cases are being completely, summarily dismissed by him.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS WEEK

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): As a former president of the Good Neighbours council in my riding, I am pleased to bring to your attention that this week, Thanksgiving week, is also Good Neighbours Week.

Good Neighbours is a community-based, public awareness volunteer campaign that aims to make Ontario's communities safer, stronger, friendlier and more responsive to people in need, especially those who are frail, vulnerable and isolated. The campaign helps communities become safer and friendlier by creating informal volunteer networks that complement professional services already in place and reinforce the values found in caring neighbourhoods. In short, it's designed to encourage people to reach out and help others.

In my home community in Sarnia, the Good Neighbours campaign comes under the umbrella of the Sarnia District Senior Volunteer Community Services. Over the year, we have coordinated a buddy program which involves safety check systems for seniors, using Good Neighbours doorknob hangers. We also had a Good Neighbour of the Month Award which was featured in the local newspaper each month.

Since 1994, my community has organized the Good Neighbours essay, poetry and poster contest for elementary school students. This year's theme was "How Good Neighbours Make a Difference." About 100 students participated.

During the month of June, posters, poetry and essays were displayed in local schools, churches, police and fire stations, libraries, shopping malls, community centres and banks. During this week I urge you to take time to reach out.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Only the Mike Harris government can save the disaster which is about to befall the Sudbury community. Tonight the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association will announce at its annual general membership meeting that, with extreme regret, their present operation is no longer sustainable and that it will cease the services available to our community and this region effective December 31. The reason is that the Mike Harris government will not guarantee adequate funding for this service.

It continues to amaze me, but doesn't surprise me, how callous and cruel the Mike Harris government can be. Everyone in this province has a right to die with dignity. Our Sudbury palliative care association has been the model for this province to follow. It coordinates 250 volunteers who gave in excess of 12,000 hours of volunteer time in the last year alone.

The people of our region have a passionate belief that our community is richer and more humane because of the services provided by this association, and they want the Mike Harris government to commit stable and adequate funding to it immediately.

Will Mike Harris show he cares? Will Cam Jackson, Minister of Long-Term Care, finally return the unanswered phone calls and commit the funding immediately? The clock is ticking, both on the services and this association. Mike Harris and his government can save it. Provide the funding now.

1340

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This Tory government has cut millions of dollars from the operating budgets of hospitals in northern Ontario. Today, the fax machine in the Premier's office will be buzzing with activity. My constituents in Cochrane North will be faxing this message directly to Premier Harris:

"Now that our predicament has been brought to your attention, what has our government done to alleviate the problem of doctor shortage in Kapuskasing?"

This past May, thousands of letters were delivered personally to the Premier to ask that this government respond to this crisis. Since May, nothing has changed. The people of Kapuskasing are still confronted with a dire shortage of doctors in our community.

Why is the Mike Harris government dragging its feet on health care in northern Ontario? It's plain to see that this government's attacks on our public health care system are hurting patient care. People across Ontario know it's wrong to cut health care to pay for the Harris government's income tax scheme, which benefits only the wealthiest people in this province.

We're still asking this government to take action, not just to pay lip service. In Kapuskasing and throughout all of Cochrane North, we see first-hand how this Conservative government is dragging its feet on health care.

I want to take this time to thank Mariette Guilotte and Jeannette Leonard for their hard work in making sure that this government does not forget the urgency of this issue. Along with my constituents in Kapuskasing, we will work to ensure that there are enough doctors working and living in our community to take care of the people there.

HATE CRIMES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Last Thursday, after an emotional, heartfelt debate by all three political parties, this House gave approval in principle to a private member's bill put forward by my colleague Ted Chudleigh, the member for Halton North, to establish a Holocaust Memorial Day Act.

Tragically, later that same day, an arsonist struck a Jewish school in Nepean. Late last Thursday evening, just a few hours after Yom Kippur, the Jewish holiday of atonement, École Maimonides was struck by an arsonist. Thanks to the quick, professional and dedicated efforts of the Nepean Fire Department, the financial damage was limited to about $40,000.

This crime, undoubtedly motivated by hatred and anti-Semitism, is troubling for two reasons. As the school principal, Rabbi Menachem Blum, said: "Because of the day, it hurts a lot. Everyone spent the day at synagogue praying."

For such a criminal act to be committed on this holy day, it's not an accident, it's not coincidental.

The second reason this act causes such concern is that the school was similarly targeted in 1994. This has happened before. This type of crime must be condemned.

The school is the only Hebrew-French immersion day school in Canada, and its educational achievements have been called a model for all of Canada.

Unfortunately, the school requires major renovations. An emergency fire fundraising drive beginning October 20 has been established, with two members of the Ottawa-Carleton community having graciously offered to participate in a matching grants campaign in which every donation will be matched.

I know our community will come together to support this effort because we will not let those who propagate hate crimes in our community win.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'd like to read a letter sent to Ernie Eves, the finance minister:

"The city and region have requested restructuring money predicated on their co-operative merging of regional and city administration. The province says it does not qualify under the Municipal Act because there has not been any...restructuring. Then change the Municipal Act! The receipt of these dollars would go a very, very long way to resolving the mess we are now in, and the...political price to be paid by area Tory MPPs. I did not leave my career to be a one-term MPP....

Let me continue: "The entire business and residential community is outraged, and my city and region are being ravaged."

You would think I wrote this letter. But no, it was the member for Hamilton Mountain to the finance minister. I was glad to see that we now have the government members finally agreeing with what the opposition has been saying as to Hamilton-Wentworth being shafted by the Harris government - $27 million.

The member for Hamilton Mountain wrote this letter, but frankly, it is not good enough for local Tory members to plead with the Minister of Finance to save their political careers. That is not going to cut it. We have a massive problem: high taxes for both residential and businesses.

Finally, government members understand what their own ministers are doing to us. It is not good enough. The last-minute pleas are not going to help. But I'm glad to see that the government backbenchers finally agree with the opposition that Hamilton-Wentworth is getting screwed.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to call the House's attention to the fact that a grade 7 student at Duntroon school, Heather Mayberry, of her own accord, initiated a petition drive at that school which is not in order for the House but I think is heartfelt and interesting in the fact that 101 signatures from students were put on the petition. It says:

"As a student at Duntroon Central School, I, for one, believe that Duntroon should be kept open. This petition may help us keep our school open."

I want to submit this petition, along with eight letters written by grade 2 students about their school, to the Minister of Education and Training. These children do not want to have their schools closed. They do not want to lose their friends and have to travel by bus to a school at a great distance.

The point is that that school is full. It is at capacity. The only reason it is being listed for closure is because the government funding formula does not provide the board with enough funding to keep this school open. It's about time this government recognized that its funding formula doesn't work to maintain neighbourhood schools.

BRAMPTON EXCELSIORS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I just wanted to present to the Legislature today another great moment in Brampton sports history. In an 1874 Dominion Day lacrosse match, the Brampton Excelsiors outclassed and defeated a team from the Six Nations reserve with their superior running and dodging skills.

History repeated itself on September 15 of this year, only a different team was outclassed this time. The Excelsiors christened the new Brampton Sports Centre by winning the Canadian Lacrosse Association's Mann Cup championship before over 3,500 jubilant Brampton fans. The Excelsiors won the best-of-seven series four games to two over the Coquitlam Adanacs of British Columbia.

This year's Excelsiors were the product of a five-year rebuilding effort by general manager Shane Sanderson and coach Bob McMahon, who inherited the team in 1994 after losing several of its key players.

The Excelsiors were led in their victory by series MVP goalie Pat O'Toole and captain Mike Hasen. Scoring standout Jim Veltman said it best: "These are the hardest-working guys I've ever played with and when the chips were down, these guys just kept coming. We wore [the Adanacs] down."

On behalf of the Ontario Legislature, congratulations to the Mann Cup champion Brampton Excelsiors. We look forward to seeing you repeat as national champions next year.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on resources development and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 24, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Bradley and Mr Duncan exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on October 13 and 14, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week we heard members of the community outline, in emotional detail really, the plight of the homeless in Ontario. It's a problem that exists right across Ontario. We're facing a very desperate situation this winter, and I think all of us dread the effects of homelessness as the cold weather comes on.

We had the government's report on Friday on the provincial task force on homelessness. Frankly, as we face a crisis in homelessness, I think it's fair to say that most people have responded to the report as being inadequate.

My question to the minister is this: Is this what we can expect will be the answer to this winter's homeless problem from the Harris government?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member well knows, this particular task force was one component of a number of steps that we have taken and will continue to take as we help support community agencies and the municipalities in dealing with the serious problem of people who find themselves homeless.

Mr Phillips: The problem is that what has to happen is more effort. The effort that has taken place in the past has led to this problem. We have a major problem of homelessness in the province of Ontario.

This morning we had another community group outline a related problem, and that is child poverty, which can only be described as a national tragedy. You know that child poverty is growing. I gather from the comments from the group this morning that it appears to be growing fastest in Ontario.

It is your government that has cut support for parents of children on social assistance. It's your government that essentially has dried up social housing. There is no construction of social housing in the province. The report that came out just last week said there's no social housing being constructed in Ontario. You have essentially said to the municipalities, "It is now your problem to deal with child poverty."

The question is, what effort are you planning immediately to deal with this crisis of child poverty?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, this government has never said the issue of child poverty is the responsibility of the municipalities. I wish he'd get his facts straight.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I know the honourable member would like us all to believe that somehow or other this is a very simple issue, that somehow or other the cause of homelessness, for example, is all to be laid at the feet of this government. But I'd like to remind the honourable member that the rate of homelessness in this province went up during the time his government was there; it went up during the time that welfare rates were increasing.

Rather than getting into an argument about how we make life pleasant or nice for people who find themselves in difficult circumstances, the argument, the question, the policy objective is to try to give those individuals, whether they are on welfare, whether they have mental illness problems, whether they have substance abuse problems, the supports they need to get on with their lives, off welfare, and get them into paid jobs.

Mr Phillips: I think those who are watching understand that we are trying to make their lives better and nicer and more comfortable.

You say that you have not loaded it on to municipalities. You put social housing 100% on to the property taxes. You have loaded social assistance on to the property taxes. It's you who have made that decision; by the way, contrary to your own Who Does What panel. That was the group that said who should have responsibility for what issues. David Crombie said, "Don't put social housing, don't put social assistance on to the property tax."

I say to you, Minister, that the situation is desperate. We have a respected group outlining the problem of child poverty, which is a disgrace for all of us, to be seeing those numbers.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, put out a document called First Steps. It outlined several proposals. One of them was to provide some assistance for children who are on social assistance, the ones facing the most desperate circumstances.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Phillips: Will you look at that recommendation and will you come back to the House with a plan for dealing with child poverty?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member had had the correspondence shared with him from his leader's office, he would know that we have responded to Mr McGuinty's task force on children.

Second, I was quite frankly a little disappointed because most of the things he recommends in that report are things that we have already done or are in the process of completing.

Third, the honourable member might well want to look at this report that he is quoting in the House a little more carefully. The data they are talking about are data that existed before this government came into office.

Finally, we have fewer children on welfare today than we had when the previous government was in place, 133,000 fewer people on welfare, and the reason for that is because their parents have gone into jobs. We start from the belief that people are better off and their families are better off when people are in paid employment, and our goals, our welfare reforms, have indeed been achieving that effect.

The other point is, we continue to pay 80% of social assistance in this province. We think that's an appropriate backup for our -

The Speaker: Questions, official opposition.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll trust the judgment of the community.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Your question is to?

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Health. It has to do with the problems our hospitals are facing in funding.

On Friday, the Ontario Hospital Association released its report. They indicate in very clear terms that hospitals are facing a significant financial problem, and they indicate very clearly that it is getting worse and worse. They indicate that next year, in fact the year we're into right now, the deficits at the hospitals will be $250 million.

The hospitals are faced with choices: Do they continue to go further and further into debt or do they cut services to the people of Ontario? That is an impossible dilemma for our hospitals and our hospital boards.

Will you now acknowledge, Minister, that our hospitals are facing a serious crisis in financing, and will you announce steps to deal with this crisis problem in our hospitals?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member opposite already may or may not be aware, we are working with the Ontario Hospital Association and we have formed a hospital financial issues advisory group under the JPPC.

As David MacKinnon, the gentleman at the OHA, has indicated, these deficits are issues that hospitals have dealt with over a long period of time. They are problems of long standing, and we want to make sure that in working in partnership with the Ontario Hospital Association, we at the Ministry of Health and this government can find some short-term and some long-term solutions to the issue of deficits, which have been part of hospital life for years and years under all three governments.

Mr Phillips: The problem of course is that people who are in need of hospital care face the crisis today.

You are familiar with an individual in a hospital in the area that I represent who had a brain hemorrhage. She was 30 weeks pregnant. They made 21 phone calls to desperately try and get her a bed somewhere where they could provide services. They couldn't do that. She was required to travel. They couldn't get an air ambulance. The only bed they could find was in Hamilton. They took her from Scarborough to Hamilton and, as you know, she passed away, tragically. Fortunately, they were able to save the baby, but they actually had to get a doctor from another Hamilton hospital to come to that hospital to perform the necessary surgery.

I say to you, the hospitals are facing today serious financial problems.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Phillips: Will you agree to immediately work with the hospitals to restore the necessary funding to ensure that people in Ontario have the right -

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you know, our priority is to ensure that patients get the highest level of care. That's exactly why we have set up the task force with the Ontario Hospital Association. As you also know, we have made available to hospitals $2 billion to assist them with the restructuring costs that they incur. We've also set aside money to the tune of about $300 million to assist them with the year 2000 problem. We also continue to meet with them to address the very issues that you're speaking about, because we want to make sure we can continue to meet the problems and deal with the issues and we can continue to provide the highest level of service possible.

1400

Mr Phillips: I think the minister will recall that most of us on the opposition side for months and months, in fact since you began cutting the hospital budgets, have said it was going to create a problem. I appreciate that a month ago you finally set up, in response to that pressure, a joint committee. I would just say to you, frankly, it was very late. People have suffered as a result of it. I appreciate that the computers may work January 1, 2000; I understand that. But people today are faced with serious problems as they go to hospitals.

Once again, my question is this. This is an emergency. The hospital association said it is a big problem and getting significantly worse. Will you this week agree that you will meet with the OHA and come forward with a plan that ensures that the people of Ontario have the care they deserve when they visit their local hospitals?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know that most people didn't realize we had a task force set up, but we do, because we recognized long before today and long before last Friday that we need to continue to work co-operatively with the Ontario hospitals, as we have. We are determined that we can address the needs that the hospitals have. That's why I say the task force that has been set up is one that is going to identify in the short term some solutions to the problems hospitals have, and also identify some long-term solutions.

Mr MacKinnon has admitted this is a problem of long standing. I can go back to a quote from the Toronto Star on September 21, 1988, where it indicates that Health Minister Caplan has ordered the hospitals to balance their budgets, saying the government will not bail out debt-ridden hospitals. I can assure you we have not indicated that to hospitals -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Last Friday at 3:30 pm your government released a report on homelessness that can only be described, in my view, as pitiful. You obviously agree; otherwise you would not have tried to bury it before the long weekend.

What the homeless need are homes. Instead they got a catalogue of things your government supposedly has done or is doing. But you left a few things out. You forgot the 22% cut to social assistance; you forgot your gutting of rent control; you forgot your revoking of the Rental Housing Protection Act; and you forgot your rules that cut many homeless people. Your government has most wilfully made the situation for the poor and the homeless worse.

Minister, are you seriously claiming that your cuts to social assistance and your attempts to push up rents have nothing to do with the crisis of homelessness?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As social assistance and supportive housing belong to the Minister of Community and Social Services, I'll defer the question to her.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would like to point out to the member that the social assistance rates in this province are 16% above the average of the rates of the other provinces. It is a generous program, and I think it should be, here in Ontario.

Secondly, the financial support for those people with disabilities in this province who are in financial need is about 47% above the other provinces, again very generous support.

It's also important to point out to the honourable member that if he seriously thinks adjusting welfare rates upward is going to solve the issue of homelessness, all he has to do is look back at the record of his own government and the previous government before that, where they did increase welfare rates and, unfortunately, homelessness increased.

Mr Marchese: That's why I asked the question to the Minister of Housing, because we argue that what the homeless need are homes, and we continually get another minister talking about the great things they have done.

The Golden report in fact clearly says that one of the contributing factors that have made people homeless is the cuts to social assistance, yet she denies it, and in fact she argues they're very generous.

Minister, one of the themes of your report is that municipalities should take the lead in housing the homeless and that you should be helping them. But your so-called tenant protection package, which the Minister of Housing knows about, took away a major power municipalities had to preserve affordable housing. It's called the Rental Housing Protection Act. This act allowed municipalities to say no to developers and landlords who want to demolish affordable housing or convert it to expensive condominiums. Now that's gone. It's open season on existing housing for the poor and the homeless thanks to your government.

Minister, if you are so concerned about helping municipalities preserve affordable housing, will you give them back the power to prevent demolitions and conversions that you took away from them?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Municipalities still have the authority to oppose that. I would like to also remind the honourable members that the changes my colleague the Minister of Housing has made will help encourage rental housing support in this province, something the two previous governments did not help to do.

The other issue is that it might be helpful if the honourable member across the way helped us address Ottawa, because if they would stop preventing moving forward with housing reform, that would also be of assistance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We continue to support municipalities in looking for ways to improve the issue of homelessness. One of the things Mr Carroll's task force pointed out, and which Anne Golden's task force is pointing out, is that many individuals have difficulties and barriers that mean they lose the housing they have or they can't maintain the housing they have, either through addiction or mental health issues.

One of the recommendations that has come through very clearly from both municipalities and the organizations which help people who are homeless is that we need supports to have those people linked up with. Whether it's mental health or substance abuse, they need those linkages. Our plan is going to do that.

Mr Marchese: I want to thank the minister of homelessness for participating in this debate, and I also want to thank this minister for -

The Speaker: No. Order. There is the Minister of Housing and so on. I don't believe there's a minister for that.

Mr Marchese: Well, I thank the Minister of Housing for not participating. I want to say to this minister that they, in a most cavalier and callous way, have a way of blaming victims and have a way of shifting their responsibilities to the federal government and to the municipalities.

I want to read something to you, Minister, from the Golden interim report, a report that actually helps us come to grips with this crisis. It says that families with kids are the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population. It also says, contrary to your report, that housing them will take government action. I quote from page 47, where she says, "The cost of building a new two- to three-bedroom unit is prohibitive without major subsidies." The homeless need homes, but you offer them nothing.

Minister, what do you say to the homeless families, "Make a Kingston Road motel your permanent home"? Is that what you have to tell them?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member well knows that is not the answer we are giving those families who may find themselves homeless. If we didn't want to assist the municipalities, we wouldn't be spending $100 million to help with the housing issue; we wouldn't have had a task force that is going to be recommending additional spending to help the municipalities.

We have 80% of the emergency hostels and we continue to pay that share. We think that's appropriate to help support our municipalities. We take 80% of the domiciliary hostels; we pay the biggest share of that because that's a very important support. We also have supportive housing which this government has assumed 100% responsibility for because many individuals who find themselves homeless require additional support to keep them in their housing.

There are many things we have done, and we will continue to work with our municipalities to try and assist people who find themselves in homeless situations to link up with appropriate housing.

1410

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Mr Blain Morin (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Health. You know that the expanding use of nurse practitioners is an effective way of solving the problem of medically underserviced areas in this province. It's true especially in my riding of Nickel Belt, in areas like Foleyet, Salter as well as Gogama. Underserviced areas in northern Ontario need the services of nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners are highly trained health care professionals who focus on disease prevention and are able to provide primary care for minor illnesses and stable chronic illnesses.

I represent an underserviced community and I have a direct question for you, Minister. You announced $5 million last spring for nurse practitioners but not a penny of that money has been spent. Where is the money you promised but have not spent?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, on behalf of I'm sure all my colleagues, we'd like to extend our congratulations to you. We're very pleased that you're joining us here today.

Having said that, I had the pleasure of visiting Nickel Belt and I certainly can appreciate some of the unique needs of your constituency. We were very pleased earlier this year that we were able to ensure that nurse practitioners were able to practise in Ontario. The $5 million is almost at a point where it can be announced. We are presently -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Supplementary.

Mr Blain Morin: During my election campaign, the nurse practitioners in my area wrote a letter asking about your commitment to nurse practitioners. It is a good question because your commitment is empty, as are your promises. First, we have no indication that you are flowing the money to nurse practitioners. Second, even when it has been announced, the money is going to community health clinics in the south. Third, we have about 50 nurse practitioners in northern Ontario who do not have positions equal to their training and ability. At the same time, most of northern Ontario is an underserviced area.

You have ignored the requests for funding from physicians and nurse practitioners who would like to set up collaborating practices. Minister, why don't you live up to the rhetoric and commit today to expand the use of nurse practitioners in Nickel Belt and other northern Ontario underserviced areas?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, let me explain the answer to the first response. We are presently just completing the identification of the communities that will be the beneficiaries of the $5-million announcement for nurse practitioners.

But let me in the interim perhaps share some information with you that indicates the tremendous progress that our government has taken. This is taken from the newsletter of the RNAO, which is the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. This was in September-October 1998, where they say, "This has been a great year in the nursing community's efforts to gain recognition for nurse practitioners."

They indicate, "Health minister Witmer informed RNAO of $5 million of permanent funding for primary care nurse practitioner utilization."

I can assure you that the nurses are extremely pleased with the progress our government has made.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, I can't believe you're being so cynical. Such hollow words that you give us. Of course the RNAO in October-November were pleased, because we all collaborated in this House in making sure that the nurse practitioner legislation was passed. Your job was then to make sure the funding was in place to make that real. You haven't done that.

Now, as we told you before in this House, we have a copy of the letter that Judith Wright, your assistant deputy minister, has sent out saying that in the future you intend to withdraw your support for nurse practitioner education programs. It says clearly that you are going to reduce the enrolment in those programs and you are going to reduce the number of sites for the programs.

Your government's support for nurse practitioner education and support for nurse practitioners should be growing, not waning. Five million dollars is all you've promised and it would take about $40 million to actually meet the underserviced needs.

Minister, you tell us today: Where is the money, and are you going to cut the education programs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, let me also share from Judith Wright's letter. She indicates in the letter that nursing issues are of significant interest to the government. The ministry is committed to NPs.

I'm very pleased to say that we will continue to provide the opportunities and we will continue to ensure that nursing is valued in this province.

As you know, we have set up the nursing task force. This was in response to the request from the nurses. In fact, I think the nurses will tell you that this government has done more in one year for nurses than any government in the history of this province. We had many, many meetings and we have made many commitments and we are moving forward.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I'm going to give you one more chance to redeem yourself, Minister, now that you've had time to reflect on your colleague's response to the crisis of homelessness.

Your policy to eliminate social housing, your colleague's policy to reduce welfare income by 22% and your Minister of Health's disregard for the needs of the mentally ill, as you know, are totally disgraceful. Since you were elected, there has been no new money for special-needs housing for the mentally ill.

It is apparent that it is your government policy that is the main contributor to the homeless crisis. Will you today request that your Premier set up a cabinet crisis committee comprising the Minister of Health, the Minister of Housing - yourself - and the Minister of Community and Social Services to address this crisis on hand?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I refer the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We already have a committee which is advising this government on further reforms to the social housing area. It would perhaps be of assistance if the honourable member across the way would advise Ottawa that they could help by making the decisions they are not making as to how we can rationalize social housing in a way that will actually help increase the supply and the support for people who require that.

I would like to remind the honourable member that this government has taken many steps, not only on the side of emergency shelter, which I have talked about previously in this House, with the increased funding and the financial backup we give to municipalities, but also with our other reforms. Our reforms to the tenant protection system, our reforms to restoring fairness to the property tax system, and our reforms to put limits on development charges to streamline the planning and approvals process are actually resulting in an increase in rental housing starts in this province this year and an increase in housing starts. I think those are both encouraging trends, as well as the encouraging trend of more people working and more people off welfare working. All of these things are designed to help address the issue of homelessness.

1420

Mr Curling: It's appalling to know we have a Minister of Housing who has refused to address any housing issue. As a matter of fact, he should resign, because he doesn't do any work anyhow.

When you have a Minister of Community and Social Services who stands up and tells us that they are making steps, I say your steps are backward steps, not progressive steps. The Carroll report addresses nothing for the homeless. It does nothing at all. It's a useless exercise. I know it's too late now to save Edmond Yu, but there are thousands of people who are homeless, who are on the streets, who are seeking a place to live. The Minister of Health, the minister of social services and the Minister of Housing contribute nothing to this problem.

Could you then stand up today and ask your Premier to put together a cabinet crisis committee?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the member thinks another administrative committee is going to solve the issue, he's sadly mistaken. This province has already tried the solution of government going out and trying to build housing. The previous government tried it. The government before that tried it. What we ended up with was millions of dollars more debt for this province to have to deal with, and that's one of the biggest threats to social spending in this province, I have to tell you. Secondly, we ended up with units that cost the taxpayers more than if the private sector had built them.

Based on the last 10 years where they did that, where they increased welfare rates, we know that here we are with a bigger problem with homelessness than what existed previously. We know that those two responses to this problem do not work. That's why we are focusing on supports that will actually help those individuals in terms of mental health, in terms of substance abuse, in terms of emergency shelter, in terms of giving municipalities more financial support, and also in terms of giving them more flexibility in how they use that financial support, which is something they told us very strongly in the consultations would help them to do a better job of meeting the needs of people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, third party.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the minister responsible for children's issues. Last week I listened to the Minister of Natural Resources try and shirk his responsibility for putting guns in the hands of children. Today I want to appeal to you to act on behalf of Ontario, on behalf of our kids, and fight to reverse this dangerous and frankly stupid policy of your government.

Over the weekend there were two accidents involving youth and guns. A 13-year-old boy in Alberta accidentally shot himself in the hand while he was goose hunting. He was out hunting with his father and another adult, and he blew off his fingers with a 12-gauge shotgun. Here in Ontario a 17-year-old boy died this Sunday after being shot by another youth in a hunting accident.

Minister, how many children have to die? What have you done to protect the children of this province? Have you fought to have this policy reversed?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): These hunting tragedies and accidents with any kind of firearm are always very, very serious, and they're serious to every member of this House when we hear about such an accident.

I think this member knows very well that today children as young as 12 years of age are able to use firearms because of the federal C-17 and it's reinforced in their new bill, C-68. All our province has done under the Minister of Natural Resources is ensure that those young people are qualified and know how to handle a gun if they choose to do it, which they can legally. It's the federal C-17 and C-68 which allow them to handle guns in the first place.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you are wrong. I told you in this House last week that the OPP have confirmed that they did not give permits to children under the age of 15 in this province, despite the federal law. Why? Because there was no reason for them to have a permit, because they couldn't hunt. It is your government that is putting guns in the hands of children. What is it going to take to get you to reverse this policy?

Minister, I want to read to you your mission from your own children's secretariat Web site. You have a responsibility here. As the minister responsible for children, your role is to review all new government legislation, regulations and policies. You're supposed to consider how and if these measures would promote the well-being of children.

Tell me how sending a 12-year-old child out with a shotgun is going to protect children. Tell me how having them supervised by another teenager is going to promote the well-being of children. Will you stand up for Ontario's children? Will you stand up to your cabinet? Will you fight to have this policy reversed?

Hon Mrs Marland: I am going to refer this to Mr Eves.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would just ask the member for Beaches-Woodbine to take into account several things. Obviously this is a very tragic and serious situation that the OPP is investigating. I think it behooves all members of the House not to politicize this process.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Quite frankly, the three chortling behind you in the NDP may think this is funny. We on this side of the House don't happen to think it's so funny. We have the OPP investigating. I think it would behoove us all to wait until the OPP concludes the results of its investigation to find out exactly what the circumstances were.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Eves: It would appear that the incident happened on a Sunday, when nobody should be having a firearm in eastern Ontario anyway unless they happen to be a native person on their own property. Did the individuals involved have a licence? These are some of the questions that come to my mind. Were they under adult supervision at the time? Did they take part in a hunter safety program? All these answers and more will come to the floor when the OPP concludes its investigation, and I'm sure the government and the ministers responsible in this government will take the appropriate action once the investigation is completed.

1430

MOTORCYCLE GANGS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. It concerns the media report in eastern Ontario.

As you know, on September 30 the Ontario Provincial Police, in co-operation with the police from Montreal, detained and charged members of the Quebec Rock Machine motorcycle gang. That happens to be close to my riding of Belleville. My constituents have watched the problem escalate in Quebec and seen it grow out of control, and they are very concerned about these kinds of gangs. I do not want this to lead into Ontario the way it has in Quebec. The bike gangs have been active in drug trafficking, theft, assaults and threatening law-abiding citizens. Minister, tell the House today what action the government has been taking to improve that situation.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Quinte for the question, and I can advise him that Ontario is sending a strong message on this issue: Ontario is closed to biker gangs involved in criminal activity.

The OPP has a dedicated unit called the special squad which investigates outlaw motorcycle gang criminal activity. Last year, this government doubled the number of OPP officers assigned to the special squad to combat illegal biker gangs, and in the 1998 budget we went even further, increasing the number of officers from seven to 20. We have invested an immediate $3.4 million this year and $2.7 million in following years to work with 16 local police services and the RCMP to crack down on biker gangs involved in illegal activities such as fraud, drug trafficking, assault, extortion and prostitution.

Mr Rollins: I would like to thank the Solicitor General for letting the House and the people of Ontario know that our government has taken considerable action in addressing outlaw biker gangs.

Minister, shutting down illegal biker gang crime in Ontario is clearly a public safety priority. What steps has this government taken to ensure that our policing services are most effectively used in dealing with this criminal activity?

Hon Mr Runciman: Our government supported the call by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for a national strategy on outlaw motorcycle gangs. Ontario coordinates joint force projects and the sharing of criminal intelligence information with other federal and provincial jurisdictions. This is one measure to ensure that Ontario tax dollars are directed most effectively at reducing illegal biker gang crime.

Ontario is also using proceeds-of-crime laws to hit biker gangs where it hurts: in their pocketbooks. A joint force operation such as Project Dismantle involved 300 officers and netted 1,355 charges, the seizure of a $150,000 clubhouse, the seizure of assets including $10,000 cash, $300,000 worth of vehicles, $20,000 worth of motorcycles and over $1.2 million in drugs.

I'm proud of our efforts to date and I want to assure my colleagues in this House that we will continue our efforts to combat this type of organized crime.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Education. The county of Renfrew is the largest county in Ontario. It is nearly 3,000 square miles in size, or almost 8,000 square kilometres. Under your new education funding formula, the public school board in the province's largest county, namely Renfrew, does not qualify for the rural and remote grant factor.

Minister, could you explain to the parents, students and staff of the public school board in Renfrew county how it is that they do not qualify for the rural and remote grant factor?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There are various criteria involved. The small schools are schools of less than a certain number of students, I think some 200 students, roughly. The remote and rural factor has to do with distance from major centres, such as Ottawa, for example. Ottawa would be a major centre, and Toronto and I believe London, and other major factors.

I will say to the member that those boards that do qualify and those schools that do qualify have the benefit of about $56 million for small schools and over $90 million for remote and rural factors across the province. This money is to assist those small schools and those schools in remote and rural areas with additional costs such as heating and lighting and running a small school.

Mr Conway: People living in communities like Chalk River and Deep River and Rolphton and Palmer Rapids and Wilno and Barry's Bay and Round Lake want to know, since they are further from Ottawa than Kingston, why they would not qualify for a granting factor that the public school board in Kingston qualifies for. A more rural and far-flung board than the Renfrew public board is hard to imagine.

A second question, Minister, is this: My sources at home tell me that the public school board in the North Bay-Parry Sound area has qualified for a very generous rural and remote factor. Are you prepared to table in this House a comparison for this year, the fiscal year 1998-99, of all the provincial grants being paid, by category, to the North Bay-Parry Sound public school board with, for example, the Renfrew public board to make sure that a sweetheart deal has not been made for the Premier and the Minister of Finance to the obvious disadvantage of people living in places like Rolphton, Wilno and Palmer Rapids?

Hon David Johnson: These allocations - a small-school allocation which pertains to an elementary school must be eight kilometres away from another nearest school, for example, and the remote and rural allocation, I believe, is 150 kilometres away from a defined city - are all done on a fair and open basis. They're exactly the same for all boards. This information is known to all the boards.

Mr Conway: Table that list. I want to see the list. I want to see the line-by-line -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Johnson: I'll simply say that I think it's unfortunate that there is this type of innuendo and allegation in a formula that's fair and evenly applied across Ontario. The board has all this information. I suggest to the member that if he wants any of this information, it's fully available.

TUITION FEES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training as well. This week, students all across Ontario are going to be speaking out about crushing debt loads and increasing tuition for college and university students.

Your government's per capita funding for universities ranks at the bottom of all provinces in Canada. It's one of the worst in North America. On other issues you're quick to point out about how Ontario ought to match the national average, at least when it comes to cuts. But when it comes to college and university funding, instead of moving towards the national average you cut $400 million in funding, and that caused a drastic increase in tuition. This money went to finance your phony tax scheme, a tax scheme that benefits the most well-off.

Minister, will you explain to students why your tax scheme is a higher priority than lowering tuition and moving Ontario up to the national average?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I would explain to students and to the people of Ontario is that this government has made a series of focused investments in post-secondary education, investments such as the student opportunity trust fund, such as the access to opportunities program. These are investments to assist students and to assist the post-secondary institutions, and, I might say, there have been a series of tax expenditures as well.

The interesting aspect is that when you add up all of these investments - expenditures, tax expenditures - the amount of spending in 1998-99 is almost $3.3 billion, which is about $300 million more than what was invested in 1994-95 by the NDP government. That's what I'll tell the people of Ontario.

1440

Mr Lessard: Minister, you just don't get it. Your funding cuts and tuition increases are sending students further into debt. If you don't want to commit to improving this situation, this is something positive that you can do. As you know, the last federal Liberal budget extended the waiting period for student bankruptcy from two years to 10 years. Libby Davies, the NDP critic for post-secondary education in Ottawa, has introduced legislation that would restore bankruptcy protection for students who are now being crushed by these debt loads. Will you join with me in calling on the federal Liberal government to pass this bill repealing the discriminatory changes to the Bankruptcy Act so that students can be treated fairly?

Hon David Johnson: I think the member opposite has put his finger on a valid source of concern, and that is the federal government. I think we all agree with that. I notice that this week the organization the Canadian Federation of Students is petitioning the federal government and indicating that in the budget in February the federal government has done very little to help students in Ontario. So I think we should join together and approach the federal government.

I will also say to the member that you know what per cent of student debt is associated with federal loans: 70% of student debt is associated with federal loans. The province of Ontario is more apt to grant outright financial assistance. The federal government is the one generating all the loans that students have to pay back.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. You remember that back in August a very severe hailstorm struck our area, wiping out several apple farmers. It was centred on Grafton but it took a wide swath throughout Northumberland, Durham and Quinte.

Minister, you demonstrated significant leadership by meeting with the affected growers on October 5. The apple growers were very pleased that you took time to meet with them. Can you tell the House and the apple farmers in my area what the ministry is doing to help these apple growers recover from this disaster?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Northumberland for joining me when he, myself and our staff met with the apple producers in the area of Northumberland, Durham and Quinte.

The ministry, along with the federal government, supports the crop insurance and the safety net programs by contributing to the premiums, and also by supporting Agricorp, which is a group of farmers operating the safety nets for farmers. Ministry staff in the affected area will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with the growers on recommendations for handling the harvesting of the hail-damaged crop. We will continue to work with Agricorp, the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission and indeed with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada minister and ministry to help those in the affected areas so they will have financing in place for next year's crop production.

Mr Galt: Minister, previous governments have come out with rather quick-fix programs that had very little benefit for the long term. Can you share with the House that this government is strongly committed to a safety net program that is both sustainable and efficient and one that the apple growers will buy into in the future?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Through Agricorp, which is an arm's-length agency as I mentioned before, they have the net income stabilization account and also self-directed risk management which is available to our apple growers. It's a three-year pilot project which is only available in Ontario and which has been working reasonably well. Hail and drought are just some of the unique risks facing Ontario farmers.

Farmers work hard in partnership with provincial and federal governments, sometimes with their banks, in order to meet the programs. Efforts to refine these initiatives continue, and we must not undermine - I emphasize, we must not undermine - those efforts through ad hoc funding programs, to which the federal government agrees. Producers themselves acknowledge that ad hoc assistance in lieu of crop insurance and safety nets would indeed see many of the wrong responses and the wrong message to our farmers.

Agricorp, the crown agency run by farmers, is indeed adjusting to meet the needs of not only the apple producers but all farmers facing the safety net issue.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with property taxes. There continues to be considerable confusion and concern out there in Ontario around property taxes, and it's no surprise. In the last 17 months you have had six different bills that the Legislature has had to deal with, one bill trying to fix the previous bill. We still have another bill, Bill 61, that has to be dealt with.

As you know, Minister, a year ago we proposed a solution to the problem you're now trying to deal with in Bill 61; that is, the time that people can appeal their assessments. You still don't have this right in Bill 61. You should have adopted our amendment, which would have allowed up to 60 days after people get their final tax bill to appeal their assessment.

Will you now finally admit that you were wrong, we were right, and will you amend your bill so that people in Ontario will have up to 60 days after they get their final tax bill to appeal their assessment?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt will know that municipalities send out tax bills. The province of Ontario does not for property taxes.

There is no reason why municipalities shouldn't have had their tax bills out long ago. They could have had them out by the end of August. Some of them did not get them out, quite frankly, till the first week or two in September. That is why we listened to the people and we propose in Bill 61, as the member knows, an extension of the appeal date until October 30.

He will also know that his party, along with the NDP, agreed to pass Bill 61 in one day. They've already taken up one day of debate and now they say they're prepared to pass it expeditiously in an additional two or three days of debate. That's not what you agreed to. Why don't you deliver on your commitment?

Mr Phillips: We thought he'd call the bill the first day back.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Al Palladini had to go through this. He knows what it's like. He pretended he wanted his bill early. He had to get mad at you.

The Speaker: Are you heckling me?

Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: I sent the minister a letter. I said our caucus is anxious to deal with Bill 61, the property tax bill. We said we need only two sessional days to deal with the bill. We've never said anything different. If he can prove that, I challenge him. But we sent him a letter, saying: "We continue to feel our amendment to allow up to 60 days is appropriate. But in any event, it seems sensible to deal with the bill quickly."

My point is this: You have caused chaos, Minister. Six bills; it's an embarrassment. One bill has to fix the previous bill. You look foolish on it. Call the bill. Let us get on with it so at least we can have some sense of stability out there. Don't hide. Bring the bill forward. But you look foolish. Six bills and still you will not accept what we proposed 12 months ago and we proposed six months ago. You rejected it. You would not have had to have this bill if you had accepted it.

Will you now get on with the debate so that property taxpayers in the province of Ontario can at least have some assurance that they'll be able to finally appeal their assessment on a sensible basis?

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows perfectly well that different pieces of legislation are required at different stages of the process as we're bringing in a new assessment system in the province.

I understand that your government didn't have the political intestinal fortitude to do that. I understand that their government didn't have the fortitude to do that. I understand it's a difficult thing to go from a system that's antiquated from 1940, when the latest reassessment was done in some parts of the province, to 1998, some 58 years later. However, we are dealing with it. We're trying to be fair and equitable. All I ask you is, why would you send a letter saying, "Sorry, I told you that you could have the bill in one day but all I want is 300% more time to deal with this expeditiously"? Why would you do that? Why would you renege on the commitment? Don't you figure it's important to pass it in one day, as you agreed? You already wasted the day.

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask the minister to prove I ever said we would do that. I said we would deal with the bill. Prove it.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, it's not a point of order.

1450

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Solicitor General. Last week, his ministry released its report on the Niagara Regional Police Service. That report told him what Niagara regional police officers have been telling him for a good chunk of time now: that the Niagara Regional Police Service is seriously understaffed, and that detectives and people conducting specialized investigations have had to be taken from those criminal investigations to fulfill front-line responsibilities.

The Niagara regional police, with its concern for the health and safety of its members, the health and safety of the community and the effectiveness of policing, has requested an inquiry by the OCC. This was told to them during the hearings on your amendments to the Police Services Act as their safeguard in the event that they had concerns about the adequacy of the level of policing. Well, they do. The delays in response times have increased dramatically because of this shortage of police officers.

Very simply, Solicitor General, will you support those cops from Niagara who simply want their day with the OCC so they can present their case for more police officers, more funding and a restoration of the level of policing that Niagara deserves?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm sure the member knows that this is a quasi-judicial body and that they will make a decision on the merits of the case put before them. No Solicitor General in the history of this province has attempted to intervene in that process, and if one did I'm sure the opposition parties would be on their feet calling for his or her resignation within the bat of an eye.

I certainly do not intend to intrude, and we'll let the process go through its natural course. The civilian commission has a great number of tools available to it and if they think action is merited, that will be forthcoming with their decision on the force itself.

I should point out that this government is doing a number of things to address placing additional police officers on the streets of communities across this province through our new program - $150 million for the next five years to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of our communities.

PETITIONS

DENTAL CARE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition which refers to the schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities that was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

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

"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I have affixed my signature.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would assure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need. The task force should include palliative care experts on pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves. The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face tax increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on these increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I am pleased to join the members of the Ford City BIA in signing this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition on behalf of my community of Hamilton-Wentworth.

"Whereas the Harris funding cutbacks are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because the people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I again support these petitioners in their demands.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "Whereas the PC Party promised in the Common Sense Revolution to cut provincial income taxes by 30% in three years; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government lived up to that promise; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government did so six months ahead of schedule; and

"Whereas Ontario now has the lowest provincial tax rate in Canada; and

"Whereas 91% of all taxpayers now have seen an Ontario tax cut of 30% or greater; and

"Whereas this change will result in 655,000 low-income families and individuals paying no income tax at all; and

"Whereas Ontario's strong new economic climate has contributed to the private sector creating 375,000 net new jobs in Ontario since September 1995; and

"Whereas Ontario's outdated property tax system has been replaced by the Ontario fair assessment system; and

"Whereas the new system is fair, clear and more consistent; and

"Whereas low-income seniors and the disabled are protected from sudden tax increases; and

"Whereas changes to the Development Charges Act will make new homes affordable; and

"Whereas high-income earners now pay a fair share health care levy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has introduced a rigorous new road safety program that includes some of the toughest measures to combat drunk or dangerous drivers; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has exceeded the spending floor on health care every year since being elected; and

"Whereas total health care spending for 1998-99 will be $18.5 billion, the highest in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has achieved this despite cuts in transfer payments by the federal Liberal government of more than $2.4 billion; and

"Whereas a recent survey by the Fraser Institute proves that health care waiting lists in Ontario are the shortest anywhere in Canada; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas seniors will benefit from the government's $1.2-billion investment to increase seniors' beds by 35%, including 2,200 new beds in Toronto alone;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

I'm pleased to add my signature.

1500

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

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

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to better protect heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario's heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by over 530 people from the west end of Toronto and collected through the office of Councillor David Miller, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we, the residents of the west end of the old city of Toronto, have suffered huge increases in our property taxes as a result of the provincial imposition of current value assessment; and

"Whereas these tax increases will force many residents to sell their homes and leave the city for other communities; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has placed a cap on tax increases to small businesses, limiting them to no more than 2.5%; and

"Whereas a stable, prosperous residential population is essential for the continued survival of small business in our neighbourhood;

"Therefore now be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the government of the province of Ontario place a cap on all residential tax increases resulting from current value assessment in the city of Toronto of no more than 2.5%."

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present petitions calling for the elimination of regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk. This is signed by residents of Dunnville, Canfield, York, Cayuga and other areas in the former county of Haldimand.

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda, and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda, 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke, and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I agree with this petition and hereby affix my signature to it.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here with respect to red light cameras making high-collision intersections safer.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can easily be directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws, resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have more petitions regarding the saving of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, forwarded to me by Marjorie Martin, president of OPSEU local 203. The petition reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario, through the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is not adequately monitoring community-based mental health services for their effectiveness, efficiency or whether they're even delivering the agreed-upon programs in the first place, according to the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

"We, the citizens of Hamilton and area who care about quality, accessible and publicly accountable mental health care for all Ontarians, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately set aside all recommendations to divest and/or close Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital and the programs and services it provides; and

"Further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton and area."

I support these petitioners by adding my name.

ADOPTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition to present on behalf of my constituents, specifically given to me by Rik Davies and his wife Linda, who live in Nestleton.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario, ARCO, brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws and the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his or her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality; it was imposed upon them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives;

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information in adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches 18."

There's more to this, and I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1998, and ending April 30, 1999, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean, the member of Simcoe Centre, the member for Northumberland and the member for Durham East. I will be very brief because obviously we have some very capable speakers on the schedule for speaking this afternoon. I simply will say that this motion is always one of the most important motions that we pass in this House. It is the motion that gives permission for the government to send money to the municipalities, the hospitals and the school boards around this province, and of course it's the motion that appropriates the payment of the salaries to the excellent and dedicated members of our civil service.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): As per the normal custom, I would ask for unanimous consent to split the time between the three parties.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to share the time? I hear a no.

Mr Baird: Let the record show the Liberal Party denied unanimous consent for us to share time equally between the three parties as a matter of fairness.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and to speak on concurrence. Concurrence is a unique opportunity in the Legislature when members can stand in their places and speak to a broad range of economic issues and certainly ones that I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to.

Undoubtedly, the biggest economic challenge that voters in Nepean expected their member of the provincial Parliament to go to work for was job creation. When I went door to door in the 1995 general election, everywhere I went job creation was priority number one because Ontario used to be the economic engine of Canada. We used to be a magnet for jobs, for investment and for opportunity, but for a decade we became known as a mismanaged debtor, over-governed, over-regulated and overtaxed, 56 tax increases to be fair, and that job creation record simply went down the drain. There were far too many unemployed. There were far too many people looking for work. There were far too many people worried about whether the job they had they would be able to keep and whether or not their child would have a job when they graduated school, university or college or apprenticeship.

I'm pleased to report that there is now more hope and more prosperity in Ontario, and that is good news for people and particularly for young people. We've seen unemployment rates continue to fall, which is good news. We're committed to working harder to see the creation of even more jobs across Ontario to assist those people looking for work, but the recent news was very, very good. I was just reading a Toronto Sun article from a few short days ago, and it says, "It's Jobs, Jobs, Jobs in Ontario."

"Ontario led the nation in job creation last month accounting for 85% of the 73,000 new jobs across the nation."

Why are these jobs coming to Ontario? Why are they not going to the rest of the provinces? I think the economic policies of this government are having a very positive economic impact.

Interjection.

Mr Baird: The member opposite asked how many jobs were created in Ottawa-Carleton. I'd be very pleased to tell him about the jobs created in Ottawa-Carleton. The member opposite talks about jobs outside of Toronto. "Area's Unemployment Rate Back on Track" from the Ottawa Citizen. "Ottawa-Hull's unemployment rate tumbled in September to 7.1% from 7.4% a month earlier," Statistics Canada said yesterday.

When you take the numbers from the city of Hull in la belle province out of the picture, it's even brighter; it's almost a point less, approximately 6.1%. Then when you look at the healthy high-tech growth going on in the west end and particularly in Nepean, Barrhaven, Stittsville and Kanata, the news is even brighter, probably even a point less than that.

The member opposite wants to talk about areas outside of Toronto and I would be very pleased to talk about that. We saw some very positive economic growth in Hamilton and in Halton, as well, and it is indeed very good news for the people of Ontario that jobs are being created there.

Ontario's unemployment rate dipped to 7.1%, the lowest in almost a decade. Can you imagine that? The lowest in almost a decade. Some 63,000 people found new jobs here in September, Statistics Canada reported yesterday - good news indeed.

"How come we've got 85% of all the jobs in Canada created here in Ontario?" the finance minister asks. I'll tell him: because we're balancing the budget, on track, as we promised to; because we're cutting provincial income taxes - we now have the lowest income tax rate in Canada; that's why - because we're cutting red tape; because we're assisting small business by cutting the corporate tax on small business by 50% over the next eight years; because we're cutting the commercial and industrial taxes over the next eight years - problems that were left for years by governments past. That is indeed very, very good news not just in Ottawa-Carleton, which has an unemployment rate of 6.1%, and perhaps even closer to 5% for Nepean.

We can talk about the other areas. Unemployment in Hamilton and Burlington is at its lowest level in more than a decade. The area's new jobless rate is 4.6%, the lowest in Canada. I know that's because of the hard-working efforts of the member for Wentworth North, Mr Skarica, in fighting for lower taxes, fighting for less government. It's because the member for Hamilton West, Lillian Ross, has been fighting for those types of policies; the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Wentworth East have been fighting for lower taxes because low taxes help create jobs. That's indeed good news.

The economic recovery is taking hold in the rest of the province and we've got to work harder to help the economy create jobs, because as long as there's one single person out looking for a job, we've got work to do. Our government is committed to those efforts.

That's the good news on the unemployment and employment situation.

I'd like to talk about some other issues. Undoubtedly, assisting job creation is keeping a low tax environment and the worst job killer is payroll taxes. That's why we on this side of the House are so very concerned about the employment insurance scam being perpetrated at the federal level. I know you'll be interested in this part of my remarks.

I was reading a very good editorial in the Financial Post by Diane Francis entitled, "Skimming the EI Surplus in Order to Spend it is Outrageous." I want to tell you I completely concur. I'm getting calls from constituents in Nepean saying the provincial government should be speaking out about this pickpocketing of Ontario workers, and you bet your boots I'm going to be here to raise those concerns in the provincial Parliament about those Liberal government tax raiders.

I'm going to read Diane Francis for a minute. This is a good one. "The Grits should keep their mitts off the potential $6-billion employment insurance surplus and lower premiums paid by workers and employers immediately." I agree with Diane Francis.

We had a very unique opportunity last week in this Legislature. The Premier of Ontario stood up to fight for Ontario workers and small business people and said, "Surely we can all agree in this Parliament to ask the federal government not to raid the EI surplus plan."

We came to this House and the Premier gave remarks and the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party got up to speak. I'm going to tell you, I want to give some credit where credit is due. The member for Rainy River, the leader of the NDP, stood up and forcefully fought for Ontario workers and said that he was prepared to stand up for Ontario.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Did you agree to increase CPP premiums, John?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Baird: I know the Liberal member opposite doesn't want to hear about this but it's important to my constituents.

In this House we had a rare opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition had five minutes to stand up and speak up for Ontario workers, to speak up for those hard-working people who have paid too much for too long, and for small business people.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): He said nothing.

Mr Baird: "He said nothing," the member for High Park-Swansea says. You betcha. He gave the pass and said he would not use his time to speak and asked the finance critic, who is an otherwise good fellow, to give the Liberal Party's position. I listened very closely. He didn't say one single thing about the employment insurance issue, not one.

1520

But I'll tell you, it got very, very hot outside in front of the television cameras when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr McGuinty, got out there. He was asked, "Why weren't you standing up for Ontario workers?" and the sweat was just pouring off him. He said: "I had my finance critic do it. He's more well versed in these issues."

Then one of the reporters said: "But, Mr McGuinty, he didn't mention employment insurance. He didn't mention the pickpocketing of Ontario workers. He didn't speak up for Ontario workers. Why didn't you get up in your place? Are you here to apologize for Allan Rock and the federal Liberals or are you here to fight for Ontario workers?" This unanimity is not present in Ontario.

Interjection: The umbilical cord reaches from Ottawa.

Mr Baird: The umbilical cord reaches from Ottawa is a good point. But it did happen in Ottawa where we saw the leader joining Mike Harris and Howard Hampton in their opposition to this EI surplus rate. I'm going to tell the member what they said. "Why should waitresses and factory workers pay hundreds of dollars more in EI premiums just to satisfy Martin's insatiable appetite for payroll revenue?" asked Reform Party leader Preston Manning.

Was this just a plot from the right? No. New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough called Martin's scheme to squander the surplus legal larceny. I want to tell you, I agree with Alexa McDonough on this issue. It is legal larceny. Mr Martin should give the money back to Ontario workers. That factory worker, that waitress, that small business person who has been paying into this fund should get the money back.

We may disagree on how that money should be spent. We think it should go right back to those hard-working people; some of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe it should go into training. But we share the view that it should not be squandered in new spending and be put into the consolidated revenue fund of the federal government. That is something that is extremely important. It should be returned to the Ontario worker and small business person. That is something that is very, very important.

As well, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to talk about deficit reduction and our commitment. We made a commitment in the last election to balance the budget in five years. That was, indeed, a good commitment to make. Every single quarter -

Mr Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We should have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

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.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin is the only opposition member of the Legislature sitting in the opposition benches, and that should be known. While we're trying to create jobs and balance the budget -

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat for a moment. You should know the rules. You're not supposed to comment on members not in the House. Thank you.

Mr Baird: I withdraw the remark that there was only one opposition member and I apologize.

The Acting Speaker: I just ask you to withdraw it, not repeat what you said before. Just withdraw, please.

Mr Baird: Withdraw.

I was talking about the deficit. The deficit of course is a big concern to people in Ontario. Constituents in Nepean tell me to ensure that the government balances the budget as it promised in five years. The good news is, when we took over, it was over $11 billion, and every single quarter, the government has made its deficit reduction target. That is something that is exceptionally important. The deficit for the last year, ending on March 30, was less than $4 billion, down $2.6 billion from our balanced budget plan. It is indeed very good news that we are ahead of the deficit reduction target.

I want to get on the record that revenue last year was $378 million more than the interim estimate because we were extremely cautious. There is more tax revenue coming into the government after the tax cuts, because you cut taxes and you bring in more money because there are more taxpayers, more people paying sales tax, more people paying income tax, more businesses paying corporate taxes. That's indeed very good news.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Just like the cigarette tax with the feds.

Mr Baird: Just like the cigarette tax, the member for Ottawa-Rideau says.

The 1998-99 budget plan is based on extremely cautious and prudent formulas and I know we're going to make our deficit reduction target once again, as we always have. That is indeed good news.

The five-year balanced budget plan I think is realistic and obtainable and we will meet or exceed it.

We've seen some positive economic growth. We've seen some positive numbers. We've seen deficit reduction. We've seen some significant welfare reforms which have been in large measure part of the deficit reduction plan to get more people off welfare and into the workforce, which is good news.

We've seen a lot of new jobs in Nepean. I visited Industry 1047. They've hired a few new people at their light manufacturing firm, and that's good news.

RONA Warehouse: more than 200 new jobs.

New home sales are up for residential construction again this year in Longfields and Davidson Heights, in Stittsville and Kanata and Barrhaven. That's good news for folks there.

We've seen two new high schools to be built in my community of Nepean and Barrhaven, and that's good news. We've seen an announcement of a new high school to be built in Stittsville, and there will be more jobs.

Westeinde Construction just built a new furniture store on Hunt Club Road and we've seen a gigantic expansion of JDS Fitel and the flourishing high-tech industries of Ottawa-Carleton, and indeed that is good news.

At the same time as balancing the budget and cutting taxes, my constituents are telling me that health care is a priority. I've listened to their concerns and brought them forward to my colleagues here. A lot of folks are concerned about the pace of change and want to ensure that we take the time to get it right. I'm sure they have a good friend in our health minister, Elizabeth Witmer.

Just in Nepean alone we've increased the Starwood Extendicare long-term-care facility budget by more than $400,000 annually as part of $4 million in new spending in long-term care in Ottawa-Carleton. We're helping to construct the Villa Marconi long-term-care facility to serve our older Italian community, and that is good news for long-term care in Ottawa-Carleton.

People have talked to me about the concerns about overcrowding at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital. We're investing more than $28 million in the expansion of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital. They're one of the most efficient hospitals in Ontario, and that is good news for the west end.

We've seen physician payments go up by more than $20 million in Ottawa-Carleton because more people are visiting physicians and the government is there to meet those obligations.

More funding for the drug plan. We've increased the CCAC - the community care access budget - by more than $3 million and announced plans to refurbish some of the older long-term-care facilities such as the Hillel Lodge serving the Jewish community, and they'll do a fantastic job on the new Jewish community centre campus in the west end of the city of Ottawa. That will be of great benefit to folks from right across the region.

This is some good economic news. Since the 1995 throne speech we've seen private sector employment increase by more than 366,000 positions, and that accounts for 48.5% of all the jobs created in Canada. That is good news.

We've seen the number of people depending on welfare decline by nearly 20,000 in September, a drop of 2.7% from August 1998. Over 323,000 people have stopped relying on welfare since this House first met in September 1995.

Think of a city the size of Ottawa of people off welfare. They got the call. The voice on the other end of the phone said, "You got the job," and they're able to provide for their own family. That is positive economic news about the increasingly rosy outlook in the province of Ontario.

1530

In September, the Ontario help wanted index rose by 0.7%, reaching its highest level since the NDP came into power. Over the first eight months of 1998, commercial-industrial building permits rose by 33% from a year ago. This followed a 32.6% rise for 1997. Indeed, in Nepean those types of permits are up by more than 300%, because we're seeing such positive economic growth, and that is indeed good news.

In Ottawa-Carleton, the Conference Board of Canada has said that our area's output is forecast to grow by 3.9% in 1998, and Ottawa's economy is becoming more diversified and benefiting from a growing high-tech sector.

Mr Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the member is chasing people out of here. There's no quorum present, I believe.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: 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 member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: I will resist the urge -

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): - to name the one member in the opposition party who called quorum.

Mr Baird: The members are talking about the one member in the opposition, who called quorum.

The economic picture is brighter in Ontario. We're on track to balance the budget. The jobs are coming, and we're rededicating ourselves to work harder to create more jobs, 63,000 last month alone, the member for Scarborough East said, and that is indeed good news. We will balance the budget on target within five years, as we committed to do, at the same time increasing spending on health care and protecting classroom education.

I'm pleased to have had this opportunity to speak on this very important motion and would now like to invite the member for Simcoe Centre to make some remarks.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I am very pleased to join my colleagues and take part in the debate on this interim supply motion. As you know, the government has been authorized to make payments prior to October 31, and this motion is about getting authority to make payments after October 31, 1998. It's going to cover a six-month period, from November 1, 1998, to April 30, 1999. Without spending authority, most scheduled and unscheduled payments, including payments to nursing homes, hospitals, doctors, municipalities, general welfare recipients, children's aid societies and suppliers' accounts, cannot be paid. So it's fundamental that the authority is given to the government to have this motion passed, to ensure that it meets its responsibilities. We're certainly looking for all the other parties to join with us in the passage of this interim supply motion.

In line with this, I'd like to speak about how the Ontario economy has been doing so well, notwithstanding the measures that have been taken by the federal government to put barriers in the way of growth in the GDP. As the member for Nepean commented, the Ontario economy is producing positive GDP growth, notwithstanding what has been happening with the federal Liberals.

That growth is very evident in my riding of Simcoe Centre. In the household-sector areas, with respect to department stores, the growth has been very encouraging. We've had a new Bay, a new Sears, and in fact a new Chapters is entering the area. Also, there are housing starts, and growth in the housing sector has been very significant over the last two years and has led to tremendous economic development within Simcoe Centre as well as Simcoe county.

Also, the positive results with respect to the automotive sector have boded well for Simcoe Centre and Simcoe county, because one in every six jobs is dependent on the automotive sector. In Simcoe Centre we're very fortunate to have the Automotive Institute at Georgian College, which was a recent recipient of $4.8 million towards its new programs with respect to automotive design and tool and die making, which will produce graduates and actually increase space for students to enrol in these particular programs, which will lead to jobs in the automotive sector.

The automotive sector is very important to Simcoe county because of the Honda plant, which just recently expanded by 1,200 additional jobs. Also, in Simcoe county we have in excess of 20 automotive parts suppliers and growing. It's our objective to solidify that automotive sector, because it results in growth not only for the economy but also in very good-paying jobs.

We're very pleased with the results that have been achieved. In September, Ontario gained 62,100 net new jobs, and that represents 85.3% of all the jobs created in Canada. That's just an astounding figure, showing that Ontario is back to being the engine of the Canadian economy. Private sector employment was up 64,000 in September, while public sector employment was down 2,000. The Ontario unemployment rate fell to 7.1% from 7.2% in August of this year. Youth employment rose for the third straight month, up 26,500 in September, while the youth jobless rate remained steady at 14%.

The total job numbers in the public and private sectors since the throne speech in September 1995: There have been 400,008 net new jobs created in Ontario, and this represents 48.6% of all the jobs created in Canada during that period.

Certainly the economic climate that has been put in place by this government bodes well for the current economy and also for the future economic growth of this province, notwithstanding the lack of initiatives and the barriers that have been put in place by the federal government. I just want to comment on one of those, because of the youth unemployment concerns we have across this country, not just regionally, with respect to the plans by the federal government to take $20 billion, the surplus in the employment insurance fund, and use it for other purposes. I certainly hope the reports that have been put forth by the media are wrong with respect to the federal government's intentions.

I'd like to note that Ontario workers and businesses contributed two thirds of the $20-billion surplus and I believe should receive a premium reduction. I believe the EI fund should be administered at arm's length from the federal government, similar to the Canada pension plan, and the premiums used for EI purposes only. For example, if EI premiums were eliminated for young Canadians, more than 200,000 jobs could be created. That's something that has been put forth by the Minister of Finance to Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance at the federal level, on more than one occasion, unfortunately to deaf ears. I really wonder where their priorities are with respect to the youth of this country, in terms of getting them into the workplace. It shouldn't be created by phony job creation schemes. It basically should be created by the private sector, good-paying jobs created by the private sector.

I also believe that any excess EI money should be returned to the workers and the businesses who created the surplus in the first place, not go into the pockets of the federal government. One of the misnomers here is that the federal government is talking in circles with respect to how this money was created and who has ownership of it. The bottom line is that this is taxpayers' money and it should be returned to them. The federal government only got it into its coffers through the backs of the workers. I believe they should be returning that money. It's not their money to fool around with with respect to general revenues. The legitimate question is: How did the federal government come up with a supposed surplus last year? If you really look at the books, perhaps the surplus was really the EI surplus taken into general revenues to create what is a phony surplus on the federal government's behalf.

1540

I hope the media reports are wrong and that the federal government does not confiscate the EI surplus for its own spending schemes. That's really what we're talking about here: what they believe is their priority in terms of dealing with this surplus.

The federal initiatives have essentially made a lot of Ontarians worse off. You have to wonder, why would the federal government be taking these measures to try to negatively affect the Ontario economy, try to make this province not as beneficial as it should be? You have to wonder why these measures would be taken. The Liberal government has 101 MPs elected from this province to Ottawa. They weren't elected to undermine the Ontario economy and they weren't elected to do anything but represent Ontario's interests, and they're doing anything but that. They seem to think their mandate is to get this provincial government defeated so they can bring in some basic parasite government for Ontario that will do anything they wish in the provincial sphere. That's not in the best interests of the province. We need someone to check the federal government, to make sure it adequately represents the interests of this province and doesn't just do anything the federal government wants.

One of the big ironies I was reading the other day in the Star was Allan Rock coming out with a comment with respect to the health situation in this country, saying that it's not at serious levels: "We can work together. There are some problems we have to address, but by the way, the federal government doesn't have any money to make sure the redress is going to be put in place," even though they've cut social spending and health care spending across the country by $7 billion, and in particular by $2.2 billion in spending on health care and social services from this province.

Who is that Minister of Health to be able to dictate how we're going to provide health care at the same time they give eight cents on the dollar towards health care in this province? They have no new ideas with respect to how to resolve the concerns that they have in their own mind. The provincial government is doing what it can to make sure that we have the best health care system we possibly can have. I'm very fortunate, being the member for Simcoe Centre, in that we have a brand-new hospital, the Royal Victoria Hospital, in our riding that is providing excellent service not only to the city of Barrie but throughout the region.

I find it almost ironic that the federal government would be saying at the same time: "We have to impose some standards but we're not going to give you any money. We basically just want to be the federal watchdog over a system that we think is dear to the hearts of Canadians." They're right about one thing. Health care is dear to the hearts of all Canadians, but the federal government basically has abdicated its role, not only with respect to health care, not only with respect to social programs, but also being a leader with respect to job creation in this country.

What have they done to make life worse for consumers? They are basically looking at not reducing EI premiums, by putting it into their general revenues. They're looking at increasing CPP premiums by a significant percentage, I believe 10%, which is strictly a payroll tax which comes out of your pocket and my pocket, and heaven knows whether the CPP program is going to be around when we're ready to retire.

They have control over gas price spending. What are they doing? They are doing nothing about it. They know there's price-fixing. They know the prices are too high. They know that in my riding and in other ridings basically gas prices go up five to eight cents per litre every weekend because of the volume of traffic. What are they doing to help consumers? Nothing. Also, what are they doing about income taxes? They're making a lot of noises that we deserve an income tax cut. Obviously we do; we're the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America at the federal level. They're not doing anything to make sure that we're fairly taxed. Also, what are they doing? They're saying all the economic indicators are in order, that everything is sound. Why is our dollar standing at 64 cents if everything is sound and the federal government's fiscal performance is an indication of why we're doing so well?

The bottom line is that the federal government's fiscal performance with respect to investors and how they view this country is abysmal. That's why the dollar is at 64 cents and dropping, because they haven't taken measures with respect to addressing our debt, they haven't taken measures to address their oversized government and their spending, and they haven't taken measures to deal with the income tax at the personal level because it's far too high. They haven't done anything other than find ways to get more money out of consumers' pockets through EI premiums, through CPP premiums and through gas prices that they have control to change. They're not the friends of the little guy. That's the phoniest statement I've ever heard from the federal government. They're not here to serve the best interests of the average Canadian. All they are is smoke and mirrors, and they try to make us feel good.

The bottom line is that the provincial government has performed very well with respect to the economic climate that is produced in this province. They have done that notwithstanding the barriers that have been put in place by the federal government in terms of dealing with our economic growth. That also applies to their do-nothing attitude with respect to the health care sector. All they do is say that we need to have a single tier of health care. At the same time, they're creating by their own actions the weakening of the health care system in this province, and they rely on their provincial Liberal counterparts to be puppets of their message and basically say: "Why aren't you doing this? Why aren't you doing this about gas prices?" It has got to be the height of hypocrisy to speak in this House and say, "How come you're not doing anything about gas prices?" when you know there was a 40-page report prepared by the MP in Durham, Dan McTeague, about gas prices. The federal government has control over gas prices. They have control over the Competition Act with respect to dealing with that.

What really irks me, besides all their measures to take money out of the consumers and the rhetoric they put forth with respect to health care and our economy, is dealing with the infrastructure in terms of railway. In my own riding we're dealing with a situation in which CN has been given the power under federal legislation in 1996 to rip up tracks throughout the province as long as they go through a procedure of offering it through the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipal governments and the private sector. What we're facing is a situation where we're going to lose the track from Barrie to Bradford unless measures are taken to make sure that CN doesn't tear up those tracks, and I'm very pleased to say that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission has expressed some interest in acquiring that line and is going to be talking to CN about this.

This measure wouldn't have had to be taken with respect to our critical infrastructure if the federal government had put into place something with respect to a railway policy. They're responsible for railways, yet at the same time, when they get rid of railway through their federal legislation, they say to the province: "No, it's your responsibility. We got rid of railway and we allowed the CN to get out of it, but since we have done that, it's now a provincial responsibility." That's another way of certainly passing the buck.

The bottom line is that I have been working as the MPP for Simcoe Centre to make sure we don't lose that critical infrastructure. The experience in the United States, where CN is now investing heavily because they were made a crown corporation by the federal government, is that the public sector in the United States is investing heavily in rail infrastructure. They see that's the way to go with respect to the environment, passenger travel and also freight. That's where they're going in the industrial corridor in the United States. We're going in the opposite direction because of the federal government. They're basically saying, "Let's get out of the rail business," and they're stripping Ontario of its vital rail. That's something we have to fight against because they are giving up their responsibility. They put nothing in place to protect our infrastructure and at the same time they say it's a provincial responsibility. That's the way the federal government works. They don't want any responsibility, yet they want to be the arbiter of all that's good and right in this country to keep it together.

1550

The bottom line is that I'm very pleased to see that measures are being taken by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to show some interest in preserving that Barrie-to-Bradford rail line, because I really believe that once we maintain that hardware, we should be looking into that area at GO Transit. I've worked very hard as an MPP to make sure that happens.

I'm in support of this motion on interim supply. I would just like to say that I will be passing my time over to the member for Northumberland. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Essex South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning gasoline prices. This matter will be debated at 6 pm today.

Further debate.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I would like to open my remarks with a quote from Peter Drucker: "Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately generate into hard work."

Our party, a good year before the previous election, set out our plans in the Common Sense Revolution. They were well defined. It was our platform; it was our commitment to the people of Ontario. Right after June 8, 1995, we went to work and worked very, very hard. The success of our government relates to the hard work of the PC Party of Ontario. We're doing what we said we would do and the people of Ontario know it and are recognizing us for that very thing.

As a result of this, our economy has improved significantly. Our job creation is up significantly. The welfare numbers are down. Our health care spending is up, in spite of the federal government cutting us by almost $3 billion, thanks to the first cousins of the Liberals here in our House. Our priority spending is very specific in education and our total spending on education is also up.

I would like to spend just a few minutes talking about our economy. One of the planks in our platform that we took very seriously was to get spending under control. By getting spending under control, it would give confidence - and it has given confidence - to business, to investors and also to consumers.

We came into office finding there were two sets of books and we pulled those two sets together. I couldn't believe they would be operating under two sets of books but that's what we found. We found that instead of a deficit of $8 billion, it was $11.3 billion. They were planning on spending more than they would be taking in in the year 1995-96. We were committed to balancing that budget within five years; in other words, by 2000-01.

This was well in excess of $1 million an hour that was being spent that wasn't being taken in. The interest we were paying out was approximately $8 billion or, in other words, just about the $1 million an hour that was disappearing into nowhere because of this debt that had been created over the years.

Last year, I'm pleased to be able to report, the deficit was down to $4 billion. That's $2.6 billion ahead of the original plan and $1.2 billion ahead of what we had actually budgeted for. In our commitment we had provided for tax cuts - that is, provincial income tax - by some 30%, but also provided for the cutting of payroll taxes, such as the employer health tax up to a payroll of $400,000 for any one business, and also the cutting of corporate taxes. That will be going on for several more years.

In spite of this tax reduction, revenues increased last year by $4.1 billion more than was projected, to approximately $52.2 billion. It's very obvious that we in Ontario are indeed on the right track. In 1997 alone, not too far down the road after we took over, residential construction was up 19.1%, purchases of machinery and equipment were up some 18.7%, and our exports abroad some 10.3%. I can assure you that those trends are continuing well into 1998 and many economists, if not all economists, are projecting those kinds of trends well into 1999.

Just to look at my own riding for a minute with the economy and maybe just to pick one sector such as tourism, expansions are happening all over. For example, a resort on Rice Lake, Golden Beach Resort, has gone through a significant expansion and in any given day on a summer weekend there are between 2,000 and 3,000 people at that resort. Dear knows how many will be there in the future with this expansion.

Another area of expansion is the St Anne's Country Inn and Spa in Haldimand township, just north of Grafton. They're running at 90% occupancy, which is almost unheard of for that kind of an operation. They're also going through a significant expansion of their water plan.

Last weekend, to stimulate tourism, the community of Port Hope had a heritage festival and it was very successful. The Ontario government assisted them with some $12,500 to work with Market Ontario partnerships. This kind of partnership helps the ripple effect. When tourism activities occur, it isn't just that spot where the tourism is going on; there is a ripple effect to gas stations, to hotels, to bed-and-breakfasts, to shopping malls and other retail outlets in the general area. To give you some example, in April and June, US visitors into Canada spent $2.2 billion on tourism specifically. Just imagine what they spent on flights and on food and accommodation prior to reaching their tourist destination.

There's been a lot of excitement in the last day or so about jobs, and rightly so. In September we had a net increase of 62,100 jobs. If you break that down, in the private sector there was the creation of some 64,000 jobs and in the public sector a loss of approximately 2,000, with that net increase of 62,100. Across Canada there were some 73,000. The end result, if you calculate that out, is that approximately 85% of the new jobs created in Canada in the month of September were right here in Ontario, which took our unemployment rate down from 7.2% to 7.1%. We now have a gain in the province since June 1995, in other words, the election date, of some 403,000 net new jobs, some 326,000 of those just in the last 19 months.

In Northumberland the statistics are similarly encouraging. In unemployment we're now below the national average. Some 26% of the local employers plan in the immediate future to add more workers, and only some 6% have any intention of reducing their workforce.

It's also rather exciting as we look at the change in welfare. No time in the history of Ontario did welfare expand more than in the good times of the late 1980s, when the good Liberals were in government. That's when the welfare rolls just took right off. It was a little more understandable in the early 1990s, when we were into recessionary times - recessionary times of course created by the NDP. Nevertheless, the welfare rolls continued to accumulate at that point in time. Last month, approximately 20,000 people left that vicious circle of welfare. That's some 323,000 people since June 1995. That's the good news. The bad news is that there are still 692,835 left on welfare. But the fact is that a third of the people who were on welfare when we took office are now off welfare, and that indeed is good news.

1600

In Northumberland, since we took office, 922 have been able to get off welfare. That would be equal to some 20 busloads, or maybe three times the filling of Victoria Hall in Cobourg. Alone in Northumberland, 557 back in 1997 found jobs after they had been on the program of work for welfare. Across the province, it's my understanding that some 427,500 people have participated in the mandatory workfare program.

How to get a job? One of the big answers is getting experience, and that's really what Ontario Works is about, giving experience to people who have been on welfare for an extended period of time. Without that experience a job is really only a dream. Our government, to assist with this program and help people, has increased the child care from some $30 million to $40 million to assist those Ontario Works participants. We've also put some $25 million into the learning, earning and parenting program to help with child care subsidy and other supports for single parents.

A lot of people ask me why our approach is working. It's not traditional. No one really agreed, or very few agreed, that cutting taxes and at the same time cutting the deficit was going to work. But, lo and behold, when you cut taxes more money is put into the economy, the economy is stimulated, and when the economy is stimulated, jobs appear. With tax cuts, the money is left in people's pockets and they do spend.

Many economists agree with what we're doing, agreed ahead of time, and they talked a lot about the Laffer curve. We were to the point with taxes in Ontario where the previous two governments over 10 years increased taxes over 60 times. As a result of keeping increasing them it got to the point in this economists' Laffer curve where as you increased taxes the actual revenue reduced. This government has come in with far more than 60 tax cuts, and as we cut taxes, giving some stimulus to the economy, the end result has been a very significant increase in the revenues coming into the coffers at this time.

As we have been doing a lot to stimulate the economy in Ontario - and I'd suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that if it hadn't been for this government and the province of Ontario, the federal government would never have balanced their budget. They're extremely fortunate with the economic program that we have in this province, and they're riding on what we were doing to stimulate the economy. They didn't cut taxes. Just imagine what could have happened in Ontario and across Canada if the federal government had taken notice and implemented similar programs. We could have stimulated the economy across Canada, it wouldn't have been just Ontario. But we see provinces like BC and Saskatchewan just disappearing quickly as their taxes keep going up, both provincially and federally.

We're about to balance our budget in Ontario, but it's interesting to note what the feds are doing by cutting the transfer payments to our province and all across Canada, but particularly in our province, by some $3 billion. At the same time they've accumulated employment insurance premiums for some reason, and no one seems to really know why. By accumulating those and overtaxing on employment insurance, it's a payroll tax that's cutting jobs. It's cutting jobs in Ontario and it's cutting jobs right across Canada. They could do something about it and they should be doing something about it.

The member for Mississauga North has put forth a motion for interim supply to get on with the paying of our bills which I enthusiastically support. It will be bills mostly for transfer payments to our hospitals and for health care, to look after our sick, look after our frail and elderly, and to support a lot of the new technology that's coming into the field of medicine today. It'll be paying for education, particularly to the public school boards, to look after our little people, our universities and our colleges, to help with our highly trained workforce, and also going to our municipalities to assist them with their various activities, including their infrastructure. It will also help the operation of the province of Ontario, and our operation has been cut by more than a third. We are leading by example. We're not asking other people to do something that we're not doing ourselves.

For these reasons, I'm extremely pleased to support this motion put forth by the member for Mississauga North.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Madam Speaker, I was becoming a little alarmed that the member for Northumberland was making some extremely valid points. I want to avoid if possible any form of duplication and waste, which is one of the bylines of this government. I have extremely good news from my riding of Durham. That's the new name of my riding in the next election. It's Durham, which is in Durham region of course, representing some five or six different municipalities.

I have to take a broader look at the debate today. I want to correct the record that the interim supply bill that we're debating today is really from the member for Mississauga South, the Honourable Margaret Marland, who is the minister in charge of children's issues. I have a lot of respect for the member for Mississauga South. For the record, that's her riding. She's certainly doing a formidable job, as are many of the ministers in this government: a small cabinet, but a very effective cabinet under the very direct leadership and decisive leadership of our Premier, Mike Harris.

But I want to look to others for what they're saying about the economy of this province and about the optimism and the hope and opportunity in jobs and all the other - look to what the third party people are saying. I'm going to take a rather random survey here, Madam Speaker, with your indulgence.

David Lindsay of course is a former secretary to the Premier, now in charge of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board at arm's length from the government and leading a consultation across this province with the leaders who create the jobs. Government is the partner. Recently there was a comment made by people on the panel, leaders in our great province.

Joshua Mendelsohn, CIBC chief economist, said, "Canada has been affected by falling commodity prices, a weak currency that required a boost in interest rates and by volatile global financial markets." He also added, "In the wake of these forces, the Canadian economy, Ontario is poised to do very well." In fact, CIBC senior economist Linda Nazareth said, "During the next year, Ontario is likely to lead the provinces with strong exports to the United States, coupled with strong domestic activity."

I know in the Ottawa Citizen this weekend I was impressed by an article, the breadth of the article. Our Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, was widely quoted as showing a balanced and optimistic view. I think the leaders of all parties here should be optimistic and yet deal with the realities that are going on in the province.

Where does this all start? I think you have to look beyond the province's role and look at the role of the federal government. Unfortunately, I'm a little uneasy about the role of the federal government. It came out very clearly, and I think the member for Nepean made the point very well earlier in the comments, when the Premier last week challenged Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien as to the ultimate use of the EI fund.

I think if you look at the debates and the scrums afterwards with the Leader of the Opposition - just a minute, don't tell me, what's his name? - Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the opposition party, when pressed, was not able to get out from under the shadow of his federal cousins. He clearly said that on the record. He wasn't able and he left it to his very capable finance critic, Mr Phillips. I have a lot of respect for him. In fact, I think his choice was right there, to let Mr Phillips comment, because clearly he's far more informed. I think that's what the leader said at the time, that he has others.

But just for the record here, the EI surplus belongs to the workers of Ontario, the hard-working people of Ontario. Clearly that's our job, to recognize that that money came from their paycheques and it should go back to their paycheques. Those are the people who paid it. I want to appeal to the opposition Liberal Party here today to rethink their decision to deny unanimous consent and bring it back to the House. I'm sure our Premier is willing. If we can go with a united voice, we can get the attention of their Liberal cousins in Ottawa.

I'm going to give you some numbers here. Ontario workers contributed in 1997 about $8 billion in EI insurance premiums and received less than $3.5 million in benefits. Clearly we want to be benevolent with all our partners, all other provinces. Certainly Ontario wants to lead the way and pay its fair share, but there's a fair share and then there's being abused. That's about $4.5 billion taken out of the Ontario economy last year alone, almost $5 billion taken out of the Ontario economy from our working people.

We're creating almost 360,000 net new jobs in the private sector, with partnerships in the private sector, and I look on the other side of the ledger and what's happening? EI premiums are overextended, CPP has been upped, and when I look at the taxes in this province from the federal government, if it wasn't for our 30% tax cut - and where is all this additional tax load coming from? What's the federal Liberal policy? Tax and spend. Clearly, don't let the voters of Ontario forget this. Our Premier and our Minister of Finance - reduce the premiums, Harris is suggesting. One of the suggestions he made - I'm going to refer to this as having a tax holiday for youth and youth unemployment, and clearly that's a goal of this government.

1610

There are a couple of other issues that I want to share in the few minutes I have left. I just want to randomly go through - there are about seven newspapers that service my riding and they carry my weekly column. There are a lot of columns in here that I am just going to quickly refer to: "Grade 6 Testing," "School Days Lost." There's a nice one here: "Bowmanville, Young Person with Long-range Plan as Future School Trustee. Fifteen-year-old Adrienne Silnicki of St Stephen's high school in Bowmanville is ready to take her position on the Catholic school board in the year 2000-01 as one of the elected school trustees." That was one of the entitlements under Bill 160, to involve all the citizens, including the students. It's a very important opportunity for their contribution.

Also, another interesting article from the Orono Weekly Times: "Textbook Deliveries in School Almost Complete." Jan Pomeroy, principal of the program for Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board: "Although they have arrived late, they are expected from the publisher. They are to enhance instructional programs for the school board." An allocation of over $2 million to this board.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Take your seat, please. Questions and comments?

Mr Michael Brown: I am really pleased to have at least two minutes to be in the supply debate because the supply debate is one of the most important of our parliamentary traditions. Unfortunately, I am not able to report great news from the constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin. Our unemployment rate, unfortunately, is in double digits and increasing. We have problems with our physicians in terms of numbers. In my own constituency we've had calls from people in Espanola who tell us they are unable to contact a family physician. We've contacted the Minister of Health about this and we have found that they have not been able to attract one, and the government's efforts are woefully inadequate in terms of providing physician services to Espanola.

We also have a problem in Elliot Lake in that for many months now, Sister Sarah at the hospital, the francophone community and I and many others have been attempting to secure a francophone physician for the people in Elliot Lake, one who is much needed, and to date we have not received the necessary approval in Elliot Lake so that we can have a francophone physician for a very significant and important part of the North Shore communities.

We also have, and I think you would find this interesting, property taxes across the area - I was talking with NOTOA, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, who are extremely upset with what's happening to the tourist component on the lakes and through all of northern Ontario to these resort businesses. I don't think some of them will be able to survive the property tax hits that are now happening to their businesses. That means loss of employment, revenue, you name it, to those folks.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The flexibility that supply affords members is that they can talk about anything, and the government sure does. You've heard them: one speaker after the other telling the people of Ontario how good things are, and yet, the day after Thanksgiving, not a word about homelessness. Not everyone has a lot to be thankful for; a lot of people cannot look to the future with confidence.

This government takes credit for job creation, and when there are job losses - I was listening to the radio this morning and I just happened to catch some news from Merrill Lynch. You know Merrill Lynch. They bought Midland Walwyn. They're the largest brokerage house. They will be firing people by the thousands. Does it mean that the government will take credit for the pink slips when you see those 20-some making a million-some out the door?

It tells you that the climate for prosperity is not doing too well. We're resource-based. You know that if it's in the ground it's down in terms of market conditions. You have looked at the plight of our Canadian dollar, tied to the US, and we are the subject of international disfavour. Market conditions have revealed that our situation has been most unpleasant, especially in the month of August. It has been very painful for some.

Confidence will be restored, but it's going to take time, and yet this government, at every opportunity, spends and spends again. They'll have me in the poorhouse within the generation.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It's always an interesting experience to listen to the member for Lake Nipigon. I suppose the irony when he talks about the stock market is that if he really truly followed it, he'd know that in the past week or so gold is up, and we know that's one of the prime resources of northern Ontario. I look forward to the gold mines rehiring many of their people over the next few months.

I want to comment on the comments of my colleagues from Simcoe Centre and Northumberland particularly when they talked about Liberal fiscal performance. I thought that was an oxymoron, because Liberal fiscal performance is exactly an oxymoron. The member for Northumberland said it so succinctly and so clearly, that if it wasn't for Ontario the federal government would not have been able to float and gloat in the surplus they are achieving. They achieve these surpluses on the backs of Ontario taxpayers, and what do we get in return? We don't get one red penny - pardon the pun - of gas taxes back for that wonderful element called the TransCanada Highway, not a nickel of federal money for the TransCanada Highway through northern Ontario.

Mr Baird: They're abandoning northern Ontario.

Mr Spina: Absolutely. The Liberals have abandoned northern Ontario. This government has invested more money in northern highways than there has been in the history of the province.

I repeat again, Liberal fiscal responsibility is an oxymoron.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I heard somebody make reference somewhere along the line to gasoline prices. Perhaps it was even an interjection. But I notice that despite all of the huffing and puffing by members of the Conservative government, nobody did anything about gas prices going up. I know they had this group called the gas-busters out there. It was a phony ploy, as we all know, but a public relations ploy nevertheless.

I well remember Premier Harris in this House and outside this House. He huffed and he puffed and he huffed and he puffed, and he said, "Oh, those oil companies are awful for raising the price of gasoline," and he did nothing about it. The best he could do was say, "I'll get my big brother after you." He got very exercised about it, very excited about it, and did absolutely nothing about it.

I would have thought that at the last Tory fundraiser - Doug, was there not a big Tory fundraiser last Thursday night? - all the oil barons would have been there in attendance at Mike Harris's big fundraiser. Mike would have had the chance - because he bullies around the poor people; you kick the people who are at the bottom and that's all right, but when it comes to the big oil barons, the champions and the captains of the oil industry, Mike Harris is just like a pussycat when it comes to dealing with them.

1620

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): So is Chrétien.

Mr Bradley: He says, "So is." That implies that Doug concedes over there that in fact Harris is a pussycat.

Now, when it comes to bullying other people in society, particularly people at the lower economic end of society, the Premier is large as life. But when it comes to the oil companies, he is very, very quiet. I'm looking forward to seeing him get very vocal.

The Acting Speaker: Summary, the member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: It's certainly my privilege to end up this portion of the debate on the interim supply motion and support the motion by the member for Mississauga South, the Honourable Margaret Marland. I have to respond that the member for Nepean did a remarkable job, as usual. The member for Simcoe Centre is a formidable courtroom presence. The member for Northumberland balanced the argument with a seemingly balanced perspective. The member for Brampton North is always on the record as supportive of the government's actions.

But I must respond to the member for St Catharines, because just recently the Liberal health critic had a day in the House here and that weekend they were having a very expensive Liberal fundraiser. The guest speaker of the evening was their federal cousin, the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Health. I said to them that day: "Why aren't you asking Mr Rock? He's right here. Why aren't the taxpayers out there with their pickets saying, `Where's our $2.4 billion, and where's the support for the hep-C victims?'" Clearly our Minister of Health, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, has been doing everything she can to convince Allan Rock. Each of us has written to the members.

I have to bring it back to the topic at hand, the health of the economy. In the next week or so, this government will be rolling out a plan; it's called A Salute to Small Business. Maybe I'm letting it out early. Apologies to Minister Palladini. As part of my initial contact with the constituencies in Durham, fortunately I'm being asked to speak to a small business group. In fact, Ron Collis and Adrian Foster of the Clarington Business Group are arranging a breakfast - and you're all invited - which will be held on Tuesday, October 20, at 7:30 in the morning at Silks Café.

The Acting Speaker: Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: At that meeting, we'll be addressing many of these issues.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to continue the debate on interim supply. I just want to respond to a couple of comments made by the member for Durham East that salute small business. The biggest salute small business has gotten from this government is the property tax issue. We warned the government about this salute a year ago. Small business should recognize that what happened was that the business occupancy tax was taken off and then added on to the realty tax. The member for Durham East would know that the banks were paying the BOT, business occupancy tax, at the rate of 75% and small business was at the rate of 25%, dramatically lower. But the salute to small business by Mike Harris was to even it out, to say, "Let's get the banks paying less and let's get small business paying more."

Mr Bradley: The banks are happy.

Mr Phillips: My colleague said, "The banks are happy." The challenge is that the salute that small business sees around the province has been a rather rude salute. I just thought I'd mention that, and I'll mention one other thing before I get into the major area of my concern at interim supply.

One of the problems Mike Harris has is that this is what he said after the federal budget came out with the cuts to transfer payments: "Common sense tells us the Martin budget will have a significant impact on Ontario. Dominion Bond Rating Service estimates the cost of reductions in federal transfers to Ontario at $2.3 billion. In the wake of that budget, the spending cut component of which we publicly endorsed, it has obviously become necessary to revise our CSR" - common sense revision.

My point is this: Mike Harris, when those cuts came out, cheered them. He admits, "We publicly endorsed them." He said, "Get on with the cuts." So it's difficult now. Mike Harris, to get elected, said: "I support those cuts. We publicly endorse them" - not just "support." "I endorse them."

I say to the revisionists now -

Mr Bradley: The Gang of Four.

Mr Phillips: - The Gang of Four, who are trying to find somebody to run against, that it's revisionist. You gave it away to get elected. You told the federal government, "We are happy with the $2.3-billion cut. Thank you. We publicly endorse it." Now of course you find that the public is getting extremely worried about health care, but you said to Martin: "We like it. Thank you. We publicly endorse it."

I want to get that on the record, because it makes it very difficult now, when Mike Harris is talking out of the other side of his mouth, to say: "Maybe in the last election I was wrong. Maybe I'm going to have to say something different this time, that we no longer publicly endorse those cuts."

The area I want to talk about - interim supply, as one of my colleagues said, does give you a little bit of room to range - is that one of the Conservative members talked about two sets of books. The member for Northumberland, I think, used that expression. What we've now got in the province of Ontario are two sets of books, tragically. The Provincial Auditor has pointed that out. What the Provincial Auditor did was to say, "Listen, I'm not going to permit you to report the finances the way you did in the budget."

This is detail now, but in the budget there was $3.2 billion of "restructuring" money that was written off against last fiscal year, 1997-98. The auditor said, "You can't do that, that's wrong," and forced the government to change. That's why the restructuring was cut from $3.2 billion to $1.6 billion. He said that you were reporting the finances incorrectly. One of the Conservative members used the expression "cooking the books" to describe the NDP, but this was cooking the books. If this were a private company, you would never be allowed to do it.

Why did the deficit drop from the time the budget came out - this document - and the public accounts by roughly $1.6 billion? One reason only: accounting. The Provincial Auditor said, "I'm not going to let you do that; you are misstating the finances of the province," and he cut out $1.6 billion of restructuring money.

I think the auditor has performed a most worthwhile service for us. Many people here and elsewhere are business people who -

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Gerry, tell us about your free flow before the election.

Mr Phillips: I knew this would get the member going, because you don't like to hear about two sets of books and cooking the books. But that's what it was, and if you listen to the Provincial Auditor - I listened to him on the radio. He said, "I wish they had come to me before they tried to do it," because he would not have permitted it.

Hon Mr Turnbull: You did, and his staff told us it was OK.

Mr Phillips: He's now saying the staff said it was all right. I'd love to see that in writing. Mr Turnbull is now saying, "Someone told us we could do the incorrect thing," but now you fixed it.

The second area I'm concerned about - and I raise these things because the public has a right to have a clear understanding of the finances. The new plan for funding school capital -

Hon Mr Turnbull: Is this a change in Liberal policy?

The Acting Speaker: Government whip, come to order.

Mr Phillips: I know Mr Turnbull doesn't want to hear this, but the public wants to hear it. The new plan for funding school capital is a perpetual debt-creating machine. What's going to happen with the new school capital plan?

Mr Baird: More schools.

Mr Phillips: Well, you say that, but it's going to mean, in five years, about $2 billion of new debt. We were told it will not be on the provincial books; it'll be hidden off the books. It'll be hidden in school boards' budgets or books. I would just say to the government, I don't think the Provincial Auditor will accept that. He will say that is incorrect. You can't move $2 billion worth of debt off the province's books and try and hide them over in the school boards' budgets. It can't be done. It's $2 billion, and I think it will be about $3 billion in 10 years. The credit rating agencies are going to blow the whistle on you. It's wrong, and for the Conservative members - many of them have a business background - if this were your company you'd never be allowed to do this. You couldn't hide this debt in a company that you have 100% control over and not report it as provincial debt.

1630

The government announced this school plan and got, frankly, some good press from it, with the exception of one editorial that I thought had it bang on. One editorial in the province acknowledged what I believe to be the case, and that is that this is fiscally irresponsible, trying to simply hide the debt. If we were only constructing these schools one time only, I could see doing it, but every year we are going to need to spend in Ontario $300 million. As I say, we are going to run up an enormous amount of debt off the books.

The third example I wanted to use was Hydro. I hope the Provincial Auditor will comment on it. By the way, their debt is guaranteed by the province, as we all know, and they pay I think roughly -

Mr Guzzo: Was that the case when you were building Darlington?

Mr Phillips: Mr Guzzo talks about the case of building Darlington. Yes, it was, and Darlington was a decision made by Mike Harris and Ernie Eves when they were in cabinet, many years ago, to build Darlington. Now we're faced with the debt of Hydro -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member from Ottawa.

Mr Phillips: Mr Guzzo is barking over there, but here's what Hydro has done. They have written off $6.6 billion of corporate write-offs against 1997 operations, and they did not follow generally accepted accounting principles. That's what their own report says. This did not follow generally accepted accounting principles. The board at Ontario Hydro used a unique right they've got under what they call the rate-setting authority to do that, to write off almost $7 billion of expenses against 1997 that should have been written off against 1998 and 1999.

My point is this -

Mr Baird: Tell us about your balanced budget in 1990.

Mr Phillips: The only thing I would say to Mr Baird is to take a look at your own budget and you can see 10 years. I'll show the public. There's 10 years. When Mike Harris became Premier, the debt of the province was $88 billion.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Nepean, please.

Mr Phillips: Mr Baird said there is a $90-million surplus in 1989-90. That's not me saying that, that's not the Liberal caucus; that's what Mike Harris said happened in 1989-90, the last year of the Liberal government, a $90-million surplus. It's the only surplus, by the way, if you look back, since 1968. There hasn't been a Conservative government balance the budget since 1968. I think Les Frost was the Premier then. There's the only balanced budget. You can check and I'll bet whatever you want to bet; I'll bet you a dollar. There's the only balanced budget since 1968. Mike Harris, here it is: $88 billion when he became Premier. It's now $110 billion.

The great fiscal person has added $22 billion to the debt of the province. In fact, the debt as a percent of GDP is actually higher now than when Mike Harris became Premier.

I just point these out because most of my business friends are astonished when I say that. I say: "I know you don't think that the Liberals ever balanced the budget, but look at Mike Harris's budget. There you see a $90-million surplus, and then you think Mike Harris is managing the finances well. Do you now that he's added $22 billion to the debt of the province?"

When Mike Harris became Premier, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 28.8%, it's now 30.1%, so it's actually gone up. The reason I raise that is because my business friends just can't believe that: "That's not true, Gerry. You're making those numbers up." I say, "Look at the budget."

My concern now is that as the government gets closer to the election, the reporting of the finances gets less and less clear. I take my hat off to the auditor. He forced the government to change the set of books they were using to more accurately reflect the state of the finances. But now we have the school capital issue, which without a doubt will be adding roughly $3 billion to the debt of the province, all off the books. By the way, I see similar things happening in our hospital sector.

A major hospital here in the city of Toronto is floating a debt issue of $250 million, and there's only really one guarantor of that. It won't be the Toronto hospital, it will be the province, because the Toronto hospital relies virtually exclusively on its revenue from the province of Ontario. There's a hospital going $250 million into debt and standing behind it will be the government.

That's one reason, by the way, I would say that we haven't seen a credit rating upgrade since Mike Harris became Premier. I remember very well he would really get angry at Bob Rae about the credit rating because there were three credit rating downgrades, as you'll remember, Mr Speaker, from AAA to AA+ to AA to AA-. Now, Mike Harris has been Premier for three years and three months and none of the credit rating agencies have touched Ontario's credit rating. It hasn't been upgraded. It's still the same. Mike Harris has the same credit rating as Bob Rae did. Why is that? It's because of the concern that the credit rating agencies have, first, about the tax cut and, second, about these things that I've talked about: the games.

I will be looking forward to the Provincial Auditor's report, which will be out, I suspect, in November, to see if the auditor comments on any of these issues. But when it becomes more and more difficult to understand the real state of the finances of the province, financial institutions get worried. The best example was when the public accounts, which is the one the Provincial Auditor comments on, came out and it was dramatically different than the budget that was presented only a few months earlier. The reason was that the government tried to report the finances in a way that was unacceptable and, as I say, Hydro is the second example.

I am concerned about the way the province is now funding school capital. I call it a perpetual debt-creating machine. It just keeps creating debt. They keep spending $300 million a year and paying roughly one twenty fifth of it off. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger on the debt. The importance of that, as we all know, is that the public rely on the reported finances of their government to give them an idea of how well they are doing with their government, and the finances right now, in my opinion, are not being accurately reflected.

I want to talk a little bit about the economy as well. The most interesting page in the budget to me - I think it was certainly the most interesting - was the page that showed what has been driving Ontario's economy. What has been driving Ontario's economy is exports. In fact, page 10 in the budget shows that in 1991 roughly 29% of Ontario's GDP was exports and in 1996 46% was exports. The importance of that is that our economy now is to an extent perhaps not seen anywhere else in the industrial world dependent on exports. I don't think you'd find any other industrial jurisdiction in the world that relies as heavily on exports as Ontario does. I think 10% of Japan's economy is exports and here in Ontario it's now 46%.

I think 10% of Japan's economy is exports. Here in Ontario it's now 46%. As we all know, in fact a couple of the members talked about it from their own constituencies, it's heavily the auto sector. I'm pleased the economy has been solid in the last period of time. The biggest single reason is because of our exports to the US; 90% of our exports are to the US, as we all know, and well over half of that is auto.

1640

The reason for raising that is, in my opinion, if we don't develop some business in non-US business - continue to develop our US business but develop non-US business; one hates to be that dependent on one customer - if the US economy turns down - and it will; economies run in cycles and at some stage it will - often auto is the first thing that turns down, just because that is a somewhat discretionary expenditure for most people. My own personal car now is a 1990. I've got almost 300,000 kilometres on it. You can delay purchases.

We should recognize that while we all pat ourselves on the back about Ontario's economy, to a very large extent it has been driven by our auto companies producing the right products here in Ontario and a strong US auto market. If either of those things go bad on us, if we end up with the wrong types of cars or trucks being produced in Ontario - and that is the decision that the auto makers make, they decide what vehicles they will produce at what plants around North America - or if the US economy goes at all soft and we end up with our major product going soft, we have a significant problem.

I just raise that because, for me, making sure, for example, that our infrastructure is in good shape, that our highways and our US-Canada borders can handle traffic quickly - there's a plant in the area I represent where every day a truck pulls up for parts for a Saturn plant in Tennessee. That Saturn truck has to arrive at the plant in Tennessee at the right time or else they're out of business. So investing in our infrastructure is the reason I raise the importance we place on US exports.

On supply, my area of concern - I'm what's called the finance critic for our party - an area of growing concern for me is the way we are now reporting our finances. I think for governments of all political stripes, the closer they get to the election the more tempting it can be to put, shall I say at the very least, the best possible light on the finances. There's a step you go beyond where the best possible light becomes no longer reporting them accurately. The auditor caught us not reporting them accurately in the budget. Now we've got them properly reported in the public accounts. But I think there are two or three other areas where I'm significantly concerned. With that said, I'd like to allow some of my colleagues to continue the debate on interim supply.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I just want to follow up on a comment that was made earlier by one of the other members dealing with the gas situation over the weekend. I don't know whether you heard this report, Mr Speaker, but I heard this on CBC Radio at least three or four times on Saturday morning. We heard the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of this province, Minister Tsubouchi, actually blame the five cent per litre gasoline increase on the fact that our three gasbusters from this Legislature were not on duty last week.

He said something to the effect of, "Isn't it ironic that the major gas companies have actually increased the gas by five cents per litre because it was the first weekend that the gas-busters" - who are something like our crime commissioners, you may recall, that we have in this Legislature - "weren't on duty." If he really wants the people of the province to believe that the major gas companies are real worried about the fact that three or four MPPs are running around the province checking gas prices and that if somehow they're not on duty the gas prices go up, I think that is just the height of - I don't know what it is, but certainly the system doesn't work that way. It gave me a good belly laugh Saturday morning when I heard that, because the minister said it in all seriousness and presumably he meant it or else he wouldn't have given that interview.

The other point I'd like to talk about very briefly is the point that has already been made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and that deals with the total real estate tax chaos we have currently in this province. You may recall that during September the main reason that was given why we were coming back on September 28 was basically to deal with two issues. Issue number one was the boards that were on strike at the time. Some of the school boards weren't opening their properties or some of them were on strike. The federations had gone on strike and had to be dealt with quickly, and this House got together, you may recall, and in one day we actually passed that bill.

The other reason was the fact that the Minister of Finance felt it necessary for the sixth time this year - six times in one year. For a man who likes to pride himself on being very competent in these matters, for the sixth time this year he had to introduce yet another bill to try to deal with the property tax chaos because he or his ministry didn't get it right the first five or six times. That was the reason we were given. It is more than two weeks after the House was opened and that bill to extend the appeal time has been given one day of debate.

I know all the other issues that we've dealt with over the last two weeks, and we've had a lot of evening sittings as well, are very important. But to the property taxpaying public of this province there is nothing more important currently than knowing that they will have the right to appeal their assessment - now that they know what their tax bill is finally because municipalities weren't able to get these bills out earlier - until the end of October. What's happened? The bill hasn't been called. It has been called once.

I know the game the government's playing. The government somehow wants to shift the problem on to the opposition by saying, "We will delay calling the bill as long as possible because you will then be forced to pass it somewhere down the line before the end of October," or else the property taxpayers, all those people who want to appeal, are on our backs.

I would just like the people of Ontario to know not to be fooled at all by that kind of strategy. We have the right to debate a bill. We've already indicated that we will give it swift passage. That doesn't mean one day of debate, which basically means about two hours. When we talk about a day's debate, we're talking about two, or at the maximum three hours. We want to have the right to go through that bill clause by clause to make sure the minister has it right this time around. He hasn't had it right for six times. We may have some amendments to that bill because undoubtedly there may be other things that may be wrong again and we don't want to deal with another property tax bill again later on this year.

Why is the government House leader not calling the bill? I have no idea. There are a lot of other important pieces of legislation that we've dealt with, to be sure, but I don't think there's anything more important to the property taxpayers of Ontario than to get that bill called. That's why earlier in question period today we challenged the Minister of Finance and the House leader: "Call the bill in. Let's debate it. Let's give it some further debate." We, for example, on our side have not had an opportunity yet to have our leadoff speaker in that.

To underline the chaos that is out there, I would like to quote from a letter that was sent by an MPP to the Minister of Finance. That MPP says: "I write to you today regarding the local Hamilton-Wentworth property tax fiasco." It's a "property tax fiasco." Then he goes through all the ifs, ands and buts.

He says, "The entire business and residential community is outraged, and my city and region are being ravaged." You would think that this came from an opposition MPP, somebody obviously who is experiencing this, from the comment that person is getting from the taxpayers etc. So you would think this is probably something that comes from an opposition MPP. It's not from an opposition MPP. It is from a government MPP, the member for Hamilton-Mountain.

He's saying, "The entire business and residential community is outraged, and my city and region are being ravaged." Let me tell you, from what we are hearing, it is not only happening in Hamilton-Wentworth, it is happening throughout Ontario. In my own community, I know of dozens of situations where for small commercial taxpayers that may have an employment base of one, two or three employees, their property taxes have gone up in one case from $4,000 to $12,000 per year, 300%, and in other cases - that just come to mind - it was from $3,600 to well over $8,000 per year. We can just go on and on.

1650

I attended a meeting in Kingston West, being the former Pittsburgh township, the other day. This is the part of my municipality, you will remember, that was restructured. An agreement was signed, of which the province is part, to the effect that the tax increase would not be more than 3%. I expected to meet with about five or six people. Lo and behold, I walked into this room and there must have been at least 80, 90 or maybe 100 people, and they all had the same complaint. They were all saying, "Why is it that my assessment has actually gone down, yet the property taxes, the total bill compared to last year, have gone up by 20%, 30% and 40%?"

It is not because of the high taxes levied by council in Kingston. It is all a result of downloading. For ministers of the crown to stand up in this House on a day-to-day basis, and outside the House as well, and still maintain that the downloading is a revenue-neutral move, the fact that a lot of the social housing, a lot of the health care services, public health, ambulances, a lot of the welfare costs etc are now being paid for by the local municipalities rather than here at the provincial level - I was almost going to say something unparliamentary, Mr Speaker. I think that what I was going to say is the actual truth of the situation, but I won't say it, because I do not want to challenge your authority or put you in a place where even though you might agree with me - I'm not sure but you might agree with me - and you would say yes, this is something different than it was portrayed to be earlier on.

I ask the government to bring the bill forward. Let's debate it. Let's give it another two days of debate, that's all we're asking for, two days meaning anywhere from about four to six hours of debate. Undoubtedly you've made more mistakes in that bill - you've already done it five times before - and surely you want to make sure that the opposition finds all the errors in the bill this time around, proposes the proper amendments and we get it over and done with.

As a matter of fact, this Bill 61 wouldn't have been necessary at all if the government had accepted our amendments when the last bill came through last spring. We said at that point in time, because of all the changes that are taking place in the province, give the people of Ontario 60 days from the date they receive their last property tax bill to determine whether they want to appeal their assessment, because it's only with the last bill that they can compare what they're paying this year to what they were paying last year and say, "Yes, it has gone up unreasonably," yes or no.

It's unfortunate. It's my understanding from some of the ministry's own figures that they expect upwards of 600,000 assessment appeals. I'm sure the average person out there somehow thinks that either an assessment officer or somebody came around to evaluate their property, to give it a market value. That's the basis on which it was sold. Of course we all know that isn't so, that most of these models that have been used in different neighbourhoods, whether we're talking about residential or commercial, are all computer-oriented and driven. There have been major mistakes on that.

I'm not blaming the assessment people for that. They had very little time. They warned us last January and February. We had meetings with them and they had meetings with the Minister of Finance, and they basically said: "We can't go into this system this quickly. There are going to be huge problems across the province." That's exactly what happened, because each individual property has not been assessed for market value. There have been computer-driven models that look at a whole neighbourhood, and some properties are way off on both sides, either assessed too low or way too high. You've left an impression with people out there that you're doing one thing, but on the other hand you're doing something totally different. Bring the bill forward, let's discuss it and let's bring some amendments to it, and then we can carry on with it.

The other issue I want to talk about is this report from the provincial task force on homelessness. The reason I want to talk about it is that last week I had the opportunity to sit in estimates for my caucus, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was there to deal with the estimates in his department. Let there be absolutely no mistake about it: This government does not feel it has any responsibility whatsoever for any kind of social housing in this province. Number one, they've offloaded all the existing agreements that are out there between the province and the non-profits and the co-ops and they've downloaded them all to the local municipalities. That's number one.

But the minister, in the comments he made during estimates, said it is not the government's responsibility to be involved in creating any kind of housing. He talked in very general terms about creating an economic climate for housing and that sort of thing, and yes, that is important. But the government has to go further than that. We know that to a certain extent the federal government is completely out of the housing business also, so both the federal and the provincial governments are saying it's the local municipalities' problem. It's the same thing that is being recommended in this provincial task force on homelessness. This report is basically saying that it is not the province's responsibility; it is totally the responsibility of either the federal government, in dealing with certain groups that come into the country and how they should be funded when they're first here, or of the municipalities. The provincial government may play some sort of coordinating role, but basically it's a municipal problem.

I would remind all the members here that we have to think back a little bit into history and think how a lot of these housing programs after the Second World War got started. They all got started by both CMHC at the federal level and an enlightened government at the time at the provincial level. There was a recognition there that an awful lot of people could not be housed properly if it was totally left to the local municipality. It's only the federal and provincial governments that have the adequacy of resources to make sure there is enough money for housing, either in the construction of housing or in supplementing the rent of people on welfare.

It's interesting. I don't know how much the average person makes on welfare - I know it depends on the number of children you have - but it would be somewhere between $1,100 and $1,400. According to all the guidelines out there right now, the maximum that a person should spend on rent is about 30%. So if you take somebody on welfare, whether they have one, two or three children, they should be spending somewhere between $350 and $550, that being 30% of their total income, on housing.

Mr Speaker, you and I know that to create a new unit of housing, whether it's the province that does it, whether it's private industry that does it, whether it's the federal government or the local municipality that does it, it's going to cost much more than $350 to $550 per month to create that unit. Every unit that is being created across this province, depending upon land costs, would range anywhere from, I don't know, $75,000 to $100,000. If you just look at the carrying costs of that unit, even with the low interest rates we have today, and the taxes and the utilities you would have to pay on a unit like that, you come up with much more than $350 to $550 per month, which is the maximum that a family on welfare should have to spend on their housing.

1700

The point I'm simply trying to make is this: Yes, things can be done by private enterprise, you can make it more attractive to get back into the housing industry, but there is no way that private enterprise will ever be able to create units at a cost that is affordable to the people on welfare on the basis of 30% of their monthly allowance or monthly money going towards rent. That seems to be sort of forgotten in the whole question.

So what do you do? You can do one of two things: You can either subsidize the builder in building the units to bring the per unit cost down to a much lower rate, or you have to give a rent supplement to the people who don't have the income to be able to afford the market rent of the new unit. It's got to be either one system or the other system.

It was very interesting. When the Minister of Housing was in estimates, he said he was all in favour of the rent supplements, that the province should not be building any units itself; it should all be done on a rent supplement system. I said: "Okay. If you really believe in that, let's take a look at your budget for the coming year. Are you making more money available for rent supplement units?"

In actual fact, if you look at the estimates, the amount of money that's being made available for rent supplements in the coming year is less than it was last year and the number of units that are going to be subsidized are less than last year, which basically means they haven't even allocated enough money for the rent supplement units that are out there this year, let alone any new units they talk about that ought to be constructed either by private industry or by the local municipal government.

What I'm saying is that if we really want to do something about the problem of homelessness of the people who are out there, a commitment has to be made probably by all three levels of government - by the federal, provincial and local levels of government, and there's a number of different ways in which you can do it - whereby they collectively subsidize the builders and give rent supplement money to the people who are living in these units. But it has to be done either one way or the other. To say, "It is no longer our responsibility; give it to the next level of government," is simply not going to work.

With that, I will now turn over the balance of our time to our House leader.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, to the member for Kingston and The Islands, for first of all bringing to this House so many insightful arguments in favour of a more progressive approach to the issues we see confronting the province.

I want to deal with the issue of health care, and at the risk of being a bit parochial, if I might focus in on the Niagara Peninsula because it is representative of much of Ontario when it comes to health care.

I should indicate clearly that people in our part of the province are extremely unhappy with the amount of money that is being allocated to hospitals to be able to operate. The operating costs of a hospital are considerable. Everyone understands that. The provincial government contributes absolutely nothing, nor has any provincial government, to the cost of equipment; that is, raised the funds for that raised at the local level. Much of the capital cost - that is the building costs and the new additions to the hospitals - comes out of the local donator to the hospital causes as opposed to the province. It really means it puts a lot of pressure on communities that perhaps have experienced a lot of unemployment.

What we're seeing in our area in terms of operating is a substantial difference in the kind of service that is available to patients. Hospitals would love to give first-class, top-level care to all the patients who come to them. The people working in hospitals today - far fewer in number, I might add, than just a few years ago - would like to be able to provide excellent service to the patients. Unfortunately, with the significant cutbacks in the funding for the operation of our hospitals, this is not the case.

I had a gentleman in my constituency office the other day whose wife is afflicted with cancer. He was very perturbed by the kind of care that would be available to him within the Hamilton-Niagara area. He mentioned, for instance, that in the hospital where his wife was receiving some treatment, parts of the hospital were actually dirty. Now is this because the hospital wants it to be that way? No, it's because they have been forced to fire so many people out of the system, both medical - that is, the nurses, nurses' aides and others who provide medical care - and also non-medical staff in these hospitals.

I defy anyone on the government side to say to the people of this province that the kind of hospital care that was available 10 years ago is available today. It simply is not. The people of this province realize it. People who were in the hospital a dozen or 10 years ago compare that to an experience today and say it's substantially different. Far fewer nurses and other medical staff are available to meet their needs. In fact, it is said that if you're sick and going into the hospital, you had better have a relative or a good friend there to both look after you and advocate for you, because the people working in the hospitals are stretched to the absolute limit, working extremely hard under stressful conditions, and yet this government tries to portray the hospital system in this province as being satisfactory when most people in this province would not agree with this government.

They had money to give away in the tax break. In fact, it seems that any of the funding they get from a senior level of government, in this case the federal government, they simply take and give away in a tax cut, a tax cut which benefits the wealthiest people in our province the most in terms of the actual dollars that are in their pockets.

There are hospitals right across this province, including the Niagara region, that are now running deficits. Oh, I hear the government members get up and say: "Isn't it nice? We are going to balance our budget." They complain about other levels of government. When they're complaining about the local level being perturbed about the amount of money going to local transfer agencies, I remind them that this government will brag that it balances its budget next year; in fact it could have balanced it earlier if it had not given up the tax cut. If it had not given up the revenue from the tax cut, it would be balanced now.

Be that as it may, as the lawyers say, nevertheless the government in this case is underfunding our hospital system. It is projected that $43 million less will be available in Niagara for the funding of our hospitals. Now the hospital restructuring commission or, as I call it, the hospital destruction commission - with plenty of Tories on it, I might add - has been going around the province closing hospitals. Mike Harris, during the election campaign of 1995, said in May 1995 to the television audience when Robert Fisher of Global TV asked him the question, "Does your policy contemplate the closing of hospitals?" - I quote Mike Harris and the member for Nepean can tell me if I'm wrong in this quote - "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee it's not my plan to close hospitals." May I repeat that so that all can hear. "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." Thirty-five hospitals have been closed or forced to amalgamate in this province to this point in time, and there will be more.

Can you envision what would happen, if you had a second term of a Conservative government, to all these hospitals? They would be closing them left and right, but right now they're a little bit leery. They're saying: "Oh, Mike Harris is really a nice guy. You know, the worst is over. Don't worry." I can tell you, a second term -

Mr Baird: Dalton McGuinty would be closing them left and right. If you like Mike Harris, you will love him.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.

Mr Bradley: - of the Reform-a-Tory government we have here, the Reform Party we have in power - with a few exceptions most who sit in the benches are Reformers - the Reform Party that sits there will relish what it can do to the health care system.

If you want to see what the plan is, simply look south of the border. Read what's happening in the various states where they have small-c conservative Republican governors and Republican state legislatures. They're already privatized, but you're seeing more and more a hospital system and a medical care system which favours those who have money to those who do not.

1710

One thing we can all be proud of, members of three political parties in the history of this province in years gone by, is that we have had a system which, generally speaking, is equally accessible to all. I know there are some aberrations. I have heard of those aberrations and there have been reports, but generally speaking in this province the kind of medical care you get has not been dependent upon how much money you have in your wallet or your bank account or in your assets. We can be justifiably proud of that.

That is changing. What you're seeing happening in the United States, where you have these Republican legislatures and Republican governors, is a widening gap between the very rich people and the very poor people. More and more people are being marginalized to the lower end of the economic scale. You see, what this government really likes, not every member but a lot of members of this government, is to see a lowering of wages. They think that people who don't play the stock market and who aren't in the upper echelons of business somehow should get paid a lot less than others. So they applaud downsizing, restructuring - they would call it rightsizing - where companies and business may be making unprecedented profits, the most profit they've ever made, while at the same time they're firing people out the door.

Everybody understands but doesn't like it when there's a difficult economic time and a company's service or product is not being purchased. Everyone understands those layoffs. They don't like them, they want a social safety net for those hit by it, but they understand it. What they don't understand is what many members of this government condone, where the big business downsizes and rationalizes so that it can get a sudden blip in the stock market. It's usually not a long-term blip in the stock market, and those people are out in the street.

I ask, "Where are people going to work?" I see the banks constantly encouraging people to not deal with tellers. "You can get this service at the machine," they will say. If you want to talk to a teller, to a human being, they will tell you it's generational. "You people want to talk to tellers, but the young people are prepared to simply have a machine before them." I become concerned when I see that many jobs are disappearing out there, because there are not going to be some other jobs available.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for York Centre tells me that Quebec has closed 53 hospitals since Bouchard came to power. That's interesting, because Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard have a lot in common in certain areas. I ask the member to look at the stand on wanting to wrest power from the national government and give it to the provincial government. There's an unholy alliance.

I'm glad Mr Palladini brought this to my attention. He doesn't mind me saying this publicly, I'm sure. He's a good friend and he wouldn't mind. I appreciate his reminding me of that. But I say there's an unholy alliance between Lucien Bouchard and Mike Harris when it comes to trying to pry power away from the national government, whatever government that happens to be, the national level of government, and put it in the hands of the provinces. I chastise Lucien Bouchard for closing 53 hospitals. Mike Harris is trying to catch up to him.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): What about Jean Chrétien and the unemployment fund?

Mr Bradley: I want to get into the field of education, because I know the member wants me to talk about education, but before I do, I want to mention that in St Catharines we have a doctor, an ophthalmologist, whose patients can no longer see him because apparently they've reached a cap. So the people are now phoning the constituency offices.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Oh, rich people would be able to do it. Don't worry, rich people could go across the border and get their eyes looked after or whatever. But the average person is now not able to see this doctor in St Catharines because of a cap this government has put on the allocation of funds for that purpose.

I want to say as well that I raised the issue of Ian Strathern, a young gentleman of the age of 22 who lives in Niagara Falls who is a quadriplegic as a result of a very unfortunate accident playing hockey. His family is now spending some $1,500 a week on additional health care, or about $6,000 a month, because they want to have him at home. They don't want to have him in a hospital setting; they want to have him at home. So far, the family has been unable to obtain the necessary assistance from the Ministry of Health and the ministry responsible for long-term care to be able to have this service provided.

What was particularly disconcerting was when Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party, spoke to the chamber of commerce in St Catharines on September 30, and this gentleman who was in the audience - I suspect he's a person who would not be unfriendly to the Conservative government - got up and asked a question after, brought us up to date on his son and said in fact what's happening now is the Ministry of Health is going to intervene to prevent him and his family from appealing to the Health Services Appeal Board, actively opposing their appeal for more service for their son.

This was raised originally when they went to Mike Harris at the Tory fundraiser in St Catharines, a very successful fundraiser, I might add, because anybody and everybody with money was there, but these people came because they knew the Premier would be there. The Premier, on that occasion, on about May 7 of this year, promised that he was on their side and he would do something about it. I was hopeful that would be the case, I really was, and nothing was raised in this House. There was no public discussion of this issue.

Then, on June 24, there was another report in the newspaper that nothing in fact had transpired. Dalton McGuinty rose in the House to raise the issue with the Premier. The assumption was that something would be done. So it's September 30, and we hear nothing has been done yet, but there was some discussion that as a result of the question Mr McGuinty responded to at the chamber of commerce meeting, perhaps the government would do something about it. I didn't get up the next day in the House to ask. I wanted to give them, again, a period of time to be able to react to it.

Then I got up last Thursday, I think in a very responsible and moderate and low-key way, to ask what was happening. When I rose, I got the answer that the government in fact had not addressed this issue -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: - that actively, I say to my friend from Ottawa-Rideau, the Ministry of Health has intervened to block an appeal to the Health Services Appeal Board for this person who is quadriplegic and requires 24-hour care, which is most unfortunate. I hope that will change. I hope something will transpire that will help this family out, but it's indicative of what's happening in health care in our province today, and I find that most unfortunate.

I heard the Minister of Health today say, "There's $2 billion going out for restructuring." A lot of that money is going to pay the severance pay for nurses who are being fired out the door because this government is, overall, going to give less money to the operation of hospitals.

In education the government set out to establish a crisis, because what the extreme right wing does is try to bring into disrepute a public institution and then come forward with a radical solution when that institution is brought into disrepute. That's most unfortunate.

What you should be doing, instead of engaging in a propaganda campaign where you are spending millions upon millions of dollars in self-serving propaganda, no matter what it's about, whether it's health care, education, environment or the signs on the highway with Mike Harris's name - I would think that if Mr Palladini were still the minister we wouldn't see those propaganda signs. He would want to see the money spent on public transportation and not on propaganda signs with the Premier saying, "Your Ontario tax dollars at work, Premier Harris." I can tell you where you see that. You see that in the United States, with governor whoever at the bottom, and so Governor Harris has his name at the bottom of these signs.

All the material you see happening, all the advertising we're seeing, is as a result of this government simply blowing money on useless advertising while it's cutting back in other areas.

I would think that what you would want to do is enlist the support, for instance, of members of the teaching profession instead of targeting them. I know it's popular in some quarters to bash the teachers. These are people who have to deliver the education services on the front line. It's not the way it was when most of us went to school. It is not that way. The students who come to the school system today often have far more challenges to meet at home and within society than was the case when those of us who are here went to school. It's a different circumstance we're facing today in our education system.

1720

There are a lot of reforms that are brought forward that the NDP agree with. In fact, it was the NDP commission, commissioned by Dave Cooke, that brought forward some of these suggestions.

Mr Pouliot: Oh, come on.

Interjection: He's being nice.

Mr Bradley: I'm being nice in this case.

There are some things that we agree with as well. The two opposition parties would find some commonality of interest in some of the things being brought forward by the government: not the underfunding of the system, not the bashing of the teachers, not the movement towards privatization of schools that we see happening. We think what you should be doing is enlisting the support of those people.

Property taxes in the Niagara region are something to behold. Businesses and individuals in our part of the province are really annoyed and angry because in the exchange of services between the provincial government and the local government there was a $21-million difference. Now it's down to $18 million, but the so-called exchange that took place has left us $18 million less. What does that mean? It means that the local government had to make even more drastic cuts in services and it meant as well that they had to raise taxes.

The Tory members all pointed and said: "Oh, it's the regional government. We didn't raise those taxes." But of course, what happened was they downloaded on to the municipality items which cost $18 million additionally, and they left on half the cost of education. A lot of people picked up their tax bill and said, "With all this downloading, we thought the province took all of the education costs," but they didn't. Of course, the province sets that mill rate; it's not the local people setting that mill rate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Members for Lake Nipigon and Hamilton Centre, please.

Mr Bradley: I look at the Ukrainian Black Sea Hall in St Catharines. I look at some other institutions that provide medical services which are being hit with higher and higher property taxes. I see Women's Place and Bethlehem Project out having to raise funds, which in years gone by were largely provided by the provincial government. We see some significant change taking place. But it has not changed for the better. If you are wealthy, if you are powerful, if you are rich in this province, you'll be applauding the changes this government is bringing forward. If not, you certainly won't be.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to say to the House that if you want to know what the numbers are re the budget and how the economy of this government is unfolding, listen to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He has it down. When he comes into the House, he's prepared. He knows the numbers. He can give them to you every time and they're generally, as our Treasurer used to say when we were in government, spot on.

The member for St Catharines talks about how in this province today, because of the way things are unfolding, the rich are well off, those who are in a position of some privilege are doing well. This government spends a lot of time in Japan, in Italy, in Germany, on the golf courses of the province. They should spend some time on Main Street, Ontario, and talk to the people at the grassroots who are out there very anxious and nervous about the economy of this province. You've got to take those numbers and you've got to translate them into a language that people understand.

There are three things that this government is good at spinning. One is the question of welfare, the second is the issue of jobs and, of course, the third is the economy. They have their own perspective on it, of course, a perspective that is very elitist and centrist and is one that is shared, I'm sure, by a small group of people who are doing quite well at this particular point in time. But it's not the perspective that you'll get from John or Jane out there trying to put bread on the table, pay the rent and put clothing on the backs of kids.

Welfare: The numbers on welfare, they say, are down. The reason that numbers on welfare are down is twofold. One, you've changed the definition. You've raised the bar. You've made it tougher for people on welfare to get welfare. The criticism that you make of the federal government on EI, you've done the very same on welfare, the same idea.

Jobs: Why are jobs, if they are at all, going up? It's because you have taken good jobs and you've turned them into two or three or four part-time jobs.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I thought I would just put on the record a few facts with respect to the debate this afternoon by some of the Liberal members. Casting back to 1990 - and I know my friends in the NDP will remember this with gritted teeth - during the 1990 election the Liberals had the audacity to suggest that they were going to have a balanced budget again. They promised a balanced budget, and the year before they said, "Oh, we had a balanced budget, we had a surplus."

Let's examine what happened. In the 1989-90 budget they had projected a deficit of some $550 million. The federal government came in with an unusual transfer of funds, which wasn't anticipated, of $880 million. Then what happened was they showed a surplus of $90 million. Let's consider a $90-million surplus in the context that had they not got that unusual transfer, they would have had an even larger deficit than they had projected, because otherwise they would have had to have had a surplus of $338 million. They absolutely failed in that test. In 1990 they said they were going to have a balanced budget, but as the NDP found to their chagrin, there was a $3-billion deficit when they came in.

Then there was further debate this afternoon about cuts. The only health care cuts are from the federal government. You know that and you should ask Allan Rock and the Prime Minister to put them back -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm pleased to respond to my colleagues who spoke very articulately this afternoon, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, my friend from Kingston and The Islands and my friend from St Catharines, who each in their own way pointed out some of the smoke and mirrors taking place here in Ontario.

But I want to address one area and that was by the member for York Mills, who just finished speaking. I have to respond to this because I must tell the member for York Mills, no matter what you say, in the last 30 years there has only been one government that had more than a balanced budget. It was in 1988-89, and you're right, you were almost correct, it was a surplus of $91 million. We looked at what we were doing at the time and we helped pay down the accumulated debt. Two thirds of the accumulated debt -

Hon Mr Turnbull: You were budgeting a deficit.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Members for York Mills and Nepean.

Mr Patten: Two thirds of the accumulated debt that we have in this province - it's now verging on $100 billion, maybe just over $100 billion - has been accumulated since 1990. So I just want the member for York Mills to have an appreciation of the difficulty, as he knows, of balancing the budget. But the only time, I'll remind him, it was done was under a Liberal government in 1988-89.

Finally, I would like to say that because today is the use of resources, this particular bill on the interim supply, it seems to me that this government could look very carefully at the two priorities for people in this province: their health care and their education. People are suffering in those particular areas and need some support.

Mr Pouliot: Oh, what a burden to listen to the Liberals lambaste the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. This government, "You balanced the budget," "You love me, you love me not," "No, we did balance the budget."

I'll tell you what, Speaker. When we were elected, when we formed the government in 1990, we opened the cupboard, because they had said when you open the cupboard you will have a surplus. In the cupboard, there was one note - an IOU for $3 billion. That's the reality.

Heaven forbid if the Liberals ever get to form the government. If the Liberals ever get to form the government, I guarantee that they will keep every Tory promise. And yes, oh, what a burden their friends in Ottawa are, those great Satans, starting with the Prime Minister cutting health to the provinces, Sergeant Pepper and the group. You can go down the line and at every opportunity the federal Liberals have balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces. We know that. So when we see the fanfare, the audacity, the gall of the official opposition, I say, you're both the same. Go to the backroom and make up.

Interjections.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): No, no, no, no. Oh, Gilles.

Mr Baird: Time.

Mr Pouliot: Yes, yes.

Parliamentary assistant, flash that American Express the taxpayers give you. Invite your friends to dinner. Those are the circles you court. You're the same people. There's no difference. So when you have a little fight at 5:30 on a Tuesday night, don't take it too seriously because you'll spend a lot of time, you two, making up. It's in your nature. Thank God for the New Democrats.

1730

Mr Gerretsen: It always amazes me in this House how people are more interested in what happened 10 years ago rather than what should be happening right now or next year or as we go into the 21st century. That's what the people of Ontario are interested in.

History is of some importance and some interest, but people are really interested in what our health care system is going to look like, next year and today. Will it be available for us? What will our educational system look like a year from now and today? What most people see out there is chaos, absolute chaos. Whether we're talking about the 10 to 12 schools that are projected to be closing in my area, for example, whether we're talking about the 35 hospitals that are set to close in this province that the member for St Catharines has talked about, it doesn't matter. There's chaos out there and people do not like chaos.

In my community, a hospital that has been around for 153 years, the Hotel Dieu Hospital, operated by the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph, is set to close. The theory is we're closing some of these hospitals and we're somehow putting more money into the CACs, the community access centres. That's what the government would like people to believe, except it's not happening. Two thousand patients in my area have been cut off from home care services over the next six months or so. These are the people who have come to rely on these services and who need these services.

I say, do not close hospitals, and provide adequate funding for home care. That's what the people of Ontario are really interested in. It all could have been provided if it had not been for your ill-fated tax cut.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm just waiting to see the enormous amount of time the Liberals generously left us, since they denied equally splitting it. While I'm waiting for that to come up, let's just talk a bit about the history because that seems to be where some of the Liberals want to go.

The fact of the matter is, it is true that while the Liberals were in power and bragging about a $25-million surplus - that's what they ran their election platform on, assuming, as a lot of us did when they were 50-plus per cent in the polls - it looked like Peterson was going to return with a huge majority and they thought, "Well, nobody will know the difference so we'll just do a fast little manoeuvre here and we'll say there's a $25-million surplus," but the reality is, as we know, they didn't win the election and when we got there we were $3 billion in the hole and facing the deepest recession since the 1930s.

Interjection: It is not true.

Mr Christopherson: I hear one of the members saying it's not true. The fact of the matter is I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and I can tell you it is true. That's exactly what happened.

The other reality with the Libs, since we're talking about the Libs, is that during the boom time of the 1980s, an incredible boom, I think arguably percentage-wise even bigger than the one we're in, that short period in the late 1980s, they did absolutely nothing about the finances of this province. It was just business as usual. So speeches and lectures coming from them are not accepted, certainly not by this member of the House.

Mr Gerretsen: You wanted more spending. What are you talking about?

Mr Bradley: You wanted to spend more.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: Listen to them. Listen to them. There you go. That's what happens when you touch a nerve. Look. See? That's what happens.

Where are we right now? We've got the Liberals standing up, making all kinds of promises about the fact that they're going to spend money on health care, they're going to spend money on education, they're going to spend money on this and spend money on that. The reality is they were planning to pay for that with what we would call the tainted Tory surplus by virtue of how you would have gotten it.

But more to the point is that as a result of what's going on on Wall Street and with the markets and economies around the world, that surplus won't be there. In fact, their leader has already started to change his tune. Instead of saying they are going to invest in health care and education, now the Liberal leader is saying they're going to build walls around it. So he's already adjusting for the fiscal reality that's not working in their favour.

Interjection: Building walls around the cuts?

Mr Christopherson: Now what does this mean? My colleague our finance critic asks me, "Are they going to build walls around the cuts?" They're certainly going to institutionalize all the cuts and they're going to institutionalize your much-ballyhooed tax cut that of course only your rich friends are benefiting from, but the Liberals are going to leave that in place. So what does it mean? What it means is, all of these promises about investing and reinvesting in health care and education are hollow promises. They don't have one more red cent to invest in those areas than the current Tory government and they're not planning to change the macroeconomic approach of this Tory government. That's where my friend from Lake Nipigon is right when he says there's no difference.

What we are saying is different. I realize that the Tories and their very fabulously wealthy friends who have got tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in personal benefits from the tax cut won't like our message, but for the vast majority of the population who are paying for that tax cut through school closures, through hospital closures, through the environment ministry being gutted, all of the list of attacks that this government has perpetrated upon communities, the fact of the matter is that reinvesting the money that would be accrued from taking those who earn $80,000 a year or more and saying: "You have an obligation. You've benefited very well from the economy of the past three years, more than most, fabulously more than most. You have an obligation to provide the funds necessary for us to bring back our health care system and bring back our education system" - for that top 6%, and only 6% of the population make that kind of money, we will go back to the 1995 tax rate so that we will have between $1 billion and $2 billion of real money that can be reinvested in health care and in education.

I offer up that as the very clear distinction between the two alternatives to the Tory government. For those who are already doing very well by the 30% tax cut, I suspect they're going to stay with you. Why wouldn't they? It's in their best interest to do so. For those who for a whole host of reasons feel that this province needs a change, that we can't afford to have Mike Harris stay in the Premier's office a day longer than necessary, then there is an alternative to the official opposition that once again, according to some polls, are up around that magic 50% number, the one that caused them to trip and fall at least two other times before. There is an alternative because they won't provide a real change. They don't have the money.

1740

At the end of the day, it would seem that in our political time period, the immediate time around us, the bottom line is the bottom line; it's going to be dollars. You can talk about policy changes in health care and that's crucial, and we can talk about policy changes in education and that's also crucial, but in my community, where the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospital is facing a $38-million deficit and where my school board is looking at closing between 15 and 20 schools, what really matters is money, and the Liberal alternative doesn't provide any new money. That's an important distinction, and I think it will become a crucial turning point in the next election, because without the promises they make, they aren't any different from the Mike Harris government.

They have to have the money in order to respond to the promises they're making. You cannot stand up and say that you're going to condemn Mike Harris for what he is doing to hospitals and health care and say that you're going to reinvest money and not say where the money is coming from. You can't say that you're going to turn around and put the $1 billion or some portion of it back into the education system and not say where the money is coming from. Those are crucial distinctions that need to be and will be made in the campaign. At the end of the day what really matters is that people will have a choice, and it will be a choice between continuing the Mike Harris agenda or saying no, that this has been a bad experiment for the province and that we've got to go back to the kind of caring, compassionate province that we have been in the past. The alternative to the Tory government to do that is Howard Hampton and the New Democratic Party. The Liberals, at the end of the day, don't offer anything.

In the time I have left, I would like to just focus on the letter that Trevor Pettit sent because I think it's quite telling. It's dated September 25, so it's important to understand that this is very timely; this is not something from the archives. He is writing to Ernie Eves, and basically my legislative colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, is in deep, serious political trouble, and this is a plea from him to the Minister of Finance to please do something to bail him out. Even he says in his opening line, "I write to you today regarding the local Hamilton-Wentworth property tax fiasco." He calls it a fiasco because he's facing the political reality. How many times have I stood here and said that political reality is going to face each and every one of you when you go out and talk to taxpayers on the doorstep? That's what is happening. They're coming to him, and he's calling it a tax fiasco. What else does he say?

Also, which I find surprising politically as well as offensive personally, he takes a shot at the council while he purports to be bailing them out. He says, "The whole `Who Does What' exercise would be revenue-neutral if Hamilton-Wentworth were to find 3% in savings." What he's saying is that they didn't find the 3% which would have saved his skin, because this government said they wouldn't make any changes that would cause property taxes to go up. You said that the downloading would be revenue-neutral. That's not what happened. My community of Hamilton-Wentworth is in the hole by $36 million.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): That's their fault.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Brant-Haldimand, can you come to order, please.

Mrs Marland has moved government notice of motion 27. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Essex South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning gas prices. This matter will be debated today at 10 to 6. Is he here?

Interjection.

The Speaker: We will wait until he gets here.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Thank you, Speaker, for your patience. I was in committee and was looking more to being here towards 6 o'clock.

I'm not here so much today to debate the issue of the fact that we all observe that gasoline prices seem to magically jump every weekend, especially prior to holidays. I'm here essentially to get the minister, when he's on the bandwagon, to say that he's in fact going to do something. That's all any of us want him to do. We're all tired of seeing gasoline prices hiked just before long weekends.

We heard the Premier as far back as September 1997, I think it was, over a year ago, when we brought this issue to the Legislature. He jumped on the bandwagon and said, "I think the taxpayers of Ontario, the gasoline buyers, are being gouged and I'm going to bring the oil companies to heel." Well, he didn't do anything, and that's all we're asking. Put your money where your mouth is.

The minister has said, in essence - they went to a meeting, I think it was last year or within the last year, with other ministers across the country - "We're going to do something about this." OK. All I'm suggesting is, rather than rhetoric, it's time to do something about it.

1750

There has been the suggestion that we have gas-busters out there, this commission, I think it's called, that looks after gathering evidence on gas prices that go up. We all see the gas prices go up. Frankly, I don't think four members of the provincial Parliament going around the weekend before with their Polaroids have a darn thing to do with it. I think that's simply rhetoric and I think we're all trying to fool the gasoline purchasers of the province of Ontario.

In fact, the minister was reported to have said Saturday morning on CBC that the reason gas prices went up was that the gas-busters were not out. If we're going to depend on gas-busters in this province to keep gasoline prices down, then I suggest we don't need the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and his high salary. The point is that it was only last May I believe that the gas-busters proposed that they had some effect. Well, they didn't. Prices went up prior to the gas-busters going out. If the consumers of Ontario were bilked, then they got bilked before the gas-busters went out.

So that we don't just put this solely on the shoulders of the federal government, I will agree that there is a Consumer Protection Act and if the minister has evidence, because he and the Premier have suggested that the oil companies may be working something out together, then fine, put it on the table and we'll get after the oil companies, if someone with evidence is accusing them of collusion.

But if you don't have that evidence and you aren't prepared to stand up and do what the provinces can do, and that is regulate gasoline prices, because it's definitely without question within the realm of the provinces to regulate gasoline prices, then get on with it. If you don't want to regulate gasoline prices and you can't put evidence on the table that there's collusion, then please don't stand up and say that you're concerned and you're going to do something about it. Just stand up and say that you're concerned.

I don't know what they mean by bringing the oil companies to heel. The commission is going to meet with the oil companies. The oil companies understand. They know what's going on. The problem is, I don't think this government knows what's going on when they say they're going to do something about it. Please, Minister, or your parliamentary assistant, stand here tonight and give us the solution.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question. Perhaps we can just put this in context first and I can indicate what has been done. I know the member knows this, but I'm still going to do it for the benefit of people who are watching this.

Previous governments, whether it was under Monte Kwinter, the minister concerned under the Peterson government, or whether it was Marilyn Churley under the Bob Rae government, have tried to somehow come to grips with this and have been pretty well unable to do that. In fact, let me just quote this right now. This is a quote from Monte Kwinter in Hansard from May 27, 1986. It says, "I do not have the power to do that because we," ie, the Liberal government, "in the province do not regulate the prices of fuel." He went on to say the federal Competition Act is where the issue should be dealt with.

I agree that this is where the pressure should be put, with the federal government, the Competition Bureau. I would certainly refer you again to the federal MP from the Pickering area, Dan McTeague, who went out with a group of Liberal MPs in the province to try to get some evidence to put some pressure upon, I suppose, his own government and the Competition Bureau, the federal Liberals. He has certainly taken up the cause, and I applaud him for doing that, but the fact is that he still hasn't had any effect as of yet with his own government. Perhaps the easiest thing to do for the members opposite is pick up the telephone. As their leader referred to the federal Liberals in a scrum the other day, he said they're not exactly identical twins but they're cousins. Perhaps they can call up on the phone and speak to their cousins and convey the message, "Yes, we do want the Competition Bureau to do something."

Last year I went to the provincial ministers' conference, and before we left, we attempted to have some sort of resolution of support for the House to indicate that, yes, we agree as a House, as a province, as all members representing all parts of the province, that we believe there are fluctuations in gas prices and that the proper pressure should be put upon the Competition Bureau to deal with this. Unfortunately for us, we didn't get that resolution. The NDP were supportive of it but the members opposite in the Liberal Party were not. Consequently, we didn't have that resolution to take as further evidence that we needed to put some pressure at the provincial ministers' conference.

However, having said that, we did go to Saskatchewan, and we attempted, through all the various dynamics of a provincial ministers' conference, I might say - because there are really different interests represented there. You look at Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are in essence oil-producing provinces and have different concerns than we do. Certainly the Atlantic provinces have concerns; Quebec did as well. But we managed to put some pressure upon Mr Manley, who was there. To his credit, Mr Manley did listen, although it appears that his chief of the Competition Bureau, who was there, was very unhappy with the fact that we were able to obtain from Mr Manley his consent to form a committee or a task force made up of all the provinces and the federal government but also consumers.

I believe this is a very important element, because with consumers involved, it's not simply government trying to have things on the committee; you have to be more transparent. You have to be more accountable when you actually have consumers involved with the process. That was created and is reporting back next month to the provincial ministers' conference again. I think it's very important for us to look at that.

The member made reference to the consumer watchdog committee; they have been known as the gas-busters in the province. They're providing information to us to take to the provincial ministers' conference. Of course, we know that this task force is being chaired by my parliamentary assistant, Lillian Ross. We are also ably represented on this committee by Dan Newman, Doug Rollins of Quinte, Gary Leadston, Ted Chudleigh and Joe Tascona, so there are six members, not four.

I will say this, and this is what I did say, to get the quote properly quoted: "Isn't it funny, or is it just coincidental, that the only long weekend that the gas-busters did not go out, did not try to educate the gas companies as to what's going to happen and monitor it, isn't it coincidental that the gas prices went up?" That's certainly what I did say.

But what's going to happen is that later on this week this committee is meeting with members of the Canadian petroleum industry, certainly to indicate their displeasure with the fact that there were huge fluctuations in gas prices in the province. We all know this is unacceptable. It is unwarranted to have such huge hikes in gas prices, and that's why we're going to take further action at the provincial ministers' conference.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock tonight.

The House adjourned at 1759.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

13 octobre 1998