L005b - Thu 30 Apr 1998 / Jeu 30 Avr 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to join the debate tonight, and I'd like to focus on those aspects of the throne speech which concern themselves with health care.
When Her Honour read the speech last week, she said in part that Ontarians want quality health care and she observed that in recent months her Ontario government had come to understand that there was a great deal of worry in the community, not only about the pace of change in health care, but there was clear evidence that people were concerned about the impact of health policy changes in their daily lives.
It is on that subject that I would like to speak tonight, and I want to be highly focused about a community in my constituency, namely Cobden, and the situation that faces over 30 elderly people who are now resident in the Lakeview Nursing Home in Cobden, which is a very rural community in the heart of the Ottawa Valley, about one hour and 20 minutes' drive west of the national capital.
The story about the Lakeview Nursing Home is a very powerful story and it brings to me, as a long-time member of the Legislature, the realities of change, the realities of government's important role in providing very significant service to individuals and to a community. It also reminds me that all politics is local and all change is personal.
The Lakeview Nursing Home was established over 30 years ago in this rural village. It was established initially as a home for special care for adult psychogeriatric individuals who were being discharged from the Kingston site, from Smiths Falls, Rideau Regional Centre and from other facilities. This was a very high-needs group of psychogeriatric individuals in the main. Over time its funding was converted to a nursing home.
In 1992 the ownership of that nursing home in Cobden changed from local ownership to ownership from afar. A Dr Dar from London bought the licence on the understanding that he was going to have to rebuild the facility, which was in physical terms not in the best of shape. The condition of the sale of the licence in 1992 was based on that understanding. While the facility was not the best of physical plants, it certainly had brought together a very excellent group of men and women who provided very good care to the 55 residents in the home in the 1990s.
Four or five years passed. Dr Dar and the Conmed group, of which he was a part, did not or could not find it within their ability to replace the facility, so it was like a bolt out of the blue in early July of last year that the people in that nursing home, the 55 residents, these very vulnerable special needs adults, were told their nursing home would be closing within weeks or months. It was Dr Dar's intention to transfer the nursing home licence out of the village of Cobden, out of the county of Renfrew and down into the Halton-Burlington area. Of course, under the Nursing Home Act, it is the decision of the Minister of Health whether that licence is transferable.
There was a public meeting held in Cobden on August 12, 1997, and I have noted since the House has resumed in the last few days the Harris government and its supporters in this assembly have said, "We are anxious to hear from the people." That's an understandable democratic impulse. After the announcement made last July that the nursing home would close in Cobden, there was a public meeting in this village of 1,000 on August 12, and 500 people jammed Memorial Hall for a full afternoon. I have never seen such a turnout in that community and I have never heard such powerful testimony.
Rev Brian Sharpe was one who came to the meeting, and there were several. This is a very distinguished man of the cloth who has a family member - I could read from his testimony, but both as a minister and as a family member he gave eloquent testimony to the quality of care his uncle and those other 55 people were receiving and had been receiving in that nursing home.
You know, the interesting thing about Lakeview in Cobden, in this wonderfully small rural community, is that it was a success in ways I suspect many people at the Ministry of Health never imagined when it was launched 30 years ago. It is a remarkable success.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It was started under a Tory government.
Mr Conway: It was established under a Conservative government, that is true, but it was nurtured by the staff and by the community, and I know the member from Halton understands the power of these small rural and farm villages. It was a very significant success story, and now, for no apparent reason, a non-resident owner decides he wants to close the door and move the licence 300 miles to the southwest, and those very vulnerable people - you might ask, who are these people? Our Renfrew County District Health Council prepared last summer, at the time of this great debate, a profile of who these people were, and reading from the local health council's data, let me tell you these are without a doubt the most vulnerable people I represent. These are some of the most vulnerable people not only in the province but in the country.
According to health council data, 18 of these residents were developmentally delayed, six were diagnosed with schizophrenia, 22 had Alzheimer's disease, three residents were duly diagnosed with developmental disability and psychiatric illnesses, seven residents had substance abuse problems, 40 residents are physically impaired, and as many of 32 of these residents had engaged in inappropriately aggressive or sexual behaviour in the previous 12 months. These were, by all accounts and by any reasonable standard, very vulnerable people who needed the care and the attention that the Lakeview Nursing Home was and had been providing.
The community, in a very eloquent and powerful way, from the reeve and the warden to prominent local lawyers to local business people, but most especially from family members, came by the scores and they testified, often in very tearful and dramatic fashion. It was indeed straight from the heart. I don't think there was anyone in the room that day who, after five hours of that kind of testimony, had not heard from the people.
What was the message? This Lakeview Nursing Home has been a success. Yes, the facility is not the best, but the quality of care has been excellent. It has been excellent because of the particular kind of synergy that had been developed in that rural community with family, with staff and with neighbourhood. That community expected that after 500 people had so testified over four or five hours, it was going to make a difference.
To be fair, when I raised the question of the future fate of the Lakeview Nursing Home to Mr Wilson, the then Minister of Health, he said to me in this chamber on September 23, 1997, "Mr Conway, you tell the people in Cobden we think we will get someone to make a reasonable bid for that licence, and I as minister will do everything I can to keep the facility in the community." Let me read now from Hansard, quoting Mr Wilson, Minister of Health, Tuesday, September 23, 1997, in response to my question about the future of Lakeview:
"I can assure the honourable member that if arrangements can be made at the local level to keep those licences in Cobden, the ministry will give its concurrence."
I appreciated that answer, and so did the community. That was six months ago. Under the leadership of Reeve Dave Stewart and others in the Cobden area, we got the very distinguished Victorian Order of Nurses to make a proposal, a good proposal, to give fair market value for those 55 beds in Cobden so that this not-for-profit organization, the Victorian Order of Nurses, could continue to build on the great tradition of the Lakeview Nursing Home, and a bid was made. The bid has been rejected, because apparently Dr Dar wants that licence, come hell or high water, out of Cobden and into Oakville and Burlington. I can understand his desire, but what's the public interest?
Interjection.
Mr Conway: "Why?" says the member for Halton North. I suspect because he knows that licence is much more financially attractive and valuable to him in Halton region than it is in rural Renfrew. That's my suspicion and I think that's a reasonable suspicion.
All I know is that the community came forward and did what it was asked to do. It got a good proposal from an outstanding organization, the Victorian Order of Nurses. That was six months ago. It was rejected.
The new Minister of Health has told me privately and publicly that she continues to look at her options. I want to say here tonight that after almost 10 months have passed, not a week passes that I don't hear from the residents at Lakeview or their families or the very excellent staff at that facility.
1840
Just so you know, Cobden, as my friend from Quinte will know, is one of those farm villages that populates the glorious rural reaches of Ontario, population 1,100 people, good people, hardworking people. Lakeview last summer was the largest single employer in that community, 46 jobs. Its taxation represented 7% of the total revenue to the village of Cobden as a big employer, an important economic player in a very vital community in the rural Ottawa Valley that had a lot to brag about because it had made this very difficult concept work over 30 years.
They're patient people, they're tolerant people in Cobden, but they are starting to become very nervous and very frustrated. They want me to stand here tonight, those family members, some of whom are watching, and they want me to put on the floor of this assembly their increased concern and growing anxiety about the future of their loved ones in this nursing home, and these are, I repeat, very vulnerable people. This home has some of the highest special needs people in the province. What is their future?
All of us in politics have offered the rhetoric. We've talked about the big picture. I was pleased yesterday, as all members were, to hear the Minister of Health say, "...20,000 new long-term-care beds over the next decade." There are 35 residents - it's probably less than that - there are 31 or so residents up in Cobden, 400 kilometres northeast of here, who want me to advocate on their behalf tonight, that they're not going to get lost in the shuffle, that they are going to attract the attention of this minister, this government and this assembly. I have been through a lot over 22 years and, I'll tell you, these people deserve our attention and our support.
We had the Health Services Restructuring Commission roar through the Upper Ottawa Valley in the last 12 to 18 months. The Pembroke Civic Hospital was ordered closed. Scores of acute care and chronic care beds have been taken out of our largest city in Pembroke and there are additional plans to reduce the institutional capacity of other facilities.
We know from Ministry of Health data that our region is seriously underresourced for mental health services. As I read from that data sheet about the special needs of Lakeview, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to understand that this is substantially a mental health issue. Yes, Lakeview probably doesn't fit into some neat, tidy category, but you know it's there, it has worked. It's had 30 years of very powerful and positive acceptance, very strong family support, very good staff who care not just about their jobs, but that is obviously an issue, but they care about these residents who they know are vulnerable and anxious.
So 20,000 new beds, $1.2 billion worth of new spending over eight years, who would not applaud that? But there are 31 people up in Cobden tonight who want to know that after 10 months of responsible petitioning, after a public meeting last summer where 500 people packed the community hall and spoke with one voice, they are going to get the consideration they are due.
These people have no consultant to advocate for them. Within the panoply of the health care debate locally, psychogeriatric residents of a small nursing home sometimes get lost even in the regional shuffle. But I repeat: These are the most vulnerable people I represent and they deserve our attention. We owe them our support.
I want to say to the Minister of Health, who's not here tonight, that her staff has been in touch on a regular basis, and I appreciate that. I know these issues are not easy, and I think I as the local member, together with the local community leadership, have been reasonable and tolerant. But the day of decision must arise, and arise soon. I want to say to the House tonight that this story of Lakeview is exactly the story that many other communities, large and small, are hearing these days as governments retrench, as programs change.
Again, the irony for me is that this is a success that grew out of the most unlikely of circumstances. When I think of the moneys we've spent, the huge institutions we've built, the efforts we've made to have communities accept what many of them would not accept, and then I go up Highway 17 west of Renfrew and look at Cobden and look at Lakeview and listen to those families talk about the caring and nurturing that their family members have received - people like Reverend Sharpe would tell you his uncle has been in that home after he's been in other homes, more significant, more flashy nursing homes, where the care and the results simply were not as good as they have been at Cobden. Vulnerable people, people who need our attention, deserve our support.
I simply want to take this opportunity tonight to say Her Honour was right when she said a week ago, "Ontarians expect quality health care." Her Majesty's government in Ontario has been hearing about a growing worry, about a pace of change in health care that's been too rapid and impacts that have been rough and ready. On behalf of 31 residents that I represent at the Lakeview Nursing Home, let me say to the House tonight that I expect, because those 31 residents at Lakeview not only expect but deserve, their fair share of this new allocation of long-term beds and the support services.
For those of us who belong to the Christian community, let us be reminded of the injunction that we will be judged by how it is we behave relative to the least of our brethren.
Interjection: You're preaching.
Mr Conway: I am preaching, and I do so unabashedly, because these people can't hire Leslie Noble, they can't flex their muscle in the back corridors of power irrespective of who's in government. They are very vulnerable people who are crying out for attention, respect and redress. Their local member is doing what any good local member ought to do under these circumstances.
Let's recognize 30 years of success, let's build on community acceptance, let's support families and staff, and let us make sure that before this session is over, hopefully before this week is over, the 31 residents at Lakeview and their families get our attention, get our support, and can carry on in that community, in that facility or its replacement in the village of Cobden to enjoy the quality of life that all of us want them to have.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to thank the member for Renfrew North for bringing before the House a particular burning issue in his own constituency in the town of Cobden: the need to meet the needs of very vulnerable people. I would hope the government will listen. I would hope that with the announcement that the Minister of Health has made for about $150 million a year over the next eight years for nursing care beds, the residents at Cobden will be able to benefit.
I do point out, though, that when the member says he hopes that before the end of the session or before the end of this month or this week he has a response, my understanding is that the minister has indicated there won't be any of these new beds actually on stream until the year 2000. After all, this is $150 million a year for eight years, and what we're looking at is eight years before the total number, the 20,000 beds that are promised, will actually be delivered.
1850
I hope that in determining beyond the issue the member for Renfrew North has raised, in determining where the beds will go, the minister and her staff will recognize that there are particular communities like Cobden that have particular needs. If we look simply at the different regions or districts and at a formula for the number of beds, it won't meet the overall needs in particular communities.
As I know has been raised in the House already, Elliot Lake, a retirement community where many, many people have moved to live out their senior years, is in particular need. About 50 people have had to leave the community because they can't get the nursing care they require. Hopefully, this government will respond.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was pleased the member was able to put on the record this evening and to make known to the government members his desire to see some significant changes in this area to ensure that some seniors have the kind of health care they require. I am wondering whether he is facing what we are facing in the Niagara Peninsula, and that is the potential closing of hospitals. I believe the Civic Hospital in Pembroke has had its doors closed and other hospitals are being downsized. Yet simply because people are getting older doesn't mean they do not need acute care from time to time. In fact, it is likely that as the population increases in age, those people who are elderly are going to require more acute care as well as chronic care.
In the Niagara Peninsula we have five hospitals which are teetering under an axe of some kind. We have the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, we have the Niagara-on-the-Lake General Hospital, we have the Fort Erie hospital, which is Douglas Memorial, we have the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby and we have the Port Colborne General Hospital.
In certain other hospitals, we have proposed reductions in the number of acute care beds. Our area is a bit different, I recognize, from the area that the member for Renfrew North represents in that we have some larger urban centres, but we have some smaller centres as well. I'd be interested in his comment on the fact that 32 hospitals are either closing or are slated to close in Ontario, despite the fact that the Premier during the election campaign said he had no plans to close hospitals.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It is for good reason that the member for Renfrew North talks about needs in his community with respect to issues of hospitals and nurses and people who need care who are not getting it, because there are a whole lot of people across the province who have the same kinds of concerns. That's why he spent much of his time obviously focusing in on that, because of this great need that we have.
You've got this government talking about this big investment of theirs. You will recall that the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget a $2.7-billion amount to be invested in restructuring our community-based health care system. We're not sure they spent any of it. We don't believe they have. We don't see it.
But this year you have the same government announcing -
Mr Bradley: Again.
Mr Marchese: - again - that they're going to spend $1.2 billion. Is that the same kind of money as the last year's announcement, but by half and less than half?
Not only that, but this announcement of $1.2 billion is over an eight-year period. They've got one more year left in their mandate. After that, these boys are gone, right? And then you've got another government having to deal with these problems of health and long-term care.
Remember this: In another couple of years - we've seen this all the time - there's going to be yet another recession. At that time, you've got a $5-billion problem you've got to worry about through your income tax scheme and then you've got a commitment to spend millions of dollars on health, and you won't have it. The money won't be there, and you're going to say: "We can't spend it now. We gave our money away to the guys who have the big, deep pockets. Sorry for you poor folk down there who need this long-term care. We don't got the money." That's what you people are going to say then, if you're still in office, leaving the whole burden for the next government to solve.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to respond to the member for Renfrew North, who spoke so eloquently. He spoke about long-term care. I just want to bring to his attention the Toronto Sun editorial today. It says:
"The Ontario government's $1.2-billion investment in long-term care for the elderly is welcome and long overdue.
"This announcement, first reported in yesterday's Sun, is good news on every front. The money will fund:
"Twenty thousand new beds in nursing homes and homes for the aged.
"Improved access to community-based care for 100,000 people.
"Seventy thousand new jobs - 27,500 in health care, 42,500 in construction.
"The staggering thing, as Premier Mike Harris and Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer noted yesterday, is that no Ontario government in the past decade has been willing to come to grips with the pressing need for more long-term care for our aging population.
"Not one new publicly funded bed has been provided since 1988." That's over 10 years.
"This, despite widespread agreement years before that the shortage of long-term-care beds was creating severe backups in acute care hospitals and, thus, in hospital emergency wards.
"Unlike previous red Tory, Liberal and NDP governments, the Harris Tories have the funds to invest in long-term care because they first took on the thankless and difficult job of closing and merging 30 acute care hospitals. Yesterday's announcement mirrors recommendations by the Health Services Restructuring Commission.
"How ironic that this good news should come on the same day that the federal Liberals, who cut billions to the provinces for health care, were under attack from all sides, including from within their own caucus, for their shameful refusal to compensate all victims of hepatitis C in Canada's tainted blood disaster."
The editorial goes on to say, "Premier Harris, you did the right thing yesterday on long-term care for the elderly."
I agree with this editorial.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Renfrew North.
Mr Conway: I just want to say, particularly to Mr Newman, that it is good news and I appreciate that. My point remains that 31 people, many of them seriously challenged, are in Cobden tonight and they have heard the good news.
You will be judged by what you do. That facility has been there. It has done an excellent job in interesting circumstances. I say to my friend that really it's a matter of the licence. The home is there, the residents are there, the staff is there. The community is very accepting and supportive. Yes, Mr Newman, it is good news that was announced yesterday. Thirty-one people at Cobden want to know if that good news is going to mean that the nearly 10 months of living hell they've had, wondering about whether or not they are going to be sent out of what has been home to most of them for over 20 years - the test of this pudding will be in the eating.
The minister has the decision and the power under the Nursing Homes Act. We're not talking about a new facility for the moment; we're talking about a facility that's there, properly licensed. The request before the minister is simply, "Will you or will you not, Mrs Witmer, approve the transfer of the licence from Cobden to Oakville-Burlington?" She has the power.
I recognize the complexity. It's not as easy as just simply clapping the hands. But the home is there. The decision is hers: 20,000 new beds; $1.2 billion worth of new money. Thirty-one people are crying out for attention and support and the right to stay in their home and the community that has served them so well and received them so well for almost 30 years.
1900
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Wildman: I'm pleased to participate in this debate on the amendment to the amendment to Her Honour's speech. I want to concentrate on two matters that have been brought forward by previous speakers who have intervened in this debate.
A number of the members of the party supporting the government have indicated that the government is moving forward with care - that's the term they use - on their agenda to cut the deficit and to provide health care reinvestment and reinvestment in education. That I think has been, to summarize, the main thrust of the government's agenda as put forward by Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
The government hasn't, in making this argument, pointed out that they also are engaged in a significant transfer of wealth upwards in our society, that we are in fact redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable, the poorest in our society, to the most wealthy. This is a rather perverse approach compared to what most governments in democratic society since the 1930s have attempted to do when they have approached the question of redistribution of wealth. It's very unusual for governments.
Now it is in the same vein of the approach of ideological right-wing governments like the government of Mrs Thatcher in the United Kingdom and certainly the government of the Ronald Reagan administration in the United States of America. These are both jurisdictions where governments took the same approach, that is, "We must redistribute wealth, but not redistribute it among the people in greatest need but rather redistribute wealth upwards."
A few in the debate have indicated that yes, they are doing that. The government is doing that, but the government is doing it because the members of the government party believe that it will create a climate in which these very well-to-do people who are receiving a significant benefit because of this redistribution of wealth will spend the money and this will somehow generate the jobs that this government hopes to create.
Of course that in terms of economic theory is quite backwards because obviously the people who do not need money to spend are least likely to spend it immediately. They may invest it in overseas investments. They may take holidays overseas. They may even purchase automobiles and so on, but the automobile might be a luxury automobile manufactured in Germany, for instance, or if it does generate a job, the only job in Ontario it generates is the salesman's job, I guess, in the dealership. It produces jobs in the manufacturing where it occurs in Germany or in some other part of Europe or Japan or elsewhere.
Obviously if you want to generate consumer confidence, and there's been a lot of discussion about that in this debate, the best thing to do is to give it to the people who are living from one paycheque to another. Those are the people who, if they have a little extra cash, will spend it immediately and they'll spend it locally, they'll spend it at retail establishments very close to where they live. It will benefit their community and their province and it will perhaps generate jobs.
The problem with the redistribution of wealth that this government is engaged in is that the top 6% of wage earners, those who make over 80% a year individually in this province, get 25% of this tax break. Obviously that's not going to produce the same kind of expenditures in the retail sector and otherwise that giving that 25% of the total dollars to the people at the bottom of the income level or even at the middle-income level would generate.
I've also heard in this debate a lot of discussion by members of the Conservative Party about the debt that we were going to bequeath to future generations and how this was most unfair and an improper approach. That's why we had to make all the cuts we've made, that this government has made in Ontario to try to lower the deficit and deal with the debt problem. But when you look at what has happened in education, particularly post-secondary education, I think it's interesting to look at this question of debt and what we're doing to future generations.
I will concede, as the Conservatives have said, that one of the major reasons for the significant increase in tuition fees at the post-secondary education level has been the callous cutting of transfer payments by the federal Liberal government that hurt the provinces and has hurt the students in Ontario and across Canada. That's quite true. But added to that, this government has cut $400 million from post-secondary education in Ontario. On top of that, the government has said that they will increase tuition fees. I'm not as concerned about the increase in tuition fees as I am about the proposal to deregulate tuition fees; in other words, to allow higher institutions of learning to essentially charge what the market will bear for certain post-secondary education, usually post-graduate programs. This is very, very scary.
Right now, we have an enormous student debt. That's what has been the result of the cuts by the small-c conservative policies of Paul Martin at the federal level and the right-wing policies of Ernie Eves at the provincial level. The fact is that 10 years ago the average student graduated from university in Ontario with a debt of about $7,000. Today the average debt for a graduate of a four-year program is about $20,000 to $25,000, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $22,000. That's what the average debt is now.
When this government and the members of the Conservative Party talk about saving future generations from debt, they're foisting debt on the very generation they say they're supposedly going to be helping. What is their answer? Their answer is to deregulate tuition fees. That means that certain programs are going to cost enormous amounts. Now the theory is that -
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Which ones, Bud?
Mr Wildman: There are some programs like MBA programs, perhaps other professional programs. The theory is that these high-cost programs will somehow cross-subsidize less popular programs. Somehow by having very expensive $20,000-a-year tuition for MBAs, you're going to be subsidizing anthropology or something. Frankly, it doesn't work at all. What it may do is pay for the MBA program, but it certainly doesn't assist less popular programs to lower tuition fees or even to control tuition fees in those other programs. It doesn't work.
The problem is that this means less access for those who need education and the ones who do get in - first off, a lot of them are experiencing what's called sticker shock because they're now seeing what the cost of the tuition is and they're saying: "No, I can't afford it. I can't handle that kind of debt." These again are the people whom this government says they are saving from debt.
The government now is proposing income-contingent plans to pay back. This is their answer. They want to negotiate this with the federal government. Up to now the provincial government hasn't been able to negotiate any such agreement and the banks, the lending institutions have said, "Look, we're not interested." Why? Because the banks have said the student debt is already too high. It's not a good idea to increase that debt any further and they're not interested in carrying that debt and having the carrying charges over a longer period of time than an income-contingent plan would entail.
1910
What is projected? If the trend continues with the deregulation of tuition fees and the higher tuition fees that entails and the income-contingent plan, which means more debt over a longer period of time for students, that average of $22,000 or $25,000 in debt for a graduate today in the next 10 to 20 years is projected to increase to $60,000 or $65,000. Some have even predicted as high as $80,000.
What that means is that many, many young people, the generation that these Tories say they're saving from debt, will be starting off in life with a mortgage but no house. What this government is doing is mortgaging the future of the students who are currently attending university and the students who will be attending university and college in the next 10 to 20 years. This from a government that says it wants to save people from debt. It's insidious.
The government has taken other measures, of course, that hurt students and make it very unlikely that they're going to be able to provide for themselves, be productive and contribute to society.
While they've ensured that those who are not wealthy don't have access or if they do, they have enormous debt, at the post-secondary level, at the secondary school level this government has cut in half the funding for adult education. That means that in this city alone 8,000 adult students will not have a place. They can go to continuing education, which is the answer the government has, but there aren't enough places. There is no day program for most of those students, and so these students who have had the courage to go back to school to upgrade their skills, to finish their secondary school education so that they can get into the work world or go on to post-secondary education if they can afford it, are being locked in the welfare system. Again, from a government that says it is trying to save these people from future debt.
At the other end of the system, of course, the government has limited expenditures at both the secondary and elementary levels for all students. We look at the new funding formula that has produced the following results.
After the first year boards in this province with rising enrolments will be unable to keep pace with the rising costs due to the cap on education spending in the funding formula. The total amount to be spent on education is frozen, even though enrolment in Ontario is increasing by 25,000 students each year. So that means a cut, and the government says it's stable funding.
Funding for core French programs from junior kindergarten to grade 3 has been eliminated under the funding formula. Grants designated to keep class size in grades 1 and 2 capped at 20 students have been eliminated, even though we know that lower class sizes at the primary level are essential. This is an estimated loss of $150 million annually.
The government has removed the mandate for junior kindergarten and made it optional, while at the same time cutting the funding for junior kindergarten so that many boards will not continue the junior kindergarten program and certainly those that don't have it will be very unlikely to begin a new junior kindergarten program, despite the fact that the ministers across the way - I'm sure the Minister of Community and Social Services knows that investment at the preschool level saves a great deal of money later.
All this government has in the throne speech is a commitment to a study by the eminent expert Dr Fraser Mustard, who will I'm sure be able to take off the shelf many of the studies he's already done and give to the government the evidence that he has already published about the value of early childhood education.
Beginning in 1999 senior kindergarten will be funded on a half-day program only. Full day programs will be eliminated. Again, from a government that says it's interested in early childhood education.
Secondary school funding only covers - this is very odd - 7.2 credits per year in secondary schools, which over a four-year program works out to 28.8 credits, and yet the curriculum that has been published by this government says that students are required to have 30 credits. How does this work? It must be new math, I guess.
In essence, this is a government that claims that it is going to make changes, that it has already made changes that will benefit future generations. They make a great point of saying that this government does not want to mortgage the future of our young people in this province, yet at the post-secondary level they are imposing enormous debt loads on those students who do go to post-secondary education. They are cutting access for those who can't afford those kinds of debt loads and making it more difficult for many students to attend post-secondary education programs. At the elementary and secondary levels they are cutting the very basics that are required to ensure that students have the kind of skills and knowledge that they need to be able to compete in the information age going into the 21st century. This is counterproductive. It doesn't make sense to say that in order to prevent future generations from having to shoulder an enormous debt we must cut them so badly now that we create a social deficit from which they will not be able to recover.
This government is creating an enormous deficit. It is creating debt for post-secondary students and it is creating a social deficit that is going to harm our students, harm our young people, harm our society. Every time this government cuts education at the elementary and secondary level, this means that many students will not be able to achieve their full potential and we will end up having to pay for that later.
Every time this government cuts the incomes of the people at the very bottom, the poorest and most vulnerable, and hurts their ability to provide adequate nutrition and housing, that creates a social deficit for which we will be paying later. It doesn't make sense. This government is a government that purports to govern on the basis of common sense and yet, because of its commitment to transfer wealth upwards, to redistribute wealth to those people who do not need assistance by taking it away from those who do and from the services that they require in order to be productive and provide for themselves and contribute to society, they are creating a serious social deficit that will cost us all. It will cost Ontario and it is something that we will be paying for many generations.
Somehow this government has to recognize that what they are proposing and what they are doing, the agenda on which they have embarked, no matter how they try to make it look as if they are caring, is based on a basic contradiction. You don't care for people by taking away their chance for education, you don't care for people by foisting debt upon them, you don't care for people by taking away their ability to feed themselves nutritionally. This is not tough love, it's just tough. You're hurting our society. You're creating a social deficit that is going to cost us all for many generations to come.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to thank the member across for his comments. He makes a few comments, especially with regard to post-secondary education and increases that the government has not foisted upon universities, not forced upon universities, but the government only says to universities and colleges that they are allowed to make increases in tuition.
I might say off the top that I've been opposed to this in our government. I've written editorials about it and I've spoken to the minister about it. I don't believe we should be allowing increases in tuition by the colleges and universities at least until the Provincial Auditor is allowed to do value-for-money audits of these institutions. Currently, he's not allowed to do that. I have a private member's bill which I hope to reintroduce that will allow the Provincial Auditor into those institutions so we can get a little better handle on exactly how they're spending their money before students have to continually face tuition increases.
1920
That being said, it should be pointed out to everyone who may be listening at home that the NDP themselves at least three times allowed tuition fee increases of 10% each year. The NDP did that and they did not make any concessions like we have for poor students. We have said that any time an institution wants to increase tuition fees, it must set aside 10% of those new revenues for grants for poor students. That's something we did that the NDP did not even consider doing.
Also, these tuition fees for colleges and universities going up is directly attributable to the policies of the two governments opposite, which racked up debts year after year. We now spend $9 billion-plus a year on interest payments. If we didn't spend money on interest, we could spend it -
The Acting Speaker: Thanks, member for Niagara Falls.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to thank the member for Algoma for his comments. I'll address my comments to the last speaker, for Niagara Falls, because I heard a lot of nonsense in the speaker's comments. You see, it is a national embarrassment that Ontario ranks 10th out of 10, dead last, in support for universities per capita in Canada. In fact Ontario has the second-highest amount of tuition, after Nova Scotia, that we place as a burden on students.
This notion he suggests, that if universities and colleges decide they're going to raise tuitions they've got to give some to the students, is just a tax on students. What happens is students pay the fare and then they give it to the other students, where the government has reduced its share 15.5% over the last two years. In fact, when the Council of Ontario Universities came to do pre-budget consultations, they showed very clearly that 48 of 50 states in the United States actually increased their investment in post-secondary education. The two exceptions were Hawaii and Alaska, but all the rest had an average increase of 10%. What does Ontario do? Ontario decreases its share and its support for post-secondary education.
Both members have referred to OSAP. This government has rewritten the rules to make it more difficult for students to get assistance. In fact they're placing a larger burden on students and their families to fund their own education. If that is not downloading, I don't know what is. This government has its priorities wrong. They should be taking their responsibilities very seriously.
Mr Marchese: I'm going to support the member for Algoma with his focus on education, post-secondary and elementary, and would briefly say to the member for Niagara Falls that he and his government, through Mike Harris, is wrapping up the biggest deficit that we have ever seen. His $5-billion giveaway, to the minister who's yapping there, to the wealthiest Ontarians is not only economically stupid but immoral, I argue. He should know that; they should know that. But it's not directed to him, it's directed to the people listening to this program.
That money is not going to the middle class or to the working poor. It's going to wealthy Ontarians, the people these folks here support. These people here, these Tories, are supporting and promoting a 1990 model of social Darwinism. That's what these people are promoting, under the guise of everybody being equal and providing equal opportunities to all. Everybody knows we don't all have the same opportunities and the same equality in this society. Everyone knows that if you're a millionaire, you're more equal than the little guy who's only got a couple of thousand dollars in the bank. Everyone knows that.
When the member for Algoma says we are increasing the burden for university students, he's dead right. That burden is being placed on middle-class parents and middle-class students. My daughter, first-year university, quit in second year because she could not afford to make the payments. I paid the first year but could not afford the second year.
We have thousands of middle-class students who cannot afford those tuition fees. M. Maves from Niagara Falls says it's okay if we do that, that we're not forcing the universities to raise tuition fees, we're allowing them to do it. It's the same thing.
Mr Newman: It's always nice to follow the member who speaks for Bay Street here in the House.
The member for Algoma spoke about tuition and student debts being $40,000 in some cases. From the math that I did here, tuition is $3,600 a year and it's four years of university. Four times $3,600 is $14,400.
Mr Wildman: I said $20,000, and you include their living expenses.
Mr Newman: Oh, $20,000. Okay, sorry. Then not all of the debt load is tuition. Some of it is housing and living costs. You have people who have racked up debts of $40,000 and have chosen to be in school for eight years and have done a couple of undergraduate degrees and may have chosen not to work. I think there are lots of opportunities in this province today to get a part-time job to help yourself through university. That's what I chose to do.
Speaking of jobs in this province, 325,000 more jobs have been created in this province since June 1995, when we took office. We cut taxes 30 times to create those 325,000 jobs. If we look back at the legacy of the NDP government from 1990 to 1995, they actually increased taxes 32 times, some of them retroactively, I might add, taking money right out of the pockets of hardworking Ontarians. Their 32 tax increases actually led to a decrease of 10,000 working in this province, a loss of 10,000 jobs.
What we've seen here today is that tax cuts equal jobs, 325,000 more people working in the province of Ontario versus a plan where you hike taxes and drive jobs and investment away from the province.
The Acting Speaker: Further comments or questions? The member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley:I found that a very interesting speech. I appreciate the fact that you have provided for -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm told that I miscounted and that you're the fifth, and I can't allow that. But thanks very much for offering to do that, anyway.
The Chair recognizes the member for Algoma with two minutes to respond.
Mr Wildman: I regret very much that my friend from St Catharines didn't have the opportunity to comment, but I'm sure he will find some time to speak during this debate. I want to thank the members who have commented and made suggestions to me about my intervention.
The member for Scarborough Centre mistakenly said that I had indicated the debt was at $40,000. I didn't; I said the projections are that it will rise, but right now it's about $20,000. The income-contingent plan means more debt over a longer period of time, and it could mean as much as $60,000 or $65,000 over the next 20 years.
The member for Niagara Falls said that the government was not forcing universities and colleges to raise tuition fees; it was just allowing them to. At the time you allow them to and then cut their funding, you're indeed forcing them to.
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: You did; you cut the funding at the post-secondary level by $400 million.
Mr Maves: We didn't do it last year.
Mr Wildman: The first year you were in power you did. The government also deregulated the tuition fees so students will have to pay more. Poorer students do not have access, and those students who are helped by universities are essentially being subsidized by the other students.
I appreciate the comments of the member for Oriole. He's quite right that Ontario is last in funding for universities and second-highest in tuition fees and OSAP has been cut to the point that people on social assistance can't even get it any more.
1930
The member for Fort York was quite right about what we're doing in this province. This is a government that purports to help people but essentially believes that the people who are poor have too much money and the people who are rich don't have enough. That is the reason they are giving the people who are rich and wealthy more money and cutting the incomes of the people at the bottom. They are redistributing wealth upward and creating a deficit for which we'll all pay.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): I am very pleased to rise in the House tonight to speak in response to the throne speech. As well as representing the constituency of Eglinton and the constituents thereof, I consider the business community to be one of my special constituencies. It is because of my background that I feel that way. I have dealt and continue to deal with the business community.
Through my business experience, and as previous Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and now as the chairman of the Ontario International Trade Corp, I had the opportunity to meet with businesses and sector groups to discuss various trade opportunities as well and I have travelled with businesses on trade missions to all parts of the world. The conclusions I have reached after listening to the people I've had the chance to meet with support what we have heard in the speech from the throne last week.
I heard that a strong economy is key to creating new jobs. I also heard that the province must become a welcoming haven for new investment if we're to proceed sensibly. I also heard that the province must create a climate that is attractive to our brightest and our best minds to keep them here in Ontario. That is essential for our development. Also, I have heard that high-quality social services for the people of Ontario attract investments to this province. I think one of the most important things I have heard is that we must provide the opportunities for our children, and by that I mean a quality education that's going to produce a job opportunity for them in the long run.
Businesses of all sizes have told me that they want no surprises in government. They do not want an employer health tax somewhere in the middle of their economic planning, which happened back in the late 1980s.
They want the example of a balanced budget to send a message out to various businesses that we are a very sensible business climate. They also want us to keep on trying to eliminate our deficit because ultimately that has a big effect on our income taxes.
They also want, and have told me, that the government should step aside sensibly and let businesses operate in a proper manner. Also, they want us to produce sensible and competitive tax rates. They want our utility rates to be competitive. They want our workers' compensation rates to be reasonable. They want our minimum wage to be competitive.
The merit system should decide who gets the various jobs and the various promotions.
There should be a proper balance between management and labour, and that's what we did back in 1995 after being elected.
They want to have a skilled labour force so that they can count on people to do the jobs properly when they locate here. I'm happy to say that 56% of our labour force has some college or university training, which is a very high rate.
They want a stable labour force with low turnover. Ours is 5% in Ontario, and that's very good. They want low absenteeism. Ours is 4% in the province, again a very good statistic. They want long tenure on jobs. The average tenure in Ontario is nine years.
They want fewer work stoppages than have occurred in the past, and I am pleased to say that it is less than one tenth of 1% now. They want labour rates that are competitive with other jurisdictions. They want a health care system that is effective and less costly than other jurisdictions.
I am pleased to note that the OHIP cost for companies is about $600 to $700 per person, where in the United States the cost to a company with a health plan is about six times that, or $4,200. It's a big advantage for Ontario.
They want an environment for research and development that is competitive with the rest of the world. I think we have the best R&D tax credit system in the world.
They want a well-maintained and fully integrated infrastructure for travel, shipping and telecommunications. Things in this area have improved dramatically since our election in 1995. They want a strong working relationship among colleges, universities, business and government, and that really means the centres of excellence which our government has made a big commitment to for the next five years.
I would like to cite the job creation facts that have been spoken about many times over the last week. Since July 1995 there have been almost 350,000 net new jobs created. I am adding the April statistics to what the previous speaker mentioned. You might be interested to know that 336,000 of these jobs were created by the private sector, which says a lot for the encouragement we've given the private sector.
From February 1997 to February 1998, 265,000 net new jobs were created in the private sector. Average annual employment for 1997 was 102,000 people higher than the average annual employment rate in 1996. These are all good statistics. It means we are doing the right things.
Also, in my capacity as the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and now as chairman of the Ontario International Trade Corp, I have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity to open or announce or be involved in the announcement of a new plant opening probably every month in this province. Of course there are many more, but those are all I can be involved in.
All this shows that the government is indeed listening. For the budget will be balanced, we know, by the year 2000. Who knows? It might be even sooner.
Mr Bradley: It could be earlier.
Mr Saunderson: It might be. Personal tax cuts have been achieved and they will be cut even further. By the end of 1999, we will have the lowest personal tax rates in Canada. I am told that Alberta is jealous and might try to lower theirs. Wouldn't that be nice, to have governments competing to have the lower rates rather than the higher rates?
Also, the employer health tax is being eliminated for over 80% of Ontario companies and that is a tremendous saving for the average small- and medium-sized company of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,000 or more per year.
Our labour law changes have improved our competitive positions, as I mentioned earlier, and I think our indicated future actions in this area will help construction for the petrochemical industry, which is basically located in Sarnia. In other words, what we're providing is a predictable and sensible government, and this type of government indeed sends the right messages out to business.
I have just been involved with the export marketing task force that will soon make its report. It has just concluded its deliberations. It gave me a chance to meet with leading Ontario exporters. I am happy to tell you that Ontario has a strong exporting economy. Exports account for 43% of Ontario's gross domestic product. It is a higher proportion than in any other G-7 country or jurisdiction. Even though Ontario's exports have grown more rapidly than GDP over the past decade, there is a significant opportunity for Ontario to grow its export base.
Some suggestions I heard from that task force are very interesting. I heard that we should try as a government to enhance Ontario's business climate and encourage foreign investment; that we should build a more pervasive global export mindset; that we should improve and expand science and education, for after all, the science and technology area is the future for our young people; that we should create and maintain research centres of excellence and we should have corporate tax rates which are competitive with those of neighbouring US states. We should reduce the regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to conducting business efficiently and we should continue to reduce income rates in general.
These suggestions give additional support to what our government has done and will do as a result of the throne speech. These suggestions came from approximately 30% of the Ontario business leaders of small and medium-sized enterprises. Without any reference to what we had done, this was their original work.
1940
I'd like to speak for a moment about early childhood education. Research tells us that the early years are key to development in languages and in sciences. Dr Fraser Mustard is a renowned expert in this field, and I have known Fraser Mustard since my university days. I admire him and I agree with him 100%. I might say that when I was meeting with my caucus at our retreat in Collingwood, I stressed the work of Fraser Mustard. The study that he and Margaret McCain will undertake in the next little while will give us some input in how best - and I want to say this. We know what he's done and there's a lot on the shelf and we appreciate that, but what he's going to do is to tell us how best to prepare young and preschool children for a lifetime of education; in other words, to sow the seeds of desire to learn more and more and develop as the economy and science develop over the next few years. I look forward to the recommendations along these lines that will come forward.
As I watch my own grandchildren - and I'd like to name them: Madeleine, Jacob, Nathan, Nicole, Dylan, Max and Cole - I never cease to be amazed at their ability to absorb information and at their very young ages to know the ways of computers and to sign on and work with computers. It's impressive, and if we learn more about the learning process and continually reassess how to best prepare our children for the future, then we will be doing them a great service.
Mr Bradley: I hope you haven't given them the Common Sense Revolution to read.
Mr Saunderson: Some of them have gotten through the first page already and the last page, and that's really all you need.
We have to have more emphasis on science and math in our elementary and secondary schools, because if we have this emphasis, we are going to help our young people prepare for high-technology jobs. I was very glad to see some reference made to this subject in the speech from the throne and I'm particularly happy with the education minister's approach to only not more science and math in the school system but also in junior kindergarten, which I think is essential, where it's possible.
Mr Wildman: That's a heavy point there.
Mr Saunderson: But it is a very important point.
I would also like to talk a little bit about our centres of excellence, which I referred to earlier. Centres of excellence give us a chance as a government to work with the business community and the academic community. As you know, there are now three centres of excellence in the province, with more likely to be created, but this has helped Ontario establish a reputation in the rest of the world in science and technology.
In that connection, I would like to congratulate Canadian astronaut David Williams, who has spend a great deal of his life in Ontario. I had the chance to meet with the entire crew of the Columbia space mission last summer when they were training at York University for their flight on the neurolab mission which is now in process. Mr Speaker, I don't know if you've had the opportunity to see the television coverage of the space shuttle, but if you have a chance, you will see a space lab which is fully equipped with an international space laboratory and partly through our centres of excellence that machine has been equipped. Indeed, Ontario has contributed to the work being done in space and I think we should all feel very proud of that.
I'd also like to touch on the Toronto Olympic bid, which will not only mean special attention to Toronto but also to Ontario, to Jim Bradley's constituency over near St Catharines in the rowing course, but it'll also help Canada as well. There will be a great deal of infrastructure made for that project. What that means is that there will be many facilities left over for our athletes to use long after the Olympics have come and gone. It's an opportunity to show Ontario to the world, and particularly Toronto, both as a tourist destination and as an investment opportunity. The athletes will not only benefit from these facilities, but so will the people, because many uses can be made of these facilities that will be left behind.
Speaking as the father of an Olympic competitor, my son Brian, once we get the Olympics to Ontario in 2008, I think we will recognize a great pride of accomplishment in our youth and in our businesses and in fact in all of our people.
Ontario is in the midst of one of its strongest economic growth periods ever. We're leading the Canadian economy and outperforming other G-7 nations. Right now we are growing at a rate of approximately 4% of GDP, which is a very high rate for a developed country.
If we're going to keep Ontario's economy growing, we must continue to expand our trade. As I mentioned, we have recently had a task force on foreign trade. If the recommendations that I think will be made come to pass, we will certainly expand our trade and we will have much more than the 2% of the world's imports that we presently have.
It's interesting to note that if you take away the United States from our exports, we really only have 0.23% of the world's imports. We can, and we must, do much better. If we do, we will create much more economic activity, we will create more jobs, we will get more people working and our young people will have the jobs they so richly deserve. But as I say, we must look beyond our major trading partner, the United States. We have to look to the Far East, to Europe, and to South America particularly.
A year ago, I had the opportunity of taking 15 companies, two colleges and one university to South America. We visited Chile, Argentina and Brazil. We came back with some $77 million worth of orders - not bad for a small trip - but it did open up our eyes to the fact that there was much to be done in our trade with South America. As you know, we are about to have a free trade agreement between Canada and Chile, and I hope that will be expanded to include the countries that belong to the Mercosur agreement.
I found also on that trip that what we really needed to do was to come back to Ontario and host a trade event which would give the people who want to trade with South America a chance to come and hear from those companies that went, and that were very successful, how easy it is to do business. So we did hold the Tradewinds forum in early December of this year. We attracted some 250 companies that came as a prelude to the Team Canada mission that went to South America in January, led by the Prime Minister and all the premiers of the provinces of this country. That showed to me what we can do to promote external trade. We're going to do more trips, then come back and report and then have a forum so that people can go off and do it sensibly in other parts of the world.
We have to encourage an understanding of the global economy through our education system. I believe that unless we educate our students to the benefits of foreign trade, they will grow up the poorer for it. So I'm glad to see that there is a change in our curriculum, for the high schools particularly. I also think our universities and particularly our business schools should add more courses concerning internationalism and external trade.
We should be proud of Ontario. We are a province that is blessed by geography and with excellent people. I am proud to be part of a government that is producing a business climate which I think is going to realize the potential for Ontario. In short, this government that we're talking about today in the speech from the throne is committed to making Ontario the best place to live, to work and to raise a family. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind attention.
1950
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bradley: I want to thank the member for Eglinton for his contribution to the House. He and I get along very well even though we have different points of view on a number of issues. It is very nice as well that his wife, Meredith, is in the gallery here this evening to watch him perform. She is joining so many in the gallery this evening who are watching, who came in for Bill's speech.
What I liked about his approach was his upfront honesty on issues. I used to ask him questions about gas prices. There were people on the government side who would make up these answers. I'm told that happens from time to time, that ministers don't always answer as accurately as we would like, don't always stick as close to the truth as we would like to see it happen. He was a minister at the time and I asked him the question about gas prices. He was honest enough to say, "Look, this government isn't in the business of regulating gas prices," which was the honest answer.
But then I heard the Premier barking, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all. The Premier was barking up in North Bay about this again. He was going to do something about this if the gas prices went up again. Of course the real answer was that the Premier would huff and puff and make a lot of noise and one of the newspapers in Toronto would say that he was really going to take on the gas companies. But the man who gave the honest answer - "We're not in the business of regulating gas prices" - was Bill Saunderson.
I like that approach. Even if I don't agree with it and I would like intervention, I like that approach. I want to compliment him on a very nice speech this evening.
Mr Marchese: The member for Eglinton has covered a lot of ground tonight. I want to limit myself to three areas he has talked about.
First is the early childhood education. I would agree with him, obviously, that early childhood education is a critical part of the continuum of an educational system that benefits all of society. It does benefit young people, particularly those young people who come from uneven conditions in the home where the inequality of income is great. We have no disagreement with that and we're happy you raised it in the caucus. The only problem is that we should be acting on it.
I remember Dave Johnson saying, when he wanted to do the amalgamation: "We've got piles of studies over here. It's time to act." You remember Dave would bring his piles of studies? There are piles of study on the benefits of early childhood education across the world. France is one of those countries that does it effectively. We don't need more studies. We need an action plan and we need it today.
On the other matter you raised, in terms of including courses on globalization, I agree with that. You know what they should talk about there, member for Eglinton? They should talk about the fact that the transnational economy is destroying the middle class everywhere in the world, creating an entrenched underclass in every country. The top third of the world are getting richer, the bottom third more desperate and the middle third are falling steadily downward. I agree we should talk about that global economy and what it's doing to countries and individuals.
On the issue of tax breaks, a study conducted by the government's technical committee on business taxation concludes: "There appears to be no evidence or linkage between the general level of taxes in an economy and the level of unemployment." I'll get into that as soon as I have an opportunity to speak tonight.
Mr Maves: I'd like to take the opportunity to really tell the public about how important the member for Eglinton has been to Ontario for the past two and a half years and to our government. He's given this government a great deal of very quiet but effective leadership.
He can be held responsible for much of the economic boom that's occurring in Ontario right now - 342,000 jobs since this government took office. For a lot of that you have to look towards this member who was the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism in the first few years of this government.
Some of his accomplishments were developing a marketing program to sell Ontario not only as a travel and tourism destination but, more importantly, as a place to invest. Through his stewardship he has instilled confidence in businesses all over the world and especially in Ontario. Through that fiscal responsibility through the tax cuts this government has brought in, that's given confidence to the business community and they're now investing in Ontario in huge numbers.
I want to thank this member for his support for the 1999 World Rowing Championships in St Catharines, seeing his way clear to making sure that over $1 million, I believe, has come from this government to St Catharines to fix that course. I know the member for St Catharines-Brock, Mr Froese, worked extremely hard lobbying the member for Eglinton to get that money, and they both deserved to be credited.
I think it was important that someone stood and let the public know and relayed to the House the very strong leadership that this member for Eglinton has given this government in its first two and a half years and that I hope he will continue to impart.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm delighted to be able to comment on the fine presentation of the member for Eglinton.
First off, I want to congratulate my colleague the member for St Catharines for lobbying the minister of the time over that rowing course. I'm sure that was just an inadvertent mistake by the member for Niagara Falls.
One of the things I was particularly intrigued with as I listened carefully to the speech was the comments regarding early childhood education. I think the member would also understand that continuing education is of paramount importance in the province of Ontario. I know the member will be particularly interested in this letter I have from the physicians in Elliot Lake.
The physicians at the Elliot Lake clinic are writing, most upset that the continuing medical education program for rural physicians - for them - is being cut by 75%. I want you to listen to this for just one moment because I'm sure you will take this to your colleagues.
"Elliot Lake is a community of approximately 14,000. Secondary referral centres are in Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury, both about two hours away. For a community of its size, Elliot Lake is unique in medical coverage in that there are no internal medicine specialists or subspecialists covering a now senior population. The increased amount and complexity of care required by this population falls to a group of dedicated general practitioners and anaesthetists. To fulfil their responsibilities, they are required to maintain a skill set that sometimes exceeds those of their smaller town colleagues and definitely exceeds those of the GPs in the larger metropolitan areas. This can only be carried out by continuing medical education."
I say to the minister, we need to do this too.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Eglinton, if he would like two minutes to respond.
Mr Saunderson: Yes, I would like to respond. I'd like first of all to thank the various members whom I've got to know over almost three years. They are much younger than I am by far.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): By far.
Mr Saunderson: By far, I can tell you. They are probably much wiser in the way of politics than I am.
I would like to say, though, particularly on an evening like this, it's a lot less combative than earlier in the day. I guess a lot of us have got to know each other a lot better during these periods. I count them as my friends - sometimes debaters against me or my party, but I consider them friends and I treasure that and always will.
On early childhood education, I think we are acting in a way that is going to produce a very educated population in the long run. I'm particularly pleased with the decision to continue to fund junior kindergarten if a school board wishes to do that and is already doing that. I'm a great believer, as I said earlier, in early childhood education. It only takes having grandchildren to make you realize how important that is.
I also recall your comments about the middle class. I think a strong middle class is the backbone of any free enterprise society. I really believe that the way to get a strong middle class is to keep taxes reasonable for those people. I don't mind the people at the high end paying lots of tax or reasonably lots of tax, but I do think the middle class has to have spending income so that they can create the jobs and economic activity that's worthwhile.
To the member for Algoma-Manitoulin on continuing education, I guess I still feel the same way, but I think we could use our community colleges better. I think they're only occupied about 75% of the time. They could be more fully used.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the speech from the throne. Perhaps I'll begin by talking about the issue that the member for Eglinton talked about, and that is trade. I share with him the belief that Ontario's future depends on our ability to compete globally. It's of interest to me that five or six years ago actually about 85% of our exports went to the US, and obviously 15% to the rest of the world. If I'm not mistaken, the number now is 90% going to the US and 10% to the rest of the world. I applaud our growth of trade with the US but I do think, as I think the member for Eglinton was implying, that there's much to be done in developing our business in other countries apart from the US. That's to take nothing away from the need to aggressively develop our business in the US.
2000
I would comment that I was interested in going through this, I think, quite good document that perhaps the member himself was involved in preparing - Ontario: The Future is Right Here, Doing Business in the Global Economy. I thought it was quite a good document, actually. But I would just say that many of the points used to sell Ontario are things that have to do with the quality of life here in Ontario.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Absolutely.
Mr Chudleigh: Why not?
Mr Phillips: Why not? I agree with that. That's a good idea. But we have to understand what makes up that quality of life.
Mr Froese: You're right.
Mr Phillips: The members have attacked our education system. The Premier himself said it was broken. Here in the document: "The education and skill attainment level of Ontario's labour force is one of our greatest strengths." Share of workforce with some post-secondary education: You can see Ontario ranking way up there. Increase in share of manufacturing workforce with some post-secondary education: Ontario ranks way up there.
It goes on to say: "Ontario is the preferred location for those who value quality of life. In 1994 Canada ranked first in the United Nations development.... Ontario's prime rate is dramatically lower than comparable North American areas."
It talks about the crime rate being low, about our education levels being high, about our enormous advantages in health care costs for our manufacturing sector.
"Ontario's labour force is a highly productive and cost-competitive labour force."
I go through all of that because I think we run the risk of tampering with some of the things that have made Ontario fundamentally successful. We talked earlier today about tuition fees going up dramatically for young people. I don't think it's any accident that we have a high level of post-secondary enrolment, and one of the reasons is that it has been affordable for young people to enrol in post-secondary school.
We have a comparatively low crime rate. I don't want anybody to misinterpret it and say that the crime rate is satisfactory. It should and must be lower. But I think we have to look at the reasons why we have substantially lower rates. The document you put out here shows the homicide rate. This is Toronto here and other major US cities here.
The reason I go through all of that is that the Premier has implied in many respects that Ontario has been broken, it needs a revolution to fundamentally change it. You have had the revolution and we've experienced it. But I would just say, let's recognize that the strengths of Canada, the strengths of Ontario have been, in many respects, the quality of life - the quality of life for less fortunate people in terms of a system to help them on social assistance, access to post-secondary learning that's available to everyone. Certainly when I was growing up it was never a thought that I could not afford to go to university. In Ontario it was always possible, regardless of your income.
Moving on to two or three other issues that I don't think have been discussed a lot here in the Legislature, let me talk a little bit about education for moment. I have some significant concerns in some areas that we haven't talked about. One is in the area of how we are going to provide new pupil places in Ontario for our growing enrolment. We talked earlier today about enrolment growing by roughly 25,000 students a year.
The government has chosen to move to a new way of funding new schools. Essentially the government is going to have school boards lease schools, get the private sector to build a school and the school boards will lease them. I personally do not have a problem with leasing accommodation. Governments have done that in office buildings and all those sorts of things. I don't have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem is that in my opinion it's an accounting trick to understate the expenditures.
Every year for a long, long while, because of the enrolment growth, the province has spent roughly $400 million on new schools. When you move to leasing, you can dramatically cut that cost because you're not funding the cost of the new school, you're simply going to get someone else to finance it and you will lease it. The government now has put in place this new leasing formula and they've allocated roughly $90 million a year for the next few years. In my opinion, that's a debt trap. The cumulative lease costs will come home to haunt us. It's a device used by many governments.
I have a report here from the Nova Scotia government. They moved to leasing schools several years ago and the auditor pointed out - perhaps I could read his comments. Hopefully I can find it quickly. He suggested, "Governments want to lease schools because annual rental payments cause less short-term damage to the public balance sheet than major building projects."
Governments of all political stripes fall into this trap, as they get closer to an election, of starting to figure a way to make the books look a little bit better. I think this leasing one is an example where we are potentially heading into a debt trap.
By the way, if you haven't already heard from your municipalities, this is starting to have a significant impact in municipalities. I attended what's called the GTA mayors' meetings an important body that meets monthly to talk about GTA-wide issues. The first item on the agenda was a major issue dealing with this from Ajax, where the council has found that a developer is planning to build two high schools, move them out of the neighbourhood, put them in an industrial area, against the wishes of the council, and has gone now to the OMB to get approval for it. I would just say that all of us should challenge the finance minister and the education minister to look at the long-term implications of this, because I think it's going to be a debt trap.
Within education, by the way, I would also say that the province now has 100% responsibility for education. It sets every school boards' budget, down to the last penny. It sets the educational property tax rates. No one else does it. Actually, the cabinet sets it. Nobody can debate it. None of us approves it. It's set by them.
In my opinion, this budget should be showing the $6.1 billion of educational property tax revenue. It should be shown as part of the provincial books and the offsetting expenditure. That may be an issue only for myself and the financial community, but it's significant. You will find now the province has to put in $300 million a year to cover the debt servicing costs of school boards or the interest that school boards are paying on the debt. The Provincial Auditor has yet to comment on it. As I say, it's an issue perhaps of importance only initially to the financial community, but that's something we should be looking for in the budget. The third-largest source of revenue now for the province of Ontario, after personal income tax and sales tax, is property tax - the third-largest source of income - and it's never shown on the books, even though the province now sets that property tax rate. I think the businesses now know that 60% of their property taxes are set by the province and go to paying for education.
2010
I wanted to talk about another issue in the speech from the throne, and that is health care. I remember very well the first major statement by the new government was the 1995 fiscal and economic statement. In that fiscal and economic statement the government made a major decision on spending. That's when, if you remember, the government announced it was going to cut funding for hospitals. It said - this is from 1995 - "Transfers to hospitals currently total $7.3 billion. They will be reduced by $365 million in 1996-97, by an additional $435 million in 1997-98 and a further $505 million in 1998-99."
I remember very clearly that this was the first major announcement on health care, and it was to cut funding for hospitals. Many people, those of us in opposition, said: "Listen, you're making a mistake here. You are cutting the heart out of hospitals and there's no evidence that you've got in place the community services." I would say if you read the speech from the throne, it finally was an acknowledgement -
Mr Bradley: Thirty-two hospitals closed.
Mr Phillips: Yes, 32 hospitals closed. There finally was an acknowledgement, in the speech from the throne, that this was a mistake.
By the way, just as an aside - I don't want to sound petty about this - someone said it's been a decade since long-term care beds were approved. That's not factually correct. I can remember they were approved in 1989 and 1990. The reason I remember is - this is the way politics works - Bob Rae came and snipped the ribbon to open them when they were completed. I sat in the back row and watched it enviously. It's just the way it all works; he arrived in the limo and was greeted by all the dignitaries.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: That's the way it works, Bill, you're right.
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): But you're not bitter.
Mr Phillips: I'm not bitter. I got over it.
The reason I raise it is that, I think if members looked at it objectively, it was a mistake to be cutting the hospital budgets in 1995 without any services in place. All of us in our hospitals have experienced tragedies, with hospitals unable to provide essential services. As I say, it was a mistake then; I think the government was told it was a mistake then, and the speech from the throne finally acknowledged it.
I wanted to talk briefly about something I've never talked about much publicly, and it has to do with one of the things early in the speech from the throne. That's to do with the Calgary framework for unity, I think is the term used. All of us have a strong interest in seeing a united Canada. One of the most moving experiences in my political life was at the time of the last referendum in Quebec. If you remember, there was a rally in Montreal and buses from around Ontario headed down there. As I say, it was one of the most memorable days in my life.
I arrived to get on the bus at the Scarborough city hall at about 5:30 in the morning, kind of a misty day in October or November - I'm not sure what month. I was amazed there was only one seat left on the bus. The bus was filled at 5:30 in the morning. I got on the front seat of the bus and there was an 84-year-old woman there who had to order her 92-year-old husband not to come because he wasn't that well. But he wanted to come.
Away we went. All along the highway were people who couldn't go, waving flags. This was at 5:30 in the morning. We made our way into Montreal. It was a noon rally. I made my way towards the stage, and in front of me were two people who were blind. There was a huge crush there, and as the dignitaries were leaving the stage things got a little out of hand because they were trying to force an opening. The two people who were blind were being jostled around, so I gave them a little bit of a hand. I simply assumed they were with somebody and were from Montreal. I said to them, "Where are you from?" They said, "We're from Toronto." I said, "Are you with somebody?" "No." They were totally blind, all on their own and all they had was a piece of paper that said, "Where's the bus we're on?" It was Can-Ar 124, or something like that. I talked to them a little bit. They said they got up at, like, 4 o'clock in the morning, phoned a cab, got over and got on the bus.
For me, there are the 84-year-old woman who had to order her husband not to come and then the two people who were completely blind who made their way to Montreal. It just shows you the enormous commitment we all have to this country, and the lengths to which people are prepared to go. I think most of us felt, how can we help in this thing? We felt helpless. It was that event that allowed some people to express their commitment to Canada. To me, it was almost symbolic of the country that I believe in, the country that we all believe in. I appreciated the comment in the speech from the throne and I do hope we can play a helpful role in assisting to pull this country together once and for all.
Finally, just to close on the point that my colleague from Eglinton made on the Olympic bid, I'm a supporter of the Olympics. One of our sons and I got in a car at 8 o'clock one night, we drove all night to Atlanta, we found a motel room, we were able to secure - we had no tickets.
Mr Bradley: I hope you didn't buy from scalpers.
Mr Phillips: I was afraid you'd raise that. There were people who had extra tickets on the street who were prepared to sell them, and they weren't bargains.
Actually, we happened to be there the weekend of the Canadian rowing success, and we watched Donovan Bailey win the race - we were as far away from him as you could be, but we were there. It was an exciting event that I think could knit Toronto together. So I'm personally very supportive of it. I happen to think we could host the best Olympics ever.
One of the unique things about Toronto is our enormous diversity. I think every country would feel at home here because there are significant communities living here whose origins are literally from every country around the world. I'm speaking personally, and I know my leader has sent a letter of support for it. I would look forward to Toronto hosting the Olympics and I think it would be an enormous shot in the arm.
To conclude, clearly I have some significant differences of opinion with the government. In many respects I fundamentally disagree with much and I'm dedicated to our party putting forward the alternative to the government and letting the people make that decision. I don't dispute that all of us in this Legislature have a different view of what's best for Ontario, but we're all, in our hearts, trying to do what we think is best for Ontario. I appreciate the chance to provide some comments on the speech from the throne.
2020
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Marchese: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has touched on many different areas. He talked on issues of health and education as well as some other financial matters, and national unity issues as well. I want to limit myself briefly on those remarks, to agree in the areas of health care spending or lack of it or the approach this government has used that would have differed, obviously, from ours.
You have made the decision to cut funds from hospitals, which created a severe shortage of nurses, whom you fired, a severe shortage of care that should be properly in the community as you push people out of hospitals to save money. Long-term care has obviously been suffering and will continue to suffer for a long time because the needs are there and will continue to grow without those services.
I go back to the previous point about M. Ernie Eves saying last year in his budget that they were going to spend "$2.7 billion of investments in restructuring our community-based health care system." He said, "We continue with that promise to reinvest." You invested nothing in that area in spite of the promise that fellow made.
This present minister says now, "We are going to invest $1.2 billion over eight years." M. Eves had promised $2.7 in five. Presumably we're talking about the same money. We're playing with the same money, except the minister now has found a lot less than Mr Eves had found that he didn't spend. So now we're dealing with $1.2 billion over eight years. None of that spending will happen until the year 2000 or take effect until the year 2000, and who knows whether the commitment of that money will remain in years to come? We are worried about the promises this government has made and is not keeping.
Mr Caplan: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for an excellent presentation. I will touch on two areas that he spoke about.
The first was in the matter of property taxation. I would really encourage members of the government to pay very close attention to his very wise counsel. I don't want to embarrass him, but Gerry Phillips has pointed out numerous times where the government should have been listening because of the chaos they were going to be causing with their property tax manoeuvres and what that was going to cause. We saw the results of that over this past winter and spring. Had they taken the time to listen to the member, it's possible that transition and those changes would have gone much more smoothly. As it is, the solution the finance minister has come up with is one to merely delay the problem instead of looking at it as a comprehensive package. I hope the government would heed the words of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt because he makes a great deal of sense.
The other is in health care. In health care the government has chosen the wrong direction in closing hospitals like North York Branson Hospital in my area. There were some really interesting problems. Because North York Branson faced closure prematurely, they could not generate a critical mass of staff - that's doctors, nurses, cleaners, all of the support staff - to be able to maintain that hospital, because of the chaos this government has caused.
It comes down to one thing: They just don't listen when these problems are highlighted. I hope that will change, but I don't think it will.
Mr Bradley: I want to compliment the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his usual smooth presentation this evening: smooth in that it has a lot of content in it, it flows well and it's very logical.
I always appreciate that he puts out this document called Treasury Watch every once in a while. I try to get an advance copy slipped under the door in a brown envelope, because it shows up the next day and it's available for all to see. It provides some excellent insight into what's really going on in terms of Ontario finances.
I wanted to ask the member for Scarborough-Agincourt what effect he thought the booming economy in the United States was having on the Ontario economy. I can recall the period from 1985 to 1990 when we had a booming economy in Ontario and I was part of a government that wanted to claim what some said was more credit than we should for the booming economy at the time. I wonder if there's a parallel there today in that we have a situation where when the US economy, particularly the northern US economy, is booming, our economy tends to boom as well.
I also want to add my comments to his about early childhood education. If I've mentioned Fraser Mustard's name, I've mentioned it 25 times in this House. I didn't know that we were going to have another retainer for Dr Mustard for yet another study, because the excellent studies he has already produced and the presentations he has made point clearly to the fact that early childhood education is extremely important and not some frill that the back-to-the-1950s brain trust in the government seems to think it is.
I want to compliment the member on his excellent speech.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to compliment the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I know he's going to be a little surprised that I'd be complimentary and supportive of his comments, but I was particularly taken by his comments about his trip to Montreal and Canadian unity and how impressed he was with that whole activity, the people who went with him who were blind and just the whole scenario that he described.
I hope and I trust that he has been very involved with the Ontario Speaks program and working currently with this government and the concerns that we have on Canadian unity. As we see the struggles in Canada, probably the number one thing that's been holding us back over the years has been this separatist movement. You certainly hear it outside of the country. If you visit almost any country in the world, the first question is about Quebec and, "Will Canada really hold together?"
I did hear him make reference to some of the things that he agrees with and doesn't agree with in our government. Certainly with the tradition of tax, spend and borrow that the Liberals have had in the past, I can understand why they wouldn't want to agree with some of things we're doing.
He talked about some of the cuts we've made. Yes, some of those reductions in funding were very difficult to make. I can tell you it wasn't particularly fun on any side of the House as we went through it, but they were absolutely necessary, having followed through on the kind of tax, spend and borrow that had been going on, putting us well over $100 billion into debt.
As I mentioned last night when I spoke, this happens to be, I believe, one of the most compassionate governments that the province of Ontario has ever seen in that we're concerned about our future, our children's future and our grandchildren's future, something that hasn't been going on in the last 10 years.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to respond.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments from everybody, particularly the member for Northumberland. I'd just say, and I always say this to my business friends, you know that over the three years Harris has decided to give a $9-billion tax break. Do you know something? Every penny of that we've got to go out and borrow. Every penny. I'm glad the member for Northumberland mentioned that. Do you know much money that's going to cost us just in the first three years in extra interest costs? Seven hundred million dollars. Then they'll say: "It pays for itself. It's a magical machine."
I took a look at the federal government's income tax revenue and the provincial government's income tax revenue. The federal government's income tax revenue has gone up 21%, the provincial income tax revenue roughly 3% because of the tax cuts. They don't like to hear this, but I say to the taxpayers, $700 million of interest costs to fund Mike Harris's tax cut because we had to borrow every penny of it.
2030
I know we have to deal with the deficit. All the people who are on social assistance, the hospitals that you've cut the spending on, the capital costs you've cut out of school boards, the $600 million you've added on to the property tax, they all understand that the deficit is a problem. What they can't understand is, how can we afford to give $500 million in tax breaks to people making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year? That doesn't make any sense.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Marchese: Speaker, it's okay; they're quiet now. You've tamed them.
The Acting Speaker: I'm looking over there.
Mr Marchese: I'm very happy to have this opportunity. I'm glad we're on live again. This is not a repeat. We're on until 9:30 live, the Ontario forum on politics here.
I just want to briefly comment on the member for Northumberland, who speaks about this government being one of the most compassionate governments ever. You've just got to love that guy. The question is, does he really mean it, and if he does, is there anybody out there who believes it?
I say to the member for Kitchener, if compassion means that you cut $1 billion or so of money to those on social assistance, the most needy in society, and you then give -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. We're down to less than an hour to go this evening, and to some of us that will be something to aim for. Don't let me have to institute the severe rules that are available to me. Please let the member continue.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker, for that intervention.
Speaker, understand this, because I'm sure you're quite capable of comprehending this issue of compassion: They give a $5-billion income tax cut a year with the next cut that's coming in the next few days -
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Gerry just said $9 million. Is Gerry wrong?
Mr Marchese: No, wait, Steve, no. He did come back to the $5 billion. He came back to the $5 billion. It's five billion bucks to the most -
Mr Gilchrist: I want to get a correction.
Mr Marchese: No, no, please don't interrupt again. Thank you.
These guys here are giving a break to the wealthiest Ontarians to the tune of a $5-billion tax break, half of which goes to the wealthiest of Ontarians, and these guys say this is what they mean by compassion. They take $1 billion away from those on social assistance, many of whom they're forcing out into the streets with the cuts they made there and the changes they made through the tenant protection package, forcing a lot of low-income people out in the streets. They call that compassion. Giving billions away to their rich friends is part of that same value system. Come on, member for Northumberland, please, you drive tears to my eyes when you speak in such terms. How can you think anybody believes that baloney? How?
Mr Bradley: Conrad Black believes it.
Mr Marchese: I know Mike Harris believes it.
I saw Conrad Black today at the mass for the late Mr Bassett. I know that he likes these cuts because he benefits. His pockets are deeper than anyone you can think of. He loves the money. With that money he wants to create another national paper because the papers that are already in existence like the Globe and the Sun are just not right-wing enough. We need true ideological Conservative values of the Reform kind, so we need yet another paper. Because we haven't filled the air waves and the print media with enough of that stuff, we need yet one more. The guy controls 60% of all the print media in this country and wants to produce yet another one.
How do you think he does it? Through the tax break from the compassion that the member for Northumberland speaks of, that compassion that you have towards the wealthy, who say, "Good God, if only we had a few more dollars, how much more we could do with it." That's what he means by compassion.
Most revealing in the throne speech was Mike Harris's remark - read through the Speaker, of course. You'll recall a few speeches ago when M. Harris, the Premier, said, "Your government is doing what it said it would do, and it will continue." You recall that hubris, that belligerence, that determination not to be sidestepped in any way, not to be deterred, not to be pushed around. Mr Harris was clear then.
He said in his later speech from the throne, delivered by the Lieutenant Governor, "We are unconditionally committed to reaching our goal of a better Ontario for all, but we are very open to discussing how we get there." He also adds: "Your government is listening. Your government hears you. Your government will move forward with care." Contrast that to the belligerence of the first few speeches that were made in this place, when he says, "Your government is doing what it said it would do, and it will continue."
This is the same Attila the Hun who's about to tell the public: "The barbarism that was committed in the past will cease. We recognize it and we're now going to consult with you, and not only that, we listen, and not only that, we are open to this new way that we are creating in the next year before the election." Do you believe this Attila the Hun transforming himself into a new man? I don't believe it.
When you hear comments such as the pregnant women spending their $37 allowance on beer, this tiger turned pussycat reveals his fangs on an ongoing basis. The fangs are always there. They may retract from time to time, based on the polling that they've done to show that he's a nasty sort of guy. The tiger turned pussycat from time to time reveals the fangs. They come out, and they come out against those poor pregnant women on welfare. The guy says, "We've got to take their money away because they spend it on beer."
Mr Bradley: And the nurses and the hula-hoops.
Mr Marchese: The nurses and the hula-hoops. Who forgot that one? What a wonderful metaphor that one was.
In keeping with this whole spirit of Mike transforming himself into a nice guy, do you believe it? Does anybody watching believe that? Recall Bill 26, which gives ministers absolute power to do what the hell they want. Recall the amalgamation of the city of Toronto with the others, where we voted and 76% said no, and Mikey said: "Too bad. Sorry, that was not a referendum; that was just a little poll you did. It wasn't really a referendum." That was their tough Mike. That tough Mike has turned pussycat now. Do you believe it?
I tell you, it reminds me of a song by Eric Burdon and The Animals, which goes something like this: "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good/Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood." Do you recall that one? This is Mike Harris, a misunderstood Premier. He really cares. He's a compassionate man. In fact, when he beats up on welfare people, he doesn't really mean it. He's doing it for their own good, right, Steve? When Mike beats up on these women, on these young people, on tenants, he's really trying to give them a hand up. The poor man is a misunderstood man. All he needs is a more compassionate media, someone who understands him a little better. For three years the poor man has been crawling about whacking everybody over the head, and later he says: "I've been misunderstood. I really need sympathy from somebody."
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Satisfaction.
2040
Mr Marchese: There you go, the other song. He can't get any satisfaction, from the Rolling Stones. That's the song he should be singing: "I can't get no satisfaction." That's what Mike was doing in his previous three years.
The question is, does the public believe this man has been transformed, this new religious revival that we find through the new Mike and the fine chorus of members that we have on the other side? It is a fine band we've got on the other side.
Compassion: this poor, misunderstood Mike Harris is giving $5 billion away to people who really need it. That's the kind of politics we've got to deal with in this province. The $5 billion that could have been put aside to deal with the deficit is going out of our coffers to give to people with deep pockets, M. Conrad Black, M. Stronach and the like. That's compassion? Is that the kind of compassion Mike Harris is talking about? Is that how he is misunderstood?
These dollars do not create work. I've often quoted people in the past: Professor Donner, who has spoken on many occasions in this regard, who says that basically this tax cut is an ideological tool, that tax cuts are ultimately for the purpose of eroding the role of government and the expectations people have of government. They are not designed to create jobs, because they do not. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your -
Mr Galt: Economics 101.
Mr Marchese: No, it's not Economics 101, member for Northumberland. If that is true, member for Northumberland, you bring the research to me in your Economics 101, the evidence you have gathered that talks about the tax cuts that you folks have made and the jobs they have created. Other than you saying so, there is absolutely no evidence of that.
What you have done ideologically is to convince a whole lot of people they're getting a whole lot of money back, except a whole lot of people at the bottom line are getting very little back. That's why if you ask them, "Have you seen anything in your paycheque?" they say no.
The other matter I wanted to talk briefly to is the fact - and I made mention of this - that Ben Cherniavsky is the person who conducted a study for the government's technical committee on business taxation. He concluded that there appears to be no evidence or linkage between the general level of taxes in an economy and the level of employment. He points out that Sweden, with one of the highest tax burdens of all industrialized countries, also has the third-lowest unemployment rate, while Australia, which has one of the lowest taxation rates, still suffers from relatively high unemployment.
Steve, doesn't that tell you something? We're talking about studies here that reveal that a place like Australia, which has the lowest taxation rate, has a high unemployment level. According to your Economics 101, member for Northumberland, unemployment presumably should be down. But it has the highest level of unemployment, based on its lowest level of taxation on their companies. Where do you see the logic in that? These are studies we're talking about. We're not just dreaming it up for my purposes or the purposes of those who are watching.
If income tax cuts to the provincial rates only benefit the wealthy, they do not create jobs and it's a drain on provincial coffers. If the reduction of taxation levels produces no measurable employment increases, why would you do it? Why take money away from the middle class in order to help the corporations and in order to help the very wealthy individuals in this society? Why would you do that?
I'll tell you why you do it. Because you're ideologically committed to that kind of politics, ideologically committed to a 1990 model of social Darwinism, a model that deliberately creates a contingency workforce.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, one of the members is not sitting in his seat and is very loud.
The Acting Speaker: The back row, we would like to see you make out the rest of the evening here. We invite you to stay and help, but if you don't want to, then I'll look after that. I have to be able to hear the speaker speaking. Just put a lid over that, if you don't mind.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. I was trying to alert you to the fact that two of the members - one from Kitchener is here. I usually like his interventions, except he's very loud with the other member who usually sits across from me. So if he could just control that, it would be very helpful.
The ideology of this government is deliberately creating a reserve army of workers, a contingency workforce that has the effect of creating a lot of part-time workers. It has the effect of creating no pensions or lower pensions, the effect of creating no security - in fact, a lot of insecurity - the effect of creating no benefits or fewer benefits and reducing union representation.
Mr Bradley: Jobettes.
Mr Marchese: The little jobettes that we have referred to in the past. That's really the intent of what this is all about. This transnational economy that you fine Tories are promoting is destroying the middle class everywhere around the world, including Canada.
Interjection.
M. Ford laughs with that typical laugh of his. I love it. Ha, ha, ha. He laughs.
The middle classes in this country and in this province know they are disappearing as a class. Their numbers are reducing. Many of them have to work at two or three jobs to maintain the same level of middle-class status they used to have, and M. Ford laughs. This is the kind of economy these people are promoting. That's what these people are committed to. The top third of the world are getting richer, the bottom third more desperate and the middle third are falling steadily downward. You are creating an underclass in this province and in this country.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Wrong tense.
Mr Marchese: Joe, quiet down.
You're creating an underclass in this country. The middle class is slipping in stature. It is absorbing a great deal of the tax load through the user fees that you have now imposed - user fees, administrative fees. You're recovering money from all sorts of different places to make up for the loss you've got, to make up for the income tax cut you've given your rich buddies.
We are talking here about a strategy that even the Bank of Canada admits is part of your own ideological strategy. We saw a leaked document from the Bank of Canada, an internal document that supports what they call a natural level of high unemployment in developed companies to keep competition strong and wage demands low. That's what these people are talking about. When they say, "We need to be competitive," they mean creating more part-time jobs. They mean no pensions - or lower pensions - insecurity of their own economic position, no benefits, indeed fewer benefits and very little union representation. That's what this is all about.
The question is, are you, the middle-class person, buying into this kind of value system that these Tories are creating? That's what we're talking about. It is a value system that we object to, that we oppose, that is radically different from ours. And I tell you, it's radically different from your own.
2050
The Canada Health Act embodies in it wonderful socialist principles. I know many of you shrink at the thought that those principles might be socialist in their nature, but they are. Portability, public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, they are socialist principles, things that we in this society support strongly. We are witnessing an erosion of those principles. I say to the people watching, if you support a health care system that is founded on those socialist principles that you probably never thought about, you need to think about them and you need to support them because these guys here, including our federal friends, are eroding those principles that many of us have supported for a long time. They are privatizing everything that comes in front of their little hands and they're doing it in a way that is slow, in a way that becomes imperceptible to most, but by the time you figure it out, you've been had. That's the strategy because they can't kill it right away.
This throne speech does not change the colours of Mike Harris's ideology. He was a tiger before, he was Attila the Hun before, he will continue to be so, and that's what people need to see. Don't be deceived.
The Acting Speaker: Comments or questions?
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's quite fascinating listening to the new economics across the way. I can't quite believe my ears. Cited on some vague academician study, we have Australia with higher taxes means you have more jobs; we know it with Sweden. When you have a low-tax environment, you have higher unemployment. What kind of upside-down thinking is that?
This is a member across the way who was involved with a government that practised fiscal irresponsibility to the heights of the absurd. It's unbelievable to think that he can stand in his place and talk about values. The values of what? Welfare dependency. The more people on welfare, the better off we are. The more child poverty there is, the better off we are.
I saw recently about a year ago, from the old Metro where they were citing child poverty statistics starting in 1995, a rather bizarre interpretation, but I could see what the member is feeding into here: There was no child poverty prior to 1995. If there wasn't, how come the welfare dependency rates were so high?
But the most absurd thing you keep hearing is that the higher the taxes then, the better off we are. At that rate, you would have a taxation rate of 100% where the government took everything off you and you would have to submit some kind of list of needs to some bureaucrat. That's the sort of thing this party over there has practised for years. Imprudence, irresponsible fiscal spending - the list goes on.
Mr Bradley: I'm going to direct a couple of questions to my friend from Fort York because I think he'll have some good answers for them. The first is whether he's heard of Dr Joseph Kushner of Brock University who is a small-c conservative economist. In fact, he's referred to on St Catharines city council as either Professor Negative or Dr No because he continues to oppose unnecessary expenditures at the municipal level.
Now I asked Dr Kushner about the tax cut: "Is this going to be good for the province? You're the conservative of conservatives. What do conservative economists say about this?" He said: "It has a contractionary effect. When you combine government cuts with an income tax cut, in fact it's a contractionary effect, not an expansionary effect." But he said, "You know with that strong, booming US economy, you probably won't notice it as much." This is what we have. I remember that well.
The second part I want to direct to my friend from Fort York is this: Does he believe that the problem is a communication problem or is it the message that's the problem with this government? Everybody said: "You're destroying the health care system. You're closing the hospitals despite the fact Mike Harris promised that he wouldn't close any hospitals." They're closing 32 hospitals and they're destroying the education system in many ways by underfunding it, by withdrawing funding from it and by picking a fight with those who deliver education services on the front lines. He has a new image out there. They say, "The problem isn't what we're doing, it's the message." Does the member agree it's the message or is it communication? What is the problem?
Mr Galt: I certainly enjoyed the remarks from the member for Fort York. On performance I give him at least a 5.9.
In the beginning he referred to my comments about a compassionate government, and what I interpret as a compassionate government is one that's fiscally responsible, one that believes only in spending the revenues of taxation that it takes in and believes that you should pay your bills and not dump them on to future generations. What I understand from him as compassionate is spending $10 billion to $12 billion a year more than you take in, dumping that on to future generations, putting it on your future children, doubling the debt during your term in office, and that's being compassionate.
Then in just a mere decade what did the Liberals and the NDP do with the welfare rolls? They went up four times, quadrupled during their terms. That's being compassionate. When did food banks come in? In 1985, that was the first we saw food banks and it took right off. I suppose that's being compassionate, driving the need for food banks. Unemployment went up. I suppose that's being compassionate in your term in office. Then you created a net minus 10,000 new jobs - that's being compassionate - while the rest of Canada created over 400,000 net new jobs from 1990 to 1995. You lost 10,000 jobs. I suppose that's being compassionate.
The job wanted index disappeared out of sight during your term. Business was leaving this country like the 401 wasn't big enough to get them out of this country. They were going to New Brunswick. They were going to the States. They were going everywhere and bankruptcy in this country was at a phenomenal record level during your term. I suppose you call that being a compassionate government during your extended, overrated five-year term that was unnecessary.
Mr Caplan: It's interesting to hear the member for Northumberland talk about food banks. He would be aware that the number of people in the greater Toronto area who've been going to food banks has begun to increase. We're up to almost 140,000 people. I know, my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, that you shouldn't find this amusing, sir. This is very, very interesting that you would identify that. In this time of supposed prosperity we have more people who are going hungry, who need food. That is certainly true, my friend from Scarborough.
I would also point out that I have some very interesting labour market information. In 1989, when I believe my party and some of my colleagues were in government, the participation rate for youth in the job market was somewhere around 70.6%. In 1997, by contrast, it was down to 61.2%, a drop of almost 10%, which is unprecedented in that period of time. What it means, my friends, is that fewer young people are able to find work. From 1989 to 1997, we have a generation of people who have been left behind because of the policies of this government. This government does not care about our young people. This government has done nothing to help our young people and more of them, double the number, are now unemployed than those over 25. That is shocking, the uncaring attitude that my friends opposite have towards the next generation, the people who will need to be our leaders, our captains of industry. The people who are going to pay for your social assistance can't find jobs. When are you going to do something because so far you've given them the back of your hand -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you, member for Oriole. The member for Fort York has two minutes to wrap up.
Mr Marchese: I thank all my friends for having made their remarks. They covered so much ground and I only have two minutes and there's so much to respond to.
Mr Spina: Sing us a song.
Mr Marchese: I will try to sing another song when I come back at another later time.
On the whole issue of what the member for Northumberland said, he defines compassion as fiscal responsibility, as paying your bills as you go, and then he wandered off into another area having nothing to do with the definition of "compassion."
I am worried because as you guys decrease the English courses in the high schools to increase the sciences, I'm profoundly concerned about what we are learning by way of definition, because if you look up "compassion," that's not what it's going to tell you. Unless you've redefined "compassion" or are going to create your own dictionary, which I suspect you might do, compassion doesn't fit in there. I beg to differ with you so strongly in this regard but I'm concerned about you. I hope there aren't too many other members who agree with that definition because if they do, we're in a whole lot of trouble.
2100
Mr Galt: You agree with your definition.
Mr Marchese: Every common sense person you are addressing believes what I'm talking about when I speak about compassion.
Poverty has gone up, income inequality has gone up because the middle class is slipping downward. That is the subclass that we are creating. The homelessness has gone up, food bank use has gone up, shelter use has gone up and the list goes on and on.
You talk about your fiscal responsibility, a definition of "compassion" and you have the ideological gall to say, "We're giving $5 billion away for tax cuts," even though that's a whole drain on our social services and you think that's all right. That's why we speak of values. People need to know that the values of this government are radically going to hurt everybody, especially the middle class.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Fort York. Further debate?
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): For a minute there I was starting to feel sorry for the member for Fort York. Then I remembered what it was like trying to live through the NDP years.
Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous agreement to share my time with the member for Scarborough East.
The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.
Mr Young: The second speech from the throne in the 36th Parliament I believe marks the dawn of a new optimism in Ontario. We've made hard decisions and we've weathered difficult times, but the horizon is in view and the future gets brighter with each step forward. In the past two years we've been restructuring and rebuilding, creating and recreating. Now, as the dust settles, we are starting to see more and more the good results of our hard work.
Growth in Ontario has reached heights unmatched elsewhere in Canada. In fact, economic growth is almost double that of the other nine provinces. More Ontarians have jobs today than at any other time in the history of our province. As we reduce our deficit, an optimum health management system, a superior education system and the safest communities in North America are all within our reach for the first time. We are now in a transitional stage, beyond developing and introducing change, into implementing and managing change. Our constituents have given us the tools to get that process under way, their concerns, their thoughts and their ideas.
Over the past few months in my riding of Halton Centre I consulted with people who are concerned about the future of their country, people who want to live without fear of crime in their communities, with seniors, with child advocates, small business and tourism operators.
Premier Harris met with and listened to my constituents at the Muddy Duck Restaurant in Milton. The Ontario Crime Control Commission listened to my constituents' concerns about crime at the Oakville town hall. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Dianne Cunningham listened to my constituents' ideas on Canadian unity at the Oakville Canadian Club. Minister of Transportation Tony Clement received input on referendum legislation from people in north Burlington. Minister responsible for seniors' issues Cam Jackson visited a local seniors' residence in my riding to hear seniors' concerns. Parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism Ted Arnott and Leo Jordan consulted with small businesses in my community and stakeholders in tourism. These are their views and insights. Their hopes and concerns will drive my actions and the actions of our government in the coming months.
I've also taken stock, in the feedback I've received on a daily basis from my constituents - mail, telephone calls, letters and e-mail - where many have assured me our government is on the right track in reducing income taxes, promoting job growth, promoting excellence in education and redefining how social assistance works in our society. Others reaffirmed what our priorities must include: health care, children and personal safety.
In Halton, long-term care has been a growing concern. We have a growing population of seniors and middle-aged people living in our community, yet Halton has received the short end of the stick by previous governments when it came to funding for health care services. Now the tide is turning.
Excellent community-based services such as in-home nursing by the VON, homemaking services, Meals on Wheels, integration programs such as the Halton regional adult day services, supportive housing programs and services for people with disabilities are being recognized by this government as vital components of health care in the 1990s in this throne speech.
We first learned in the throne speech that there would be a major initiative regarding new long-term-care beds and funding for community services. The process has already begun and will be expanding - 20,000 new long-term-care beds in Ontario over the next eight years. Halton is to receive 1,500 new long-term-care beds at the cost of $43.7 million.
The tide is also turning for the children of this province. In the fall we will have a new education system which will yield better results and will prepare our students for whatever road they choose to take in the future.
We have developed a challenging new curriculum, including an exceptional new science program that students can really sink their teeth into.
Standardized testing will act as a barometer by which parents and teachers will measure student success, standardized report cards will better reflect their progress, teachers will spend more time in the classroom and there will be more innovative learning opportunities such as high-tech resources.
We have guaranteed funding for classroom supplies and books and specialists to complement teachers' lessons.
We're guaranteeing funding for junior kindergarten and commissioning experts Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain to conduct a study to determine how we might give young and preschool children a better chance for success in the years ahead.
In the upcoming school year, the Halton district public school board will see classroom spending increase by over $3 million. The historically underfunded Halton separate school board will received a $7.8-million increase in classroom spending in 1998-99, increasing to $15.6 million in the year 2000 due to expected growth.
For the first time ever, Ontario has a minister with specific responsibilities for children. Our government, in partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation for Families, is providing $5 million to help parents and communities set up and expand local nutrition programs.
Approximately 750,000 Ontario preschool children up to age four will benefit from $10-million funding for the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program, which identifies and prevents future developmental problems of newborns and children at risk.
Seventy-five thousand preschool children with speech and language disorders will benefit from our $20-million investment to expand services for them. Ten million dollars is being provided annually in education and support for expectant mothers and families.
Our government has also stepped up efforts immensely to enforce payment of child support orders by deadbeat parents, including reports to credit bureaus and suspensions of drivers' licences. Private collection agencies are being used to assist in collecting support payments which previously were thought to be uncollectable.
2110
Since September 1995, most important of all, 340,000 more people have jobs in Ontario. Nothing helps children more than an opportunity for their parents to get a new job - employment, independence. One of my constituents once told me, "It is an honour to work," and I agree.
We've also been creative and innovative in our approach to solving the problems associated with crime in Ontario. We have tougher standards for parole. We're finally approaching success in our goal to have the federal government amend the Young Offenders Act to include some real deterrents. We're getting the attention of youthful offenders through strict discipline facilities. We feel we'll have a real impact in turning a young life around before it becomes a life of crime.
Our Ontario Crime Control Commission is searching the globe for new ideas that have great potential to work in Ontario. For example, the broken-windows theory, applied very successfully in New York City, is based on a philosophy that zero tolerance for minor crimes will lead to a reduction in major crimes. It concludes that if people take ownership of their own communities, that will prevent the erosion of that community, and it works. If you take care to replace the first broken window, you are far less likely to end up with a building full of broken windows.
Although we are not yet finished with the job we started, the foundation is complete and the structure is sound. I believe we're well on our way to a new Ontario, with the absolute best health management system in North America, unlimited opportunities for our children and a society that takes ownership of the safety and order of our streets.
To my friends in the opposition I quote the words of George Bernard Shaw: "Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not."
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm indeed pleased to rise, and I appreciate the member for Halton North's agreeing to give me some of his speaking time today.
It has been ably demonstrated from the comments made by my colleagues already that when it comes to compassion, when it comes to consulting, when it comes to listening to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Ontario, our government has set a new standard, a higher standard than any government in the past.
To my colleague from Fort York, who was troubled by definitions and suggested there was a need for remedial English, let me read from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ninth edition, that compassion is being sympathetic. It is a "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it."
I would think that if the member opposite actually believed that the 82 members of the Conservative caucus didn't want to remedy the problems out there, he'd have a hard time reconciling that with the fact that we stood for office and the fact that a year before the election we laid out the most detailed platform for the people of Ontario to consult, to ruminate on, and that a majority of those voters in the ridings represented by these 82 members said that was the path to go down; that the things your government had done and the Liberal government before you had done were totally bereft of compassion.
No one could look at a province as rich as Ontario historically had been, that boasted one out of every eight people being on government assistance on the day of the election, and say that was a compassionate government. No one could look at the net loss of jobs in the five years you were here, in direct contrast with all the rest of Canada, and say that you were compassionate. No one could look at the fact that on issues such as homelessness, the size of food banks, the need for hostels, no government had done as much to drive up social costs, to dramatically increase problems in the social safety net as your government and the Liberal government before it. The bottom line: Not only were you bereft of compassion, you were bereft of any fiscal responsibility.
That's really what the throne speech reiterated, the fact that we did set a different path. While the member opposite is troubled that the throne speech this time would suggest more of the same, it's because the idea of actually keeping your promises was something quite foreign to the last two governments as well. They said one thing during the election campaign and did something totally different. If you don't believe me, ask all the union members about the social contract. I don't think any of them were asked in the 1990 election if they'd like to lose pay and lose working days.
The fact is that as much as it frustrates the members opposite, the hallmark of our government has been honouring our promises. In fact, over the next year or two, whatever the remaining time is left in this government, we intend to see the few remaining promises that are still on the order paper turned into legislation, turned into concrete realization of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the people who placed their "X" beside Conservative names in the 1995 election. We owe that much at least.
We certainly faced a myriad of challenges after coming in in 1995. As the member opposite knows, the kinds of numbers that were being floated by the NDP government in terms of their budget loss immediately before the election were found to be understated by $2 billion, $2 billion they goofed on and the year was only days old. That was the extent of their fiscal skills.
The bottom line for us was that we had to make certain tough choices. We had to do belt-tightening consistent with those promises. Not all those decisions have been easy ones but they have started to pay off. That's the good news.
As we were able to demonstrate this week to even the most partisan members opposite or outside this chamber, we have taken every penny that has been wrested from administrative fat and out-of-date technology and administrative means in hospitals and other aspects of the health care system and reinvested it into new technology, into long-term-care beds, into all sorts of new initiatives to recognize the health problems that exist today - a health model recognizing the needs of 1998, not 1950.
The bottom line is that since 1988, not your government nor your government had the vision, the foresight or the compassion to add one long-term-care bed in any part of this province. At the same time, as any demographer would tell you, we had a dramatically aging population.
Lost in some of the press reports about the creation of the long-term-care beds this week was the fact that the total backlog of long-term-care beds in Ontario will be addressed by the one announcement we made this week: 20,000 beds, an expenditure of $1.2 billion, and that's on top of $1 billion we've already added to the budget of the Ministry of Health that was outstanding on the day we were elected.
The bottom line was that we faced challenges in many other ministries as well. Education, of course, was another one. We had seen the previous governments drive up the debt load in this province to $100 billion. The interest servicing cost alone was $9 billion. That is more than the province was ponying up for its share of education - $9 billion that's not available for us to spend on schools or on hospitals or on roads, $9 billion going to the lenders who had profited by the fiscal lunacy of the other two governments.
So yes, in education we had some tough choices to make too, but every one of them was consistent with our promises. We said we would take hundreds of millions of dollars out of administration in education, but we plowed those same hundreds of millions back into the classroom where kids will truly benefit from investments in new computers, in new textbooks, in smaller class size and in more teachers.
Again, while the members opposite don't want to believe it, and they sure won't be putting it in their householders, this September, just to use the Toronto board as an example, there is $39 million more being spent on the category of teachers alone in the Toronto school board. So the bottom line is that class sizes will be smaller, the board will have $39 million more to spend on more teachers, and we're going to see more money spent on textbooks and more money spent on computers.
That's the sign of a compassionate government and a government that recognizes you manage not for tomorrow's Toronto Star headline, because our Liberal friends there write it anyway. It's small wonder that's where they get their direction, and certainly that's where they got direction in the five years they were in office.
2120
The hallmark of Tory governments in the 1950s and the 1960s and the 1970s was to plan 10 and 20 years into the future. We've demonstrated, when it comes to education changes, we've got that foresight. When it comes to restructuring in our hospitals and our nursing homes, we've got that foresight. When it comes to the re-engineering of the social safety net to encourage people to go out and find the jobs that are out there in droves - early this afternoon, walking back from the funeral of John Bassett, I was talking to a gentleman who's a headhunter. He told me he has 147 jobs outstanding right now at a starting salary of $60,000 or more and he can't find people to fill those jobs. That's the legacy of their education system. That's the legacy of their 10 years in office.
We don't have people trained to fill the jobs that are in high demand today. All the rest of the world recognizing that greater computer skills, greater high-tech investments - that's where governments should have been leading, but not these two. They had their head in the sand.
I'm very proud that this throne speech carries on a three-year tradition of having foresight, of having vision, of recognizing a new and changing environment and of meeting the needs of Ontario today and in the future.
Applause.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bradley: I appreciate the applause from the government benches. Now you know why we in the opposition granted permission to split the time between the two parties - because the more we can get on television of the member for Scarborough East, the better it will be for the province, I assure you, because this is the voice of the new Conservative Party of Ontario, in case people out there didn't know.
Remember Bill Davis and how middle of the road he was, thoughtful and so on, and Bob Welch and Tom Wells? Well, this is the new voice. This is the new Conservative Party in Ontario.
Now I'm worried about Hugh Segal. I thought Hugh Segal had the leadership wrapped up. The member for Brampton South floated a rumour that he was running. He had his executive assistant float the rumour so that everybody would take pictures of him and say he was running. But now I think we have a new candidate for the Conservative Party and that candidate is Steve Gilchrist.
Surely if anyone could bring the right wing into the federal Conservative Party, it would be the member for Scarborough East, who just delivered his speech here this evening, although I am told he would have to join the Conservative Party federally. He'd have to renounce his Reform Party membership in Scarborough and join the federal Conservative Party.
I do want to recommend him. I know Hugh Segal watches this program every night. I want to tell Joe Clark and Hugh Segal that there is competition. Any time that you need permission on the Conservative side of the benches to have Steve Gilchrist speak in this House, we will be more than glad to grant that permission.
Mr Marchese: The two speakers from Scarborough East and Halton Centre have covered a lot of ground so it's difficult to comment on everything, but I'll comment on two areas: fiscal responsibility and the promises.
On the whole issue of the new definition of compassion as being fiscally responsible, I want to comment that the federal Liberal government has defeated its deficit. It wrestled it to the ground. They didn't do it by giving an income tax cut, isn't that right?
Mr Caplan: This is true.
Mr Marchese: How did they do it? The interest rates went down. That was a good thing. They got 23 billion bucks coming in. That really did it. They did cut a whole heap of money on those poor unemployed, a lot more than they want to claim, but 40% of that reduction to the deficit was due to the cuts they made to unemployment insurance. Mostly it was dealt with because of the booming economy they've had in the last couple of years.
Do you not believe, Speaker, that Harris could have wrestled to the ground the deficit problem that we had by the mere booming of this economy that they love to boast about? How come they haven't wrestled it to the ground? I'll tell you. They haven't wrestled it to the ground because they've got to borrow 5 billion bucks every year to give an income tax cut to their buddies.
On the issue of promises, you recall Mike Harris saying, "Not one cent will be cut from education." Remember that? He says, "Not one cent will be taken out of hospitals and no hospitals will close." Remember he said he was going to eat his straw hat if one cent was taken out of education and health. He did. I never saw the guy eat his straw hat, for God's sake. He broke his promises on the issue of taking money out of education and health. Money was taken out by the billions -
The Acting Speaker: Thanks to the member for Fort York.
Mr Spina: I came across this statement made November 8, 1997, just a few months ago, and it's federal industry Minister John Manley crediting "strong export activity," but adding that "domestic gains can also be linked to Ontario's cuts to personal income tax."
"The taxpayers have more money in their pockets and therefore they have more money to spend," Manley said. "Tax cuts increase domestic consumption." This only leads me to ask one question: Is John Manley a blue Grit?
The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough East has two minutes to respond.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you to the members for St Catharines, Brampton North and Fort York for their kind comments and in particular the member for Brampton North for demonstrating once again that depending what day of the week it is or which Liberal you talk to, you'll either get an NDP point of view or a Conservative point of view, depending on what the polls show.
It's funny that you're mentioning newspaper articles because just in the clipping service that's come in today, Fleming college - "Growth means 21 new staff positions," crediting the funding and increased demand at their school.
More mine inspectors coming up, showing that our government is truly committed to mine safety and all workplace safety.
We've got a full-page article, a woman praising us for restoring payments to hundreds of widows who had been deprived under the former rules of the Workers' Compensation Board of any kind of a pension because they'd remarried. Five hundred widows, many of them very low income, have now seen compassion from this government, not from the other two.
"Workfare Plan Quietly Scoring Some Success," in the London Free Press, of all newspapers, talking about how our plan of showing people how to pull themselves up by the boot straps, giving them a hand up instead of a handout, is starting to pay off.
And perhaps the best one: "Tax Study Reveals Inequities. The largest-ever study on income taxes done in Canada, called Where the Money Goes: The Distribution of Taxes and Benefits in Canada, has shown categorically that tax cuts benefit primarily families earning less than $40,000 a year." The author says we need more of them to stimulate growth in the economy.
The Acting Speaker: I want to go through the procedure for voting on the speech from the throne.
On Monday, April 27, 1998, Mrs Elliott moved, seconded by Mr O'Toole, that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:
To the Honourable Hilary M. Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.
On Tuesday, April 28, 1998, Mr McGuinty moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following thereto:
Whereas the Harris government has ignored the needs of patients and compromised patient care by firing 10,000 nurses, cutting hospital budgets by $800 million annually and threatening to close 32 community hospitals; and
Whereas the Harris government has ignored teachers, parents and students by cutting over $1 billion from our children's classrooms, forcing the elimination of programs such as junior kindergarten and adult education and continually attacked friends of public education; and
Whereas the Harris government has refused to listen to the voices of children by ignoring the need to reform the child welfare system, by reducing the benefits available to children on welfare and by failing to make children a real priority in Ontario; and
Whereas despite promises not to open unwelcomed neighbourhood casinos, the Harris government has recklessly moved ahead to create 44 neighbourhood casinos; and
Whereas the Mike Harris government has broken its promise to not cut programs to the disabled and has done nothing to increase the access that disabled people desperately need to go to school and find jobs and to participate in our communities; and
Whereas Mike Harris holds those less fortunate in contempt and continues his personal attack on the poor and the most vulnerable in Ontario;
This House profoundly regrets that the Harris government has acted on an agenda which has caused significant hardship for our youngest, our oldest, our sickest and our least fortunate in society.
On Wednesday, April 29, 1998, Mr Hampton moved that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following thereto:
This House regrets that the Harris government has taken Ontario in profoundly the wrong direction;
This House regrets that the government has failed to respect the values that have always defined Ontario: cooperation, compassion, competence and community; and
This House regrets that the Harris government has implemented a phoney income tax scheme which, unless it is reversed by the next government of Ontario, will entrench permanently the cuts which are causing hardship for our youngest, our oldest, our sickest and our least fortunate in society.
The first question to be decided is Mr Hampton's amendment to the amendment to the motion.
All those in favour of Mr Hampton's amendment to the amendment to the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it. Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Excuse me?
"April 30, 1998.
"The Honourable Chris Stockwell, Speaker
"Legislative Assembly of Ontario
"Room 180, Legislative Building
"Toronto, Ontario
"M7A 1A8
"Dear Mr Speaker:
"Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I'd like to request the vote on the amendment to the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be deferred until Monday, May 4, 1998.
"Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
"Sincerely,
"David Turnbull
"Chief Government Whip."
Is it agreed? The vote is deferred.
The time being past 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock next Monday.
The House adjourned at 2134.