Hansard Transcript 1998-Oct-20 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise in the House today on behalf of Ontario's post-secondary students, who have been savaged by the Mike Harris government. Yesterday I visited the University of Western Ontario and met with the medical students there who feel that Ontario's next generation can no longer access medical programs because of the 106% tuition increase this Minister of Education has imposed on them through deregulation of fees. They're concerned about the brain drain Ontario will suffer when we see our new doctors go to the United States to pay their debts.

I also had the opportunity to pick up over 1,500 of these student-debt postcards from Western alone. In just over two weeks, 1,500 students at Western joined our campaign to highlight Mike Harris's neglect of students and student debt.

I demand an answer on behalf of Ontario's students from this Minister of Education.

What does he say to Kate, a social work student who is carrying $40,000 of debt already and will add another $12,000 this year? How about Mitchell? Mitchell is a kinesiology student who is $30,000 in debt. What incentive does he have to work in Ontario? Or John - John's doctoral studies have cost him $45,000, put him $45,000 in debt. Dennis, an engineering student, has almost $50,000 of debt waiting for him when he graduates this year.

Thousands of these cards are coming in from across Ontario. I demand, on behalf of these students, that this government provide some support and relief to the youth of this province.

PINOCHET ARREST

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to welcome the initiative of the Spanish government and the response of the authorities in the United Kingdom in trying to bring the infamous former dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice.

Peculiarities of Chilean law and the niceties of international law must not prevent Pinochet being held accountable for his crimes during his 17-year reign of terror in Chile. Law must not be used to make the world safe for violent dictators who murder and disappear opponents. Law must protect individual and collective democratic rights and freedoms. Law must make the world safe for citizens who dissent, for mothers whose daughters and sons should not be disappeared, for children who should not be orphaned by state terror.

Pinochet must be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. Viva España, viva democracy, viva Chile.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise on behalf of myself and the MPP for Leeds-Grenville, Bob Runciman, to bring attention to the village of Merrickville, located along the historic Rideau Canal in the riding of Leeds-Grenville.

On September 26, at a national awards ceremony held in Winnipeg, the village of Merrickville was declared the most beautiful village of 1,000 people or less in the 1998 Communities in Bloom competition, a program that emphasizes the improvement of quality of life through green spaces and environmental awareness.

This tiny historic village is located on the banks of the Rideau River and still boasts a multiple set of locks from the early 1800s.

Most of the village consists of carefully preserved 19th century buildings - buildings which are highlighted by the colourful flowers planted with pride by local gardeners. The natural river environment is further enhanced by the local bird sanctuary.

Let us not forget the massive ice storm of 1998. The people of this little village represented the true spirit of the Communities in Bloom committee with their positive response to nature's adversity. The entire community worked together repairing and restoring their home, taking inventory of the critical damage and implementing immediate remedies. In fact, the efforts of Merrickville's citizens to clean up was incredible.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister Of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Yesterday the minister stood in the house and claimed to be launching a "very special salute" to the men and women who operate and work in small businesses in Ontario. For many small and seasonal business owners, the minister's salute came as they were receiving the news from his government that highway sign user fees are increasing by some 300%. I must assure the minister that that type of salute they can do without.

The minister claims to be a friend of small business; however, the facts tell a different story. Like most members, I am being inundated with calls from small business and tourist operators who are furious with him and his government. They are furious because they are fed up with the minister's worthless salutes. Small business owners are no longer willing to sit back while the government gives them a so-called salute.

Let me read for the minister from a letter I recently received from a tourist operator, one who voted for your government's so-called revolution. He says:

"I voted for the Conservative government in the last election and have spent a fair amount of time defending their actions. During the past few years, I kept telling myself that the hard line was good for everyone. I can no longer support those views."

This operator, like so many others, is telling me that you have forgotten about them and refuse to acknowledge the contribution that small business makes to Ontario's economy. They ask how any small business owner can take the salutes seriously.

For those who work in the business and tourism sector, it is becoming very clear -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The Minister of Long-Term Care owes a public apology to the chair, board and staff of the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association. Last week the board announced it would have to close its doors if this government doesn't provide more base funding. In response, in a radio interview, the minister made a series of allegations about the organization which were completely incorrect.

He stated that the association only began to talk to his ministry about their funding problems after the decision was made to close the doors. In fact the organization first warned the ministry of the need for more base funding in 1996. On a weekly basis from January to May of this year, the executive director has talked to ministry staff about the funding crisis.

The minister said the board has refused to meet with ministry staff to discuss the details of the operational review which might lead to more funding. In fact it took the ministry from the end of January to the end of September to complete a 22-page review of the organization. The board asked for two to three weeks to review it and respond to ministry staff. They have never refused to meet.

The minister complained that the review has not been shared with the board, staff or public. In fact the organization has a contractual agreement with the ministry not to disclose the details of the review until both parties agree to the contents.

The minister alleged the Sudbury program was being funded in accordance with other northern palliative care programs. In fact, if the Sudbury program is compared to programs with a similar client and volunteer base in southern Ontario, its budget would be significantly increased.

Other allegations were made but the point is this: If the minister doesn't want to increase funding, he should stand up and say so. To use innuendo and allegation as an excuse not to do the right thing is unacceptable.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the Legislature to make you aware of comments reported in the news media by Canadian Press on October 10 in an article reported in the Toronto Sun. The item which has caused me great consternation was a fairly small item entitled "Sexual Crimes Costing Teachers." In the article the Ontario College of Teachers reported that in disciplinary incidents 75% were sex-related misconduct cases.

What provoked me was not so much the report but rather the comments made by a supposedly professional teacher who is also the vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Mr Jim McQueen.

The comments made to Jeff Harder of the Toronto Sun were a direct quote, "Probably the college will expand its activities beyond, you know, kiddie diddlers and those kinds of things," said federation vice-president Jim McQueen.

I find this type of remark unprofessional, unacceptable, unconscionable, demeaning and derogatory towards the profession of teaching and the very college that was recently established to promote and protect this profession.

I wish to publicly record not only my disgust at this remark but the disgust of many members of this House who also revile such comments by a supposed professional.

1340

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Ted Arnott, the Conservative MPP for Wellington, has written an open letter to the Minister of Education on the important issue of school closures.

I can appreciate the frustration of a Tory MPP who has to resort to writing to letters to the editor in order to get his own government to listen, and I want to help him get his voice heard.

I think Mr Arnott would like to lay the blame for school closures on the local school board, much as the Minister of Education tries to do, but Mr Arnott has some very real problems with the deadline his government has put in place for decision-making. He wants the minister to extend the deadline forcing school closure plans to be put in place, and so it should be.

But if Mr Arnott wants to avoid school closures in his communities, he's going to have to push his government on another front. His government is refusing to fund any so-called extra space and they are going to force schools to close as a result of that. Mr Arnott is pleased that his board has some overall money, but if he has talked to his board, he will recognize that that money is all committed to the essential areas that the minister has decreed will be funded. School space is not one of those areas.

Mr Arnott makes a compelling case for the value of schools in rural communities. I believe there should be a school in the community, whether it is rural or urban. That's an issue of basic access to education. Mr Arnott's government is not yet prepared to provide the dollars to keep schools in the community, and they should. Just extending the deadline isn't going to be good enough.

JOB CREATION

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): The voters of Nickel Belt made it clear to me during my election campaign that their number one concern is jobs. It's no wonder. The people of Ontario elected the Harris government because it promised to create 725,000 jobs. The people of Nickel Belt want to know where they are.

Your government is working hard to take rights away from workers and to make an income tax scheme for the wealthy. The government claimed the combination of tax scheme and reducing workers' rights would create that employment. Well, it just hasn't worked and now your government is completely out of ideas.

The Conservative government has just announced a jobs tour, going around the province, trying to cover up the Harris government's failure to keep the broken jobs promise.

So is this propaganda show coming to Sudbury? Of course not. In Nickel Belt and Sudbury the unemployment problem has been getting worse since the Conservatives were elected. The unemployment rate has jumped two points since last year and now unemployment is over 11% in the Sudbury area. It's even worse for young workers. Sudbury has lost 2,000 jobs for youths since 1997.

The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, headed by long-time Conservative staff member David Lindsay is a $10-million pre-election campaign funded out of the pockets of Ontario's taxpayers -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member for Hamilton Mountain.

VISITORS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): First of all, on behalf of the Honourable David Tsubouchi, I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the visitors' gallery today of the Older Adults in Action seniors' group from Markham.

JOANNE MALAR

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to take this opportunity today to congratulate a very special young woman, a resident from my community of Hamilton Mountain.

Several weeks ago, Joanne Malar was named Ontario female athlete of the year. Joanne received this honour for her extraordinary list of accomplishments in the sport of swimming during this past year. As a participant in the World Cup circuit, Joanne attended World Cup V in Glasgow, Scotland, World Cup VI in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, World Cup VII in Imperia, Italy, and World Cup VIII in Paris, France. Joanne came away from these competitions with a total of five silver and three bronze medals.

At the world short course championships in Gothenburg, Sweden, Joanne won a bronze medal and at the Pan Pacific championships in Fukuoka, Japan, she earned a silver and three bronze medals. Most recently, Joanne continued the exhibition of her athletic excellence at the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where she won one gold, two silver and two bronze medals.

This outstanding young athlete also finds the time to continue her full-time studies at the University of Calgary where she is majoring in kinesiology.

On behalf of the citizens of Hamilton Mountain, I congratulate Joanne Malar for her extraordinary accomplishments this past year. I, along with all my constituents, join her family, friends and neighbours, high atop Hamilton Mountain, in rooting for her as she attempts to achieve her next goal, that of qualifying for the 2000 summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. We will all be chanting, "Go, Joanne, go."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71, An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry / Projet de loi 71, Loi concernant la réglementation de l'exercice de la profession de forestier.

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

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This bill continues the Ontario Professional Foresters Association as the professional body that regulates and governs the profession of professional forestry in Ontario.

PERSONS DAY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, Sunday was Persons Day, and I'm asking for unanimous consent for all-party statements today to celebrate that very important day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent for all-party statements for Persons Day? Agreed.

Ms Churley: On Friday of last week, I attended the LEAF annual fundraising breakfast to celebrate Persons Day in this province. Once again it was a very enlightening and a very empowering event for many, many hundreds of women who come out every year to celebrate this very important day in our lives.

It's somewhat hard to believe that there was a day when women were considered to be non-persons; in other words, we had no legal rights. Somebody asked me just very recently what Persons Day was, and I said, "Well, if it weren't for Persons Day, if it weren't for that legal right granted to women, I wouldn't be here today."

Women did not have the right to vote, and in fact had very few rights. So this was a very important judgment that affected the lives of women across our country, and I am very happy today to stand and ask all of the members in the House to celebrate this day with us. We celebrated with LEAF on Friday, and we remembered the legal cases brought forward by LEAF, which were very important to the rights of women in this province, and indeed across the country.

One of the cases, for instance, that LEAF has been working on recently and that we will hear the results of soon was a sexual assault case in Alberta, I believe, where a young women who three times said no to sexual advances was sexually assaulted. The judge - this was a case that was appealed - said, and I can't quite remember the quote, that she "didn't come exactly dressed in crinolines and a bonnet."

This was a hot summer day where a young woman went for an interview, I believe at some kind of fairgrounds, and was asked to be interviewed in a trailer. This was a very young woman, 17 years old. The young woman, who went into the trailer, was sexually assaulted by this man after she made it very clear that she didn't want those sexual advances. The judge ruled that she in fact, because of the way she was dressed, and I believe because she didn't actively fight back - and she says that's because she saw a TV show explaining to women that if they feel they're in danger they should try to stay calm.

1350

This case has been appealed, and LEAF represented this young woman. We're very much looking forward to a reversal in this decision, because we are seeing more and more the erosion of women's rights. Yesterday my colleague Marion Boyd, our health critic, stood up and talked about the erosion of abortion services. Safe, legal abortions in this province are being eroded by this government. We have to continue to be alert and continue to fight for the rights of women at all times.

I'm very happy today to say that LEAF is there fighting for the rights of women. It's important for all of us to be vigilant to make sure that the hard-earned rights women have fought for over the years are not eroded further.

I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing from the other parties today.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I understand the minister responsible for women's issues is going to be arriving. The government House leader has asked if I would take her turn in the rotation while we await her arrival, and I am pleased to do that.

I am pleased that we are going to have an opportunity to recognize, although somewhat belatedly, the fact that Sunday was Persons Day. As the member for the third party just indicated, Persons Day was recognized at the LEAF breakfast, the breakfast that was held in communities across this province on Friday morning.

LEAF, for those who are not aware, is the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. It is the members of LEAF and the supporters of LEAF who have so strongly and actively argued for the full personhood of women from the time of that original decision. LEAF was not founded then, but it was people with the belief that we have to establish the full personhood of women in the courts in order to ensure that women are enabled to participate fully in every aspect of our society, because surely that's what personhood means.

One of the statements that was made at the LEAF breakfast here in Toronto on Friday was that although there was recognition on that date of women becoming persons in a legal sense, there were still many women who were not given that recognition, particularly women who are part of an ethnic minority.

The other reality that was addressed at the LEAF breakfast was that although there has been progress for women in achieving greater participation in all aspects of our society since women legally became persons, there have also been giant steps, sadly, backwards. There have certainly been steps backwards very recently in the justice system. The member for Riverdale has referred to one that is a current issue of concern for LEAF in the courts. It is almost inconceivable, for those of us who have celebrated some of the progress women have made before the courts, to believe that there could be a justice who had determined that no did not mean no because the young woman who was involved in the incident had not presented herself, to quote the judge, "in crinolines and petticoats." LEAF is taking that case forward in support of the appeal.

LEAF also recognized a number of other areas and I think it is appropriate, as we talk about women achieving full personhood, to recognize those areas in which there have been backward steps here in Ontario. I won't dwell on them at length, but I think they need to be recorded on this day of recognition: the fact that employment equity is no longer a part of the law of Ontario under the current government and that that represents a gigantic step backwards for women who are looking for support to become equal participants in the workforce; the fact that this government removed a significant aspect of the law governing pay equity. They have now been found to be in opposition to the Constitution of the land and have had to reverse that position, but it has still set back the implementation of pay equity significantly, and the payment of funds to agencies that have to implement their pay equity plans are still pending.

Most particularly, we go back to the fact that if they're going to achieve true personhood and true participation in aspects of our society, they have to have some degree of economic strength and independence.

We know what has happened to women who are in low-income families and sole-support families on social assistance in recent years. We've seen the cutbacks to women who head up families on social assistance. We've seen the cutbacks of 23% in social assistance. We've seen what happens when women try to get out of abusive situations and establish some independence. We've seen the cutbacks of the counselling support for women who are trying to move from an emergency shelter into second-stage housing and become economically independent.

We've seen the difficulty of women in getting legal aid certificates. Last night in this House there was a debate continued on restructuring the legal aid plan, legislation which does nothing but change the governance model, with absolutely no attempt to address the issue of funding and whether there will be any ability for women who are seeking to get legal support in order to get custody orders, so they will have the economic support they need to leave abusive situations, whether they will have any chance of getting that legal support.

We know what's happened to the family support plan. Women who have made the break and are attempting to establish independent lives are not able to get the support which courts have already awarded to them.

We do want to celebrate, to recognize the day on which women became persons, but it becomes somewhat meaningless if this many years later we are unable to continue to take steps forward in ensuring that women are full participants in all aspects of society. I trust that if the minister responsible for women's issues in the government of Ontario rises to recognize women's day, she will give us some personal assurance of the areas in which women will take steps forward rather than backwards in this next year.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Persons Day in Canada began 66 years ago, on October 18, 1929. That is when women were declared to be persons in the eyes of the law of this country. Prior to that time, only men were considered persons, entitled to societal rights and privileges.

This watershed in women's history was the result of the determination and persistence of Judge Emily Murphy of Alberta and four other committed Canadian women: Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Irene Parlby. Collectively known as the Famous Five, these champions of women's rights took their crusade all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. On behalf of all the women of Ontario, and Ontarians in general, I would like to acknowledge Judge Murphy and her colleagues for their achievement on behalf of all of us who have followed them.

Since the declaration of their personhood, Canadian women have increased their presence in virtually all spheres of endeavour. Taking a page from Judge Murphy's book of creativity and determination, more women than ever before have become successful business people in this country by creating 1.7 million jobs across this country. Women are the greatest contributors to job creation in Canada. They are the entrepreneurs of our country.

Over the past decade, all governments of all partisan stripes, not only here in Ontario but across Canada, have improved the opportunities for women in education, not only choosing the kinds of courses and subjects they need to get ahead, but this year, in the registration in our universities in this province, they are 53% of what we would refer to as the first-year class. They are more than 50% in our educational classes, our medical classes, our law classes. We have so much to be thankful for.

They are involved in private industry and the operation of their own businesses, but they have not achieved their goal when it comes to representation on boards across this country. We have so much to do to assist women to become those board members where they will be equal decision-makers in areas where decisions are made about investment in our country, about the justice system in our country, about the police services in our country, about education, about health care. More women than ever are pursuing these opportunities.

1400

This is a challenging time for governments across our country. The ministers responsible for women's issues have put at the top of their agenda a framework to stop violence. We in Ontario have our framework, and that framework will be used by ministers across this country as the kind of, I would say, general policy that other provinces will be able to adopt. We will be hoping to make that announcement sometime early in the next year.

I will also say on that note that this is an opportunity for we in Ontario to give credit to our Solicitor General, who has taken the time to expand our victim/witness assistance program so that women will have women volunteers in every community that has a program like this, which has doubled in size in just the last three years and will take on different roles and responsibilities. In fact, I will be talking with the federal justice minister for the country, Anne McLellan, at a police college very shortly. We will be talking about the gains that women will be making in policing and in the justice system across this country.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to talk about women's health. Very shortly we will, I will say to the members of the opposition parties and our own members - women and health. When we take a look at how far we have come and how far we still have to go, we recognize our deficiencies in this country. We know that there has been more research evolving and dedicated to men's health problems than to women's health problems. As a result, we announced the Women's Health Council, of which the membership will be made public very shortly. At that time the Minister of Health wanted to know exactly what kind of health research would be appropriate and fair in this province to support areas of women's health - namely, heart disease - that have not been supported in the past by any government.

Women's College Hospital is a perfect example, where we have changed the role of that institution so that women downtown would have a more appropriate rape crisis treatment centre so that we could get the kind of evidence we need in the courts so that we can get the convictions to take care of the perpetrators in our new domestic violence court.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to move forward on the gains we have made in this province in the last few years, especially in the last years, without acknowledging the contributions of many of the women in this House, of all partisan stripes, towards the policies in the past that we have built on, policies that may have been started by the Liberal government. That's the case, for those of you who haven't been here before. I look to my friend from Thunder Bay, who has been here as long as I have; in fact, a couple of years longer. I look at my friends in the New Democratic Party who have worked on programs for women.

This is a day to celebrate. This is the day to celebrate the gains women have made. The great strength of women is that they do work together. They do have a different style when it comes to making decisions, and I'm very proud to stand in this House today to talk about the gains of former governments and this government when it comes to creating more jobs for women, when it comes to creating more opportunities both in education and in the world of work, when it comes to celebrating the entrepreneurs of our great country, the great contributors to science, especially in the area of health, especially in the area of justice, especially in the area of the Solicitor General and in the area of social services, I say to my colleague.

We should all be proud of the gains we have made and we should all work harder to make things better for women in this country.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to return to this issue which addresses the fact that some six months ago your government committed to addressing some of the problems connected with delays in being admitted to emergency, and hospitals throughout the province turning patients and ambulances away. You have chosen of your own accord to weigh into this, so I thought it only appropriate that I direct the question to you.

That announcement was made over six months ago. You personally today, by means of a photo op, dropped off the first cheque to one of 150 hospital emergency wards. We have no idea when the others are going to be delivered and I have no idea whether you intend to deliver all of those cheques.

My question, Premier, is very simple. You have pointed the finger most inappropriately at bureaucrats. The buck stops with you. Would you stand up now, Premier, and apologize to Ontarians, but especially to patients whose lives have been put at risk as a result of your incompetence in handling this issue?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me first of all respond that I've been well on the record over the weekend talking about the process of government being a barrier to getting these funds out quicker than we would have liked to have done.

I want to correct the record of the member. At no time did I blame the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats or any individual of the very hard-working men and women who are in the process of transforming themselves into one of the elite bureaucracies, indeed if not in Canada, I would say beyond; a bureaucracy that, through the business planning process and the direction our government has given them, has now seen I think 20 or 30 different governments from several countries coming to examine just how it is that this miracle transformation is coming about to get better results within the system. So I welcome -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, it's too late. The real you came out on the weekend. We understand that this now is the product of hours and hours of coaching on how to backtrack on this issue. The real you is out. You pointed the finger at the bureaucrats.

Let's go back to the issue of responsibility here. You put out a press release back on April 20: "Government Takes Action to Improve Hospital Emergency Services."

I'm quoting: "...the government will be acting immediately on recommendations put forward in the final report of the Emergency Services Working Group."

Another quote: "Every region of the province will benefit from our immediate action on the task force's recommendations."

Premier, who is going to assume responsibility for this delay? It took 184 days for this first cheque to be delivered. You delivered it yourself only for purposes of politics, not motivated by any genuine interest in health care. Will you stand up now and apologize for this?

1410

Hon Mr Harris: I think I was very clear. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for heads to roll. This is all you seem to want to talk about. Instead, what we want to talk about is money to roll.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I was very clear in saying that there is a process in place to make sure that the money is accounted for and is going to where it should go and that it resolves the problem. The announcement was made in response to the report some six months ago. We made it very clear that we felt that in the short term the problem would next arise this fall, and in the meantime we asked the Ministry of Health to work with the various hospitals and those involved in emergency room care to work out a plan that could be both accountable and timely.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, I think we would all agree that there are processes, they are honestly designed to help us do the right thing, but I made a decision they're not to -

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier, come to order, please. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you were the guy who was going to get rid of all the red tape. You were going to make government so much more efficient. If you said something was going to happen, it was going to happen, just like that.

On April 20 you said $225 million was going to flow immediately. Today is October 20. The first of 149 cheques went out the door. When are the others going to go?

Why don't you just stand up here and say you made a mistake? It was a big mistake. You jeopardized the lives of Ontario patients in the doing. Stand up and apologize. Don't point to bureaucrats. Don't point to your Minister of Health. Don't point to the Chair of Management Board. You stand up and you take the blame for this and say you're going to apologize.

Hon Mr Harris: "It's not uncommon for Ottawa's five major hospitals to redirect ambulances to another hospital when they're busy with serious cases such as heart attack victims" - December 24, 1987. The Liberals were in government.

"Dr Garth Dickinson, director of the Ottawa General Hospital emergency department, said there's a risk someone may die because the hospital is turning away critical cases" - Ottawa Citizen, February 15, 1987. The Liberals were in government then.

You just don't get it. Government is about process; it is about dealing with people in the aggregate. We understand that. But sometimes - and in this case, over 15 years - process has gotten in the way of people. We stand here -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

New question; leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me tell you what was happening on the other side of the doors while you were getting your picture taken outside Mount Sinai today. According to the director of emergency and the triage nurse, nine people were stuck waiting in the emergency room to get beds. Some had been waiting since Sunday, some since yesterday, and the day's rush hadn't even started.

You showed up with a cheque for some $600,000. This hospital is running a deficit of $7 million. These people are waiting because of your health care policies in Ontario. These are your cuts that have led to these people being piled up in emergency wards and led to ambulances not being able to take patients to hospital emergency wards.

Stand up now, Premier. Admit that when it comes to the problems connected with health care in this province, you are the problem. You are not the solution; your cheque does nothing; you're the problem.

Hon Mr Harris: "An elderly woman turned away from two area hospitals last weekend died Christmas day. The ambulance in which she was riding Sunday was turned away from Queensway Carleton Hospital and the Ottawa Civic because their emergency rooms were full" - Ottawa Citizen, December 26, 1987. The Liberals were in government.

What has happened since then is that money has been thrown into a system and not solved the problem. Today I want to congratulate the Minister of Health, I want to congratulate the Chair of Management Board and I want to congratulate the hospitals involved for truly working on an emergency room plan that in both the short term and the long term will prove to be effective, finally, after 12 years and three governments.

Mr McGuinty: Let's be straight on this issue. You're not the health care guy. You didn't run at the time of the last election saying, "Vote for me and I'll improve health care in Ontario." The least you can do is be honest about that. That's not why you're in government. That's not your shtick. You're the cut guy. So you're the first guy to cut $800 million -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister of Social Services, come to order. Government whip, come to order. Member for Brant-Haldimand, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie. You see, I don't know what you're doing, but I heard you heckling.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, I heard you. I'm certain it was you; I'm positive it was you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't want congratulations. I just want you to come to order. Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can talk about other governments all you want. You cut $800 million out of hospital budgets in Ontario. You're not in government because you think health care is a good thing. For you, it's something that gets in the way and costs too much money. Let's be very clear about that. You didn't get into government to advance the cause of health care in Ontario; you got in there because you wanted to make cuts, and that has come at the expense of health care in Ontario.

Let's go back to the original issue. If patient care is such a priority, why did it take six months to cut a cheque? Why did you hang on to $225 million? Why did you keep it in the drawer after making so much great fanfare about it being spent to help patients?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, I would suggest that the member should read the Common Sense Revolution. In fact, had you read it earlier you might not be where you're sitting today, particularly if you had understood the problems and how far back your administration, followed by the NDP administration - the 10-year record, the lost decade - set this province. You might have understood just a little bit better.

We're happy to stack our record of now $18.7 billion of record health care spending, of restructuring health care, of massive new investments into cardiac care, massive new investments into the Ontario drug benefit program, massive new investments into seniors, into long-term care, into restructuring - finally having the courage and the leadership to do what for 10 years two successive premiers and administrations, the Liberal and the NDP, did not have the courage to carry through what every professional in the health care field said needed to be done. We are doing that and more, and it is a better health care system today as a result.

Mr McGuinty: Just so we're very straight about the record here in terms of when these significant delays started occurring in our emergency wards, and these backup problems, let's look to the Emergency Services Working Group's final report, a document you commissioned. Do you know what it happens to say? It says, "The current trend towards increased occurrences began in October 1996, and has risen most steeply in the past few months."

The director of the hospital you visited today said that as to those nine patients who are waiting to find a bed inside the hospital but can't because of the cutbacks you've made to that hospital, that's an occurrence that has happened for the first time in over 10 years. It is your health care policies that are causing these problems. It is your cuts to hospital budgets that are hurting Ontario patients.

1420

You're the problem, you're not the solution, and showing up outside some hospital door today, cheque in hand, for another in a long series of photo ops isn't going to change the minds of Ontarians. The number one issue today in this province is health care. You're the problem, you're not the solution, and a photo op isn't going to change that. Now stand up and apologize for the fact that you hung back on this money for six months.

Hon Mr Harris: I would just like to repeat that you don't seem to get it, about the process of government. You sat there for five years and made no reforms to the process of government. Government is about process; we understand that. Of course there was a period of time from the announcement to make sure that these dollars in fact solved the problem. Of course there were a lot of consultations with those involved in the emergency rooms and the departments in the hospitals across this province. The CEO of Mount Sinai Hospital, which I visited today, while the minister was busy processing cheques for other hospitals -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Clearly we acknowledge that sometimes process gets in the way of people. I acknowledged that, I admitted that, I indicated that on behalf of myself, my office, all of government, this process, but I tell you this: In the 17 years I've been in this Legislature, we are the only party that has stood against process getting in the way of helping people. The minister is to be congratulated for getting through that process, unlike any other government has in the 17 years I've been here.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You've become a master at blaming everyone else in the province for your agenda and what your agenda is doing to hospitals. You've cut hospitals to finance your income tax scheme. That's evident to everybody.

You go out there and you tell this story to the media and you leave out of the story that you've already taken $800 million out of hospitals. You leave out of the story that this year hospitals in Ontario are $300 million in debt because of your cuts. And you leave out something else. You leave out the fact that it was your colleagues on Management Board who held up this funding to help fix emergency rooms. Premier, do you deny that your cabinet colleagues at Management Board had this proposal before them three times over the last six months and did nothing with it? Do you deny that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me deal with the preamble of the member's question. It's as the result of our income tax policies that higher-income earners are paying a bigger percentage of our dollars now than under the NDP. It's the result of our income tax changes that lower- and middle-income earners are now paying less. But it's also a result of 408,000 new jobs and more revenue for Ontario. It's very important that you understand that.

The reason you need to understand that is that our revenues are somewhere around $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion higher as the result of our tax policies. Health care funding is somewhere around $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion higher. It is as the result of our policies that we've been able to fund in excess of $1 billion of brand new money to fund priority areas in the health care system.

Mr Hampton: The Premier is proud that in an American economic boom he gets more tax revenue at the same time he's taking $800 million out of hospitals. He's proud of that.

Premier, you studiously avoided answering the question. The question is: Your cabinet colleagues on Management Board had this proposal before them three times. Ernie Eves, Deputy Premier, sits in cabinet, sits on Management Board; Dave Johnson who sits beside you is on Management Board; Chris Hodgson who sits behind you is on Management Board. In the six months that this proposal went to Management Board three times, did you ever think to lean over to one of them and say, "Gee, you know, there's a really serious problem happening in those emergency rooms; people are dying; other people are suffering unnecessarily"? Did you every think to lean over and talk to one of your colleagues and say, "We've got to get that money to those emergency rooms; we've got to do something about people's health care"?

1430

Hon Mr Harris: It's pretty much a matter of record what I said and what I did, but also a matter of record is the extraordinary effort of the Minister of Health and of the Chair of Management Board, not only to ensure - albeit, as we indicated, the process did not work as fast as we wanted it to. We have acknowledged that. It got in the way here and we have publicly acknowledged that, as the member will know. Notwithstanding that, the challenge was not to see how many dollars you could throw out the door as quickly as you could, the way you did, which led us to bankruptcy. The challenge they were wrestling with throughout the summer and working with our partners on was to ensure that these new dollars, on top of the billion or so new dollars we've already flowed to health care, actually went to solve the problem. As you will know, there's a 12- to 15-year record of your administration putting more money in, which did not solve the problem.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you are trying very hard not to answer the question, but the trail doesn't end there.

The reality is that your government announced $5 million for nurse practitioners. We haven't seen any of that.

You announced $36 million to attract and retain physicians in underserviced areas. We haven't seen any of that.

You announced $60 million for mental health. We haven't seen that.

You went into Ear Falls and you announced $300,000 for the Ear Falls clinic. People there have seen $5,000 after six months.

You announced $400 million last year for hospital restructuring, and hospitals have only gotten $154 million of it. The list goes on and on.

You created this problem in the hospitals. You went in and you cut without having services out in the community that would provide people with health care. You created the problem. Your colleagues on Management Board made the problem worse. Admit it, Premier, and while you're at it will you tell us, when are the other hospitals in Ontario going to get the money you promised and that they need to deliver health care?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me correct the record on some of the information you put forward. Ear Falls is now in receipt of $16,000 a month, exactly the commitment we made. They're very happy, and they too thank the Minister of Health for cutting through the process and getting the money flowing.

Here's the problem. Between 1985 and 1995 the NDP and Liberal governments did this: You closed more than 10,000 hospital beds; under the social contract you stripped $590 million from the wages of doctors, nurses and health care workers, including those in my favourite unions, CUPE and OPSEU, from all of those workers. You stripped that money out but you made no investments back in.

When you talk about the reduction of nurses - and there has been a reduction of nurses - three quarters of that occurred under your administration. That's where the majority of the reductions occurred. This comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information analysis, not us, you see.

The problem is you cut this money out but you did not reinvest. The Minister of Health and the Chair of Management Board and the Minister of Finance and this government have not only -

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

Mr Hampton: Speaker, my next question is also to the Premier and I want to thank you for cutting him off before he goes into another rhetorical flight and makes a whole bunch of other promises that turn out to be completely phony.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, I want to ask you about a related question. You see, it's not just in health care that you make these phony announcements. Over two years ago you tried to wipe out pay equity and then the court stepped in and said you can't wipe out pay equity, you have to pay the lowest-paid women in the province, and they ordered you to pay. So you made an announcement that you were going to come up with $140 million in pay equity payments for those women. Guess what, Premier? Just like the hospitals, it's months later and those low-paid women haven't heard from your or your government.

Premier, are you going to throw another tempter tantrum and tell your fellows on Management Board to pay up and to honour the promise you made?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We are spending more money on pay equity than any government in the history of this province. The Minister of Finance, who also sits on Management Board, has budgeted record amounts of dollars, far in excess of your government. We've also put before the people a plan to do. Unlike the Liberals in Ottawa when it comes to pay equity, who promise one thing and then renege, which they do quite often on a number of issues, unlike their failing and unforgiving and abysmal record on pay equity, along with a lot of their promises, we honoured our commitment to pay equity. We have budgeted and are allocating and working with our partners in flowing far more dollars than did even your government, although I acknowledge this: Your government commitment to pay equity is at least equal to ours, far in excess of the Liberal Party.

Mr Hampton: I don't disagree with you that the federal Liberals in Ottawa talked a good line on pay equity and now they don't want to hear the words.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on.

Supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is a matter of the courts, the courts reviewing your government's record and finding that you are in breach of the Charter of Rights and the courts ordering your government to pay some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario $140 million in pay equity payments.

You made the statement 12 months ago that you were going to honour the court decision, and just like the hospital emergency case, months have gone by and these people, who are some of the lowest-paid people in the province, haven't heard a word from your government. In fact, we are told that the bill has now gone up by a further $230 million.

Premier, you arranged a photo op today to go to Mount Sinai. What I'm asking you to do is to honour another one of those promises that you made and you haven't paid. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I at least appreciate that the member acknowledges that we both agree on the Liberal record, an abysmal record on pay equity both in Ottawa and at Queen's Park. Clearly a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

You're right, we have committed and set aside $140 million in cash this year for one-time retroactive payments. This was to cover the proxy pay equity costs, as the courts suggested we do. Unlike the Liberals in Ottawa, when the courts suggest something, we do it.

Here was the process challenge, and I think the member is challenging me to see if we can't cut through the process a little quicker. The 1994 survey data did not reflect the changes that employers had undergone, and certainly it was determined by all of the agencies, including those that would be potential recipients of money, that it wasn't right to use the five-year-old data. We do not want people to fall through the cracks.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Harris: They know the money is coming. The survey has been circulated. That information is coming into the Ministry of Finance now and we are confident that -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I understand that the Liberals in Ottawa have a problem with pay equity. I understand that the Liberals here voted against proxy pay equity. I understand all this, but this is about your credibility. You, Premier, have gone across this province and you have made all kinds of announcements about health care. Those announcements have turned out to be phony and empty, and this is just another example.

These are some of the lowest-paid women in the province. The courts have said, under the Charter of Rights and under pay equity law, that your government should have paid them. You can make announcements. You can say, "We budgeted for it." The fact is that just like the hospitals, these lowest-paid women haven't received the money they are legally entitled to.

Premier, we know you have no problem finding $6 billion to finance your income tax scheme -

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: - but why is it that when it comes to people's health care, when it comes to the lowest-paid women in the province, you stall, you stall, you stall? What's it going to take to get the money to the hospitals -

The Speaker: Premier.

1440

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that I appreciate the member's question and his concern; it is unparalleled and undaunted in support of women across this province. I accept the question in that context. I invite the member to work with us. I'm told we are still awaiting from some agencies verification of exactly whom the funding is to go to. If the member and some of his colleagues - who have demonstrated a consistent and substantial commitment to pay equity and to paying women particularly equitably, because these are some of the lower-income women who are awaiting this - can assist us in getting through the process here with the agencies in identifying those who should get the money, we would be very appreciative of that help and assistance.

I would say this: The member also talked about the income tax cuts. Those tax cuts benefited -

The Speaker: New question.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with Ipperwash and the shooting death of a First Nations person and the conviction of an OPP officer and criminal negligence. It has been three years now, and we've been pushing for an inquiry. Our worst fears are coming true, and that is that key records essential to Ipperwash are being systematically erased. That is a serious problem.

I will give you one specific which we found out about only a few weeks ago. The key person who was the liaison between your interministerial group and the police command post left the ministry on April 19, 1996. As soon as he left, his files were erased, and 30 days later the backup files were erased. Key documents required for an inquiry into Ipperwash are being systematically erased.

Premier, will you at least agree to this: that you will send all your cabinet ministers and your ministries that are affected by Ipperwash an instruction that all Ipperwash files that have not been destroyed be retained for the foreseeable future?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. I'll follow up on the specific files that went missing and ask you how it could possibly happen. I'll just say to you that the individual who was involved in this, a well-regarded OPP officer, left the ministry on April 19, 1996. Immediately after that, these key files were erased. The Solicitor General said this about those files:

"Indeed we are concerned about the loss of these files in terms of our ability to retain very important and critical files. I share your concern with respect to that. The current deputy has initiated a review of this situation and a review of the retention policy."

My question to you, Premier, is this: Nothing could be perhaps higher profile than your involvement in Ipperwash, the first death of a First Nations person in a dispute with the government at least in the last 100 years. Yet a mere few months after it happened, right in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, key files were allowed to be erased. Prior to that, had you made any instructions to ensure that those files would be retained so we could have a fair and obviously unbiased inquiry into this sorry Ipperwash affair?

Hon Mr Harris: I'll refer this to the Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): With respect to the inquiry - and the member raised this earlier - the hard copies of the significant e-mails were printed by the former employee referenced by the member in the deputy minister's office, as was his professional practice. Those copies remain in the possession of the ministry. As a result of the FOI request, the privacy commissioner was satisfied with the employee's explanation of the manner in which he managed his paper and electronic record. This order recited parts of an affidavit of this employee, who had a practice of printing significant e-mails and deleting unimportant ones. The e-mail account was closed by staff in accordance with normal office operating procedure, and this practice is consistent across government and predates the term of this administration.

The privacy commissioner was satisfied with the manner in which these records were managed, and the ministry remains in possession of all documents and has released all responsive records to the privacy commissioner, consistent with the act.

In conclusion, the government has complied with the -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, third party.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I again have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, you have refused to speak in this House about the issue that was raised yesterday and you have refused to advocate on behalf of women whose access to safe, legal abortions has been jeopardized by your government.

First, your government decided there would be no funding for new stand-alone clinics despite the fact that the existing clinics in the province are bursting at the seams trying to meet women's urgent, time-sensitive demands. Then your government allowed the restructuring commission to close hospitals which performed abortion services without providing additional funds to other providers. As a result, there's been a loss of services to women who seek them. Now you've agreed to take away the automatic exemption for abortion services, as well as labour and delivery services, to physicians and specialists who exceed their billing cap. You have not guaranteed that abortion is among the services designated, and I quote, "as underserviced domains of practice," which qualify for exemption.

Yesterday, you refused to speak to this issue, an important concern for women across the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: Will you stand up today as minister responsible for women's issues and guarantee women that their legal right to an abortion will be respected in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I know the reason for the question by the member, and I think it would be appropriate if I refer this to the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: You know what? You can't tell me what your knowledge is of the question and then refer it. You just refer a question or you don't refer it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, you're talking to me about you know the reason. Minister, I'm not debating this. I'll just warn you this time. You can refer it, but please in future just refer it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll answer the question if you think that would be appropriate.

The Speaker: OK, fine. Minister, go ahead.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, I'm not sure whether I understood you, but I'm not unhappy about answering the question.

We have not in fact refused to provide abortion services in this province.

I know the member very well, and she has been concerned about this issue, as I have. She has some concerns about the agreement that was struck with the Ontario Medical Association with regard to fee structures. She has some concerns about availability of abortions because of aging physicians who are refusing to perform abortions. We all heard in the media last night that there are some physicians who, for their own safety, will not be performing abortions in the month of November.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Don't you share those concerns?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're all concerned, men and women, in this House. This is not just a women's issue; it's a family issue. It's an issue that affects all families.

I think the specific question had to do with the fee structure, therefore deterring certain physicians. I think the Minister of Health is better able to respond to that than I am and I will refer -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: No, Minister. The question was about how you are performing your responsibilities as the minister. That's what it's about. We have not heard one word from you in terms of the cancellation of any funding for new stand-alone clinics. We haven't heard one word from you about the problems that women face who would have accessed services at hospitals that are now being closed. We haven't heard one word from you about the fact that although the minister stood here and said money would be available for this, none of it has been flowed. In fact, we have news from hospitals that say no, they haven't seen any money. One hospital, the Etobicoke General Hospital, tells us that yesterday they were told that next week they may get some money.

We're asking what you are doing on behalf of women who are finding that their access, their time-sensitive access, to abortions is being blocked by your government's policies.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I think that is more appropriately referred to the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

1450

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): This was an issue that was raised yesterday. I indicated at that time that we had accepted the recommendations regarding the reimbursement of specialist services. I also indicated yesterday that specialist services will continue to be available to those who need them. We have a specialist retention initiative which allows specialists to apply for exemption from the threshold.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. As you know, my riding of Oxford has the largest number of dairy producers in Ontario. In fact, Woodstock is known as the dairy capital of Canada. But my dairy farmers are concerned that other countries are trying to undermine Canada's dairy system. As I speak, I understand that the United States and New Zealand are trying to convince the World Trade Organization panel in Geneva to open up Canada's dairy market. Can you update the House on the status of the WTO talks in Geneva?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Oxford for that question. Yes, indeed, both the US and New Zealand have challenged Canada and its milk pricing methods. They're trying to call that an export subsidy.

It's not the first time that Canada has been challenged. My colleague from Oxford knows that I have had the opportunity of visiting dairy farms in his riding, as I have throughout eastern Ontario. As someone who knows the dairy industry, I can assure my colleague and all members of this House that Ontario's interests are being represented in Geneva as we speak by staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, along with staff from economic development and trade.

From time to time we have our differences with the federal government, but I can tell you that on this one we're very much working together as we negotiate at the WTO. We very much support the dairy industry and supply management.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Minister, for the update. Can you tell the House and the dairy farmers in my riding what will happen once the hearings wrap up today?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I hope the opposition doesn't take this too lightly, because it's very important. Meetings are terminating today in Geneva, and the WTO process is not a simple one. They will be reconvening in November, and a report will be coming forth sometime in February or March of 1999. Again, the government of Ontario is working very closely with the government of Canada to make sure that we protect the dairy industry as we've known it.

The dairy industry is one of the largest food sectors in Canada and indeed in Ontario. I am proud to tell you that we are in Geneva with the government of Canada to support the dairy industry.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Premier. Today in the gallery we have the Laporte family: Mr Roger Laporte and his wife. They're from Cumberland, Ontario. Tragically, last year they lost their son Michel as the result of a motorist who ran a red light. That motorist who ran the red light got off with a $500 fine, is still driving, and even had a record of running red lights and running stop signs for many years.

In an open letter to you, Mr Premier, Mr Roger Laporte has asked you for help in making red light cameras pass through legislation as soon as possible in order to save other lives. On behalf of Mr Laporte and the Laporte family, who are here, I ask you to make a commitment today that your government will stop obstructing the legislation to allow red light cameras in this province, that you as Premier will listen to Mr Laporte and his family and support the installation of red light cameras throughout this province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly we extend our condolences to the Laporte family and applaud them for, in their grief and in their sorrow, advancing a cause to try and ensure that no other father or mother or son or grandparent shares or goes through that grief.

We have done a number of things, as you know. We have substantially increased fines. We have brought in community zone legislation. We've announced a community safety package. We have been working with a number of police forces who have called upon us.

There are mixed reviews on one type of red light camera. I think it was the Australian study that said accidents actually went up about 71%, rear-end collisions in particular.

Mr Colle: That's not true.

Hon Mr Harris: There has been no dispute on the new technology of cameras that target the driver and affect points in those areas. The minister, who is not here today, has worked hard to see if we can't clear the way to get these new advanced cameras in place here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood, you can't accuse another member of not telling the truth. I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr Colle: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member for Prescott-Russell, supplementary.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): The person responsible for running the red light and killing Michel Laporte had previously been stopped twice for the same infraction, running a red light. These are only the times he was caught. A few days prior to the fatal accident, he was pulled over. The policeman gave him a warning. Why? Probably because the officer knew that it would be his word against the driver's and that without witnesses there would be no other possible evidence to support the charge. In our justice system, those accused have the benefit of the doubt. When are victims going to have the necessary tools to protect their rights?

Premier, every week someone is killed by a red light runner. If your government refuses to support Bill 20, God forbid that one day you will be faced with a situation where a parent, a child, a loved one or a friend will have wished that you had done so.

Would you tell this House today that you and your government will support the red light camera?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, of course, we do support red light cameras and technology. We support the technology that would deal with the very problem that you've raised, because the old technology would do nothing to charge that driver. What we need is technology that will charge the driver, will cause points, will affect insurance, will be a deterrent, in addition to all the substantial improvements and deterrents and fines that we've brought on.

If I could quote, when we were talking about photo radar, one of the honourable members said, "The other concern I have about this legislation is that the electronic monitoring and photo radar are aimed at the vehicle as opposed to the driver.... I think it takes it a step away, makes it less effective and is unfair when the ticket comes to the person who is the owner of the vehicle." That was Jim Bradley, MPP for St Catharines. We agree.

We agree as well on the red light technology, and that's why we're excited about the new technology and we would ask you to work with us and the minister to ensure that we can get it in place.

1500

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

Vous savez que la semaine passée au comité, votre assistant parlementaire nous a indiqué que la politique que votre gouvernement va suivre, une fois que vous transférez des services de la province aux nouvelles régies créées sous la Loi 12, c'est que vous allez respecter les droits des francophones. Il nous a dit que si un service est maintenant protégé par la province dans une région désignée, une fois qu'on le transfère à travers la Loi 12, il va rester et demeurer désigné sous la Loi 8 et on va avoir nos services en français.

Êtes-vous capable de vous énoncer sur ce sujet et nous clarifier que oui, ça va être la politique de votre gouvernement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I think everyone knows that this government shares his concern and appreciates the importance of ensuring that francophone rights are protected in Ontario. The ability of francophone residents to receive services in the language of their choice is very important to us, as I know it is to the member opposite.

Each ministry is addressing the needs of the francophone community as details of devolving services are finalized. For example, the continuation of French-language services under the Provincial Offences Act is being addressed through the memorandum of understanding that must be agreed to before a municipality takes on that responsibility.

Similarly, it is our intention to provide for the continuation of bilingual services in appropriate instances through the order establishing each area services board. French-language services would be covered through a minister's order as services are considered on a program-by-program basis in accordance with provincial policy.

M. Bisson : Encore au même ministre, je veux être sûr de ce que vous nous dites aujourd'hui dans l'Assemblée. Vous nous dites que si un service est maintenant donné par la province et que c'est dans une région désignée, vous allez vous assurer, programme par programme, que ce service va demeurer désigné et protégé, que les francophones vont avoir les garanties nécessaires d'aller rechercher les services dans leur municipalité désignée sous la Loi 8 ? Pouvez-vous nous donner cette clarification, s'il vous plaît.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member has worked with the committee at the House level on this and with my parliamentary assistant, and I'd be glad to work with him after the House or in the near future to get letters to clarify it. Area services boards, as he is well aware, are complicated. It's a way to deliver service that was asked for by northern municipalities in varying regions, from Fort Frances and Rainy River right through to the Cochrane-Timmins area that the member represents, and the programs could vary substantially. What we're undertaking to do is work program by program and make sure that provincial policy is adhered to and that French services are delivered in accordance with provincial policy.

CURRICULUM

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. In my constituency of Lambton I've been approached by many members of the community, including students and - the opposition might be surprised - also teachers with regard to the benefits of the new province-wide curriculum at the elementary level. Could you inform me, along with all my colleagues in this House, what this government has done to improve the quality of education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would be happy to do that, because this is a most important question. As the member for Lambton and all the members of this House will know, parents for many years have been saying that we need a challenging and clear and more rigorous curriculum because previous governments have let the curriculum slip.

This government has recognized that the curriculum is central to a quality education program. We started with the kindergarten program and introduced a new program, the first in 50 years. In grades 1 to 8, the curriculum in math and language at the elementary level stressing the basics was introduced over one year ago. More recently, science and technology, the first science curriculum in many years; the first technology program ever in many grades has been introduced.

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

Hon David Johnson: The key part of this is that there are expectations year by year so that teachers and parents and students know exactly -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Beaubien: I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the opposition has difficulty swallowing good news, especially when we're talking about quality education. Minister, could you tell me what your ministry is doing to ensure that our teachers have the necessary training to teach the new curriculum?

Hon David Johnson: This is good news. I will say that the first thing we did was we started with teachers and we had teams of teachers developing the curriculum. That was the basic start. What we have done since that point is to set up teams to train the trainers. These are ministry teams that will be training the trainers from each board across Ontario.

Next we developed the electronic curriculum planner, which helps the teachers and helps the principals. Next we developed a video entitled Implementing Ontario's Curriculum, which again is to assist teachers and principals.

All of these initiatives are to ensure that the new curriculum is implemented. I'm proud to say that with this initiative, the teachers across the province of Ontario have begun to implement the highest quality curriculum ever in the history of Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you know that your government has made a mess of the property tax system. Six different property tax bills have been before this House. Municipalities have not been able to set their budgets until September of this year. The appeals system for the property tax system is not yet in place.

Your Deputy Premier at the AMO conference in August stated that he would have a bill before this House as soon as we got back so that the property taxpayers who want to appeal their high assessments could do so before October 30.

Yesterday you're reported to have said, "We've gone over the heads of municipal authorities on a number of occasions to say, `You're not going to drive our small business people out of business,' and I'm serving notice that I'll do it again if I have to."

Are you going to call the property tax bill? There's nothing on the House schedule for Wednesday and Thursday, as far as we're concerned, as far as we know. Are you going to do that or are you going to tell us, what are your plans to help those businesses that you are literally putting out of business because of the high property tax level in this province? These people have not had a chance to appeal their assessment. What are you going to do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm going to refer it to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the bill before the House now could be passed in three and a half seconds. There is no need for two more days' debate. You've already used up one day's debate.

The appeal date, the end of October, was exactly what your critic asked for, exactly what their critic asked for. Then, when you got what you asked for, "Oh, maybe we'll change it." You're playing politics with it. You've had the day of debate on the bill. We'll be glad to call it when you'll pass it second and third on the nod. You don't need any further debate; you've had it. Pass it. If you agree with it, you can pass it. We gave you what you wanted. I know you find taking yes for an answer very tough.

Second, we are not increasing any small business person's taxes, and I can tell you we will not permit that to happen. If need be, we will pass legislation to make sure it doesn't happen.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd seek unanimous consent to ask the minister a supplementary question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to ask a supplementary question? There were a couple of noes on that one.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I request consent to revert to motions.

The Speaker: Consent to revert to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I request unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to evening sittings.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 19, 1998, the House shall not sit on the evening of Wednesday, October 21, 1998.

The Speaker: Mr Hodgson moves that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 19, 1998, the House shall not sit on the evening of Wednesday, October 21, 1998. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1510

PETITIONS

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of mine relating to the lack of this government's policy and strategy in terms of the Alzheimer strategy, which is very much needed.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We are writing in support of government action on behalf of people with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers and to remind you of issues that are of concern.

We are also deeply disappointed at the lack of a timely response by your government. These same issues were brought to your attention prior to the June 1995 election through the Alzheimer Association of Ontario. On May 26, 1995, the Alzheimer Association of Ontario received a letter from Mike Harris, along with a response to those issues from his policy inquiry team. We want to know what your party has done to fulfill those promises contained in the document that states:

"`A Harris government will: develop a province-wide strategy on Alzheimer disease; initiate province-wide consultations; enhance Alzheimer research; institute special supports for caregivers; create a partnership between yourself and the AAO; conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of Alzheimer disease; ensure adequate community supports are in place to meet the needs of persons with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers.'

"Therefore, at the Alzheimer Society, we provide greatly needed help to people with Alzheimer disease and their loved ones. We need funds redirected to our community-based side of the system and an Alzheimer strategy to provide help for today and hope for tomorrow."

These are signed by hundreds of constituents who are concerned. I am very proud and pleased to add my name to that petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the citizens of Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth outraged by the Harris property tax increases.

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $38-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing business in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I proudly add my name to those of these local petitioners.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition with 198 signatures on it.

"Whereas the population of rural Ontario is unique in that it is spread out over a wide geographic area; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education and Training's funding formula as outlined in the `student-focused funding pupil accommodation grant' uses the same benchmarks for all of Ontario, urban and rural; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education and Training's `small schools grant' and `remote and rural boards grant' do not provide adequate additional funds for rural boards to offer quality education to our children in rural Ontario;

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

"That amendments be made to current Ministry of Education and Training funding formulas to provide district school boards with additional funds that reflect the realities of providing quality education to the children of rural Ontario."

WATER QUALITY

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we petition the Minister of the Environment to supply the people of Ontario with a laboratory result concerning the existence or lack of PCBs and lead in our drinking water;

"Whereas we petition the Minister of the Environment to supply the people of Ontario with a laboratory result which contains the actual results of any contaminant in our drinking water;

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

Some 87 signatures are contained within this.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Today I present to the Legislature a petition from 88 residents in my community. It concerns the introduction of proportional correction in the Ontario Election Act and reads as follows:

"We respectfully request that the Ontario Election Act be modified so that the residual votes in each constituency (ie the votes not used to elect the winner of that constituency) be accumulated with the residual votes in all other constituencies and used to elect an additional 26 MPPs. They would be selected from published party lists, in proportion to the total number of residual votes for each political party."

Again, on behalf of 88 members, I respectfully submit this to the Legislature.

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition directed to the attention of the Minister of Health. It reads:

"In support of government action on behalf of people with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers, and to remind you of issues that are of concern.

"I'm also deeply disappointed at the lack of a timely response by our government. These same issues were brought to your attention prior to the June 1995 election through the Alzheimer Association of Ontario, the AAO. On May 26, 1995, the AAO received a letter from Mike Harris, along with a response to those issues from his policy inquiry team. We want to know what your party has done to fulfill those promises contained in the document, that states:

"`A Harris government will develop a province-wide strategy for Alzheimer disease; initiate province-wide consultations; enhance Alzheimer research; institute special supports for caregivers; create a partnership between yourself and the AAO; conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of Alzheimer disease; ensure adequate community supports are in place to meet the needs of persons with AD and their caregivers.'

"At the Alzheimer Society, we provide greatly needed help to people with AD and their loved ones. We need funds redirected towards our community-based side of the system and an Alzheimer strategy to provide help for today and hope for tomorrow."

It is signed by hundreds of people in Thunder Bay.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontarians have been infected with the hepatitis C virus as a result of transfusions using contaminated blood; and

"Whereas the current compensation package only provides funding for those people infected between the years 1986 and 1990; and

"Whereas in Canada there are at least 20,000 surviving victims who were infected with hepatitis C before 1986, who placed their faith in the blood system and are now suffering;

"Now therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of the victims and their families, in support of the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of the federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by the Ontario and federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986-90. We call on the government of Canada to do the right thing."

I affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I add my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive and present petitions on behalf of Hamiltonians who are trying to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I continue to support the petitioners from my hometown.

1520

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, draw the attention of the Parliament to the following:

"That we are very much concerned about the excessive personal watercraft - speed, danger, noise and more on our shores of Red Bay.

"It is unacceptable to stand high-speed chasing for hours, particularly in areas where people wish to swim.

"It is unacceptable that residents, property owners, guests and tourists have to take refuge indoors, closing their doors and windows due to the noise and gas smell, swimmers and children have to return to shore to avoid accidents, wildlife have to flee, if they can; the impact on fish and bird habitats must be tremendous; birds are chased and harassed; fishing boats have to stop fishing after being surrounded or chased etc.

"Accidents are unavoidable if this situation is not brought under control. Swimmers fear for their safety. At present, only a 100-foot protection zone with a 10-kilometre per hour speed limit exists. This may be sufficient for most boaters but it is by far not enough for the Jet Skis or personal watercraft which can and do manoeuvre in very shallow waters at high speeds. This is especially dangerous for shallow-water beaches such as Red Bay where children and swimmers are used to being safe up to over 400 feet where it is still possible to stand. It is urgent to extend the 100-foot zone in order to avoid accidents. In the United States, restriction zones of two miles exist in some areas, while jet drives are prohibited in other areas.

"As we do not have any further laws in this regard, we ask for a noise bylaw which would restrict the noise output of all recreational boats in order to protect human beings and wildlife from excessive noise levels. We ask for restriction in noise and speed within two miles of the shoreline. If certain legislative measures were taken, accidents, arguments and devaluation of waterfront property would be reduced or prevented. It is imperative to pass legislation before severe accidents or deaths result.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against excessive Jet Ski or personal watercraft - noise, speed and danger. We do not object to personal watercraft but the unsafe and disruptive use of them."

I affix my name to the top.

DENTAL CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads like this:

"Whereas a new schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act; and

"Whereas the new schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario; and

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral hygiene; and

"Whereas the new dental schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without adequate consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

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

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

I affix my signature to this very able petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Whereas the tax scheme instituted by the Harris Conservatives provides real benefits only to individuals with the highest incomes, while forcing cuts to health care, schools, environmental protection and other vital services; and

Whereas 25% of the money from the tax scheme goes to the top 6% of individual taxpayers in Ontario; and

Whereas rebuilding public services will only be possible when this tax scheme for the wealthy is repealed;

Therefore this House urges an immediate reinvestment in health care, education, environmental protection and other services in our communities, financed by reversing the tax scheme for the top 6% of individual taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Hampton has moved opposition day motion number 2. Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton: The defining issue in Ontario today is where you stand on giving billions of dollars to high-income individuals in an income tax scheme while taking that money away from health care, education, environmental protection and other community services that are important to all of us and that are crucial, absolutely crucial, for sustaining and building the Ontario we treasure.

The income tax scheme put in place by the Harris Conservatives, now that it is fully phased in, will take $6 billion a year to pay for. The question we have to ask is, does everyone benefit equally from that $6-billion-a-year income tax scheme? The answer is, not a chance. The top 6%, the 6% who are at the very top of the income and wealth ladder, individuals with taxable income over $80,000 a year, get 25% of the $6-billion-a-year income tax scheme. In other words, more than $1.5 billion are being taken out of health care and education and funnelled into the pockets of people who are already very well off in this province.

Speaker, I want you to know and I want everyone in Ontario to know that New Democrats believe that is wrong. It's wrong to cut health care, education, environmental protection and vital community services to put more money in the pockets of people who are already well off. It's not a case of a little too far a little too fast, as Liberals would say. It's wrong.

People in modest- and middle-income families know perfectly well that they aren't benefiting from this income tax scheme and that they're not going to benefit from this income tax scheme, because whatever little benefit they are supposed to get out of this income tax scheme is more than overwhelmed by dramatically higher tuition fees, is more than overwhelmed by new health care user fees, is more than overwhelmed by property taxes that have gone up and are going to go up and up and up, is more than overwhelmed by new copayment fees, new user fees, new administrative fees, and is more than overwhelmed by the incredible cuts to health care and to education, which all of us depend on.

Middle- and modest-income families across Ontario know that when they add up all the new user fees, the new higher tuition fees, the soaring property taxes, the unchecked pollution in our province, the closing of schools and over-crowded emergency rooms, they are losing from this income tax scheme, they are paying for this income tax scheme in dozens and dozens of ways, all to benefit the 6% at the top of the income and wealth ladder.

Not only that, but the real risk down the road is that this income tax scheme will be institutionalized, will be cemented in place, and that will mean continuing cuts to health care, continuing cuts to education, continuing cuts to the community services we all need to finance this income tax scheme on a year-over-year basis.

1530

I want to say something to my Liberal colleagues, because I think it's here they have to answer for something. Liberals, we have seen in this Legislature, will stand and criticize the income tax scheme. They criticize the income tax scheme and they acknowledge that money is being taken out of health care to pay for it, they acknowledge that money is being taken out of education to pay for it, they know that money is being taken out of environmental protection to pay for it, yet they say that if they become the next government of Ontario, they will institutionalize this income tax scheme, they will cement it in place. They will cement in place an income tax scheme that will day in, day out, year in, year out continue to drain money from education, from health care, from environmental protection and from the community services we all need.

I believe Liberals have to come clean on this issue. They have to say to people very directly, do they believe in health care, will they reinvest in health care, will they reinvest in education, or are they going to cement in place an income tax scheme that is going to continue to bleed health care, continue to bleed education, continue to bleed environmental protection? We need a straight answer.

For us as New Democrats the priority is clear. We need to begin reversing this income tax scheme for the 6% at the top of the income and wealth ladder. That would give us more than $1.5 billion to put back into education, back into health care, back into environmental protection, where it will do the most good for the most people.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Aren't they cutting taxes in BC right now?

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Hampton: I note that the Liberal member here is having a bit of discomfort. I can understand why he would have a bit of discomfort, because I know Mr Bradley is one of the more progressive Liberals and he's probably having a difficult time understanding the position his own party is taking.

Mr Bradley: I'm really against that back-to-work legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Hampton: The Harris Conservatives will promise to keep going with their income tax scheme and with other tax schemes no matter what the damage. We know that. We know that this government over here is not in the tradition of Bill Davis, is not in the tradition of John Robarts. They are not progressive Conservatives. We know this group over here has more in common with Newt Gingrich and some of the right-wing Republicans in the United States or Preston Manning and the Reform Party, who get most of their ideas from the United States. We understand that.

We understand that this outfit over here will continue to undermine public health care, continue to undermine public education, continue to undermine environmental protection because their view of the world is simply this: Most services should be privatized. Their view of the world is that those who have money can afford to buy decent health care; those who have money can afford to buy a decent education; and those who have money can go live in a secluded suburb somewhere, where they don't have to worry about the polluted air. This is a government that believes if you have money, everything's going to be OK. If you don't have money, you don't matter anyway to this government; just get out of the way. That's becoming quite evident.

New Democrats don't believe in that world. In fact, we believe that if we're going to progress economically as a province, if we're going to progress socially as a province, we have to find a way to ensure that public education is adequately funded, health care is adequately funded and it should not be the American style of health care, which is by definition, if you have money you get health care; if you don't have money you wait. You wait, you get sick and sometimes, too often, you die. We know that's where the Conservatives are.

The Liberals say, if I can quote them, that it would be a big mistake to reverse this income tax scheme, or any part of it that is taking money out of health care, money out of education, money out of environmental protection, money away from community services, and put it back into those services which will do the most good for the most people. That's what Liberals say. Again, I think we need some clarity on this issue. Liberals have said that they would institutionalize, they would cement this income tax scheme in place. This means that Liberals are prepared to see further cuts to health care, further cuts to education, further cuts to environmental protection, further cuts to the community services that we all need if we're going to progress together.

We need some clarity on this issue; we need a great deal of clarity on this issue. What I hope will emerge today is we will get that clarity. As I say, this is the issue that is not going to go away as we head towards the next election. Either you believe that this income tax scheme is doing something beneficial for the province and that that benefit is greater than the cuts to health care, greater than the damage being done to education and greater than the damage being done to the environment, or you believe we'd be better off investing in health care, education, environmental protection and community services so we can do the most good for the most people. You can't be in both camps at the same time.

In kicking off this debate today, I look forward to listening to the comments of colleagues on all sides of the House. I hope at the end of the day positions will be clear. I hope all those people out there in Ontario who care very much about health care, care about education, care about environmental protection, care about community services will come away from this day with a much clearer picture of who stands where, who supports the income tax scheme that's cutting health care and education and who stands on the side of health care and education and environmental protection.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to join the debate and say very clearly at the outset that the government disagrees with this resolution and will vote against it. We disagree with its content and we disagree with its intent.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What about the attack on the Liberals?

Mr Baird: We definitely agree with the attack on the Liberals, I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

The resolution says the tax cut provides real benefits only to individuals with the highest income. Wrong, totally wrong, not the case at all. Folks with an income of as little as $15,000 get the greatest benefit. Their tax cut is almost 50%. The $24,000-a-year earners get a tax cut of almost 35%. A $28,000 income gets a tax cut of 33%. Those making $38,000 again get a tax cut of more than 30%, and I can only imagine what the tax cut of some of my colleagues across the way will be. This tax cut provides real benefits to working families in the province of Ontario.

The average household in my riding will see more than $100 per household per month. What that's doing in our community to help create jobs and restore hope and opportunity is nothing short of incredible. The economy is doing well because tax cuts help create jobs.

When you factor in the fair share health levy promised in the Common Sense Revolution, it makes the income tax cuts brought forward by the Harris government progressive; it provides real benefit to the people who need it most. Those lower-income working families get a higher tax cut than the rich folks who live on Bay Street in the member for Fort York's riding, those bankers that he represents. Those making more than $68,000 a year get less than a 30% tax cut. So we know the tax cut is progressive and helps those people who need it the most, and that's indeed good news. In fact, the very rich, like some of my colleagues in the third party, can get as little as an 18% tax cut, so we know how progressive it is and how good-news it is, real benefits for working families.

1540

The opposition doesn't want to hear about the real benefits to working families because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of the world. As a result of the tax cut, the top 10% of earners will pay a bigger portion of Ontario's personal income tax, 45.9%, and that's before they cut taxes when they paid only 42.8%. In other words, their share of the personal income tax burden is actually up by more than 7%, and that's important to note.

Tax cuts create jobs. Since the tax cut started, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been in Ontario.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Say that again, because I don't think they heard it.

Mr Baird: My friend wants me to say it again, and I will. Since the tax cut started, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been created right here in Ontario. There were 62,000 last month alone; 62% of the jobs created in Canada, the member for Lanark says.

And 408,000 jobs have been created in Ontario since September 1995. By contrast, in the 1990-95 period, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of the country of Canada gained, and that's worth noting.

This resolution says the tax cut is financed from health cuts. Wrong, wrong. In fact, the tax cut is bringing in more revenue. When we cut taxes, the government's bringing in more money. Isn't that funny? It's exactly like the last government but in reverse. When they raised taxes, they brought in less revenue. When they squeezed harder there just wasn't as much to squeeze, and when we cut taxes we bring in more money, particularly from high-income earners. They're paying more taxes now than they did before as a share of the provincial income tax revenues. The members opposite don't want to talk about that because it doesn't fit into their political plans. Never let the facts get in the way.

They talk about cuts to health care. We've increased spending on health care by more than $1 billion, which is important to note.

I want to say to the member for Lake Nipigon that I can respect the New Democratic Party. They want big government, they want big spending and they're going to be honest about it in the public policy discussions in Ontario. They disagree with the tax cut and they want to get rid of it. At least they're prepared to pony up and be honest with the people of Ontario, unlike our colleagues in Liberal Party, who always want to play both sides of the same issue. That's something that's important.

What do the Liberals say on taxes? "It doesn't make sense to offer a tax break which is going to cost us $5 billion a year. We simply cannot offer that tax break without delving into expenditures ultimately in health care and education." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty, in a Kitchener-Waterloo debate on September 22, 1996. That was then and this is now. They want to keep the tax cut. They have changed their minds yet again.

That's yet another reversal, because during the leadup to the last election campaign, "McLeod Reinforces Commitment to Cut Taxes." This is a press release with the Liberal logo on the top. Before balancing the budget, they wanted to cut taxes by $2 billion.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): One per cent per year. Get your facts straight.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Baird: A $2-billion tax cut. "Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod said tonight a Liberal government in Ontario would cut taxes. `It's time the government started following a policy for zero tolerance for tax increases. A Liberal government will cut overall taxes.'" Very, very interesting, and now they seem to have change their mind.

What else do they say about tax cuts? "I'm not interested in raising taxes on any front. It would send a terrible signal to the business community here to tax a competitive jurisdiction." That was from a speech and question-and-answer session in London, Ontario, on February 9, 1998. So we don't think the Liberals are going to go back on their tax cut commitment.

But there's a very interesting article - Speaker, I know you're going to be interested in this - from NOW magazine, "How will Grits pay for school pledge?"

"Not surprisingly, the question of how to pay for promises like education improvements was on the agenda at the Liberal caucus retreat in Collingwood last week. MPP Gerard Kennedy" - Dalton McGuinty's right-hand man, quite literally -

Mr Gerretsen: He's his left-hand man.

Mr Baird: The left-hand man, the member says - "says he and some other caucus members favour a reconsideration of the position that they will `maintain the fiscal framework' - McGuinty's words for keeping the Tory tax cut in place."

I'll go on, Speaker, because I know you're interested in this:

"`We spent a fair bit of time talking about that (in Collingwood),' says Kennedy. `That was certainly the centrepiece of a lot of the discussion. It covered a pretty good gamut of points of view. I don't think we have a consensus yet, so we could say there's a difference of opinion here. You can expect that, but we really did do some wrestling, looking at the measures Liberals would like to take and how they would be costed.'"

So we know now that the Liberals are thinking about raising taxes in Ontario and that there is a fight going on - another fight - in the Liberal caucus. Some folks want to raise taxes to pay for big government and big spending and others want to go into the election platform -

Mr Gerretsen: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Baird: I've got the quote right here from Gerard Kennedy. If the member opposite wants to cut down Gerard Kennedy, I'll let him do that on his own time.

The Liberals have a big problem. They want to have it both ways. They want to spend more money on health, they want to spend more money on education, they want to allow school boards to raise taxes again. The member for York South, Mr Kennedy, has said he wants to raise welfare rates by 21.6%. That's going to cost more than $1 billion a year. We'd like to know how they intend to pay for that.

They want to bring back quotas; the Liberals will have to, inevitably, after the election, should they form a government.

The cost to pay off the union bosses will cost this province billions: higher WCB premiums to pay for increased benefits; bringing back Bill 40, which would send a terrible message to job creation and investment in the province of Ontario.

What else are the Liberals saying?.

"I think people understand that when we make promises, generally that calls for higher tax increases" - CKCO TV interview, March 1,1998.

"I wouldn't give you a tax cut" - Dalton McGuinty, July 29, 1997.

"Taxes are too high for too many" - Dalton McGuinty, speech to the Liberal Party of Canada, February 22, 1997.

"I think government should always reserve the right to raise taxes." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty said that as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Which way was the wind blowing?

Mr Baird: Which way was the wind blowing? the member asks. That is indeed the case.

As the member for Rainy River said, the Liberals can't have it both ways. When the clock strikes 6, we will know where the Liberals stand on these issues. I know some of their caucus colleagues want to know where they stand.

I have an article here from the Hamilton Spectator back a few years ago:

"Outside the meetings, some Liberals expressed concerns the party will be handicapped in opposition by a campaign platform that advocated many of the things the Tories are now doing.

"`We are all signing from the same song sheet,' said rookie member Sandra Pupatello of Windsor. `How can we go in guns blazing when we would have been doing the same things?'"

This is the Liberal member for Windsor-Sandwich saying this.

"Mike Colle, a member of the west Toronto riding of Oakwood, said his party strayed too far to the right in opposing the NDP and should return to its left-of-centre roots. `I don't want to be part of the mushy middle any more.'"

I know Mike Colle believed that when he said it.

But they aren't alone. In the Toronto Star, Friday, September 8, 1995, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the member for Windsor-Sandwich's colleague and my good friend, said, "We've been far too fuzzy for far too long." He went on to say, "We're going to have to some day decide what we stand for and then stand for it. We have some serious navel gazing to do."

I agreed with the member for Windsor-Walkerville when he said that back not too many years ago.

The Liberal Party has got to come clear on this. They've got to come to the table and tell us where they stand, how they would pay for their risky fiscal framework.

The member for Hamilton Centre said in debate here last week that Dalton McGuinty has stopped saying he'll increase health and education spending. Now he's starting to talk about building walls around those funding envelopes. They can't have it both ways. They've got to come clean with the people of Ontario.

The New Democratic Party is at least being honest. They disagree with the tax cut. They want to increase spending in the government and they're going to tell the people of Ontario exactly how they would do it. It's time the Liberal Party went on the record and said the same thing.

1550

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for York South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning government cutbacks in emergency room funding. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock today.

Further debate? The member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): What we've seen here is certainly what we call government by public relations gimmicks. We've seen this throughout northern Ontario, throughout northwestern Ontario; we've actually seen it throughout the entire province.

I cannot think of a better example than seeing the Premier, after I asked him a question in the House regarding his trip to Ear Falls, get up there and make an announcement that they'd been waiting months for in terms of keeping their clinic open. On the great day the Premier arrived in Ear Falls, he said, yes, there will be $300,000 a year to keep the clinic in Ear Falls open, a clinic which was needed for the health care services of the residents of Ear Falls and that area. What we found out and what we've been talking about in the last six or seven days is that it was nothing but a photo op. There was no money that went along with this announcement.

Today, we finally get it from the Premier that the money will flow into Ear Falls. But up until this time, it was only a photo op, with the Premier up there having to say something positive. He actually said it, but after much debate and much questioning in the House - I indicated at one point that it was really unusual. I'd never, ever seen in the history of this province a Premier go into a community such as Ear Falls, that size, make this fantastic announcement, and then nothing happened for over 135 days. Nothing went into that area at all.

Madam Speaker, you'll know that I've raised as well the issue of our psychiatric patients ending up in jail cells in this province, something that most people would think would be unheard of in Ontario today, one of the greatest provinces in one of the greatest countries in the world to live in. We have patients, health care psychiatric patients, ending up in jail cells. This happens.

If you run into a psychiatric problem in northwestern Ontario after 5 o'clock on a weekday or before 9 o'clock on a weekday, or on a weekend, instead of getting the psychiatric services you need in a hospital, you end up in a jail cell. Again, I've brought that problem to the minister's attention many times, to the Premier's attention. How can they allow that to happen in Ontario today?

This issue is actually increasing with time. Just the other day, October 19, yesterday, we have a letter directed to the superintendent of the jail. This is to the Kenora jail. The psychiatrists have written the jail to tell them that they will be unable to provide further psychiatric services to that jail. Let me just quote from that letter.

The psychiatrist goes on to write:

"I have made the ministry aware for some time that Kenora is significantly understaffed for" psychiatric services "and we need a significant commitment if we are to meet the needs of the district. To date, there has been no solution" - I repeat, no solution - "and we must impose strict limits on what we are able to accomplish, given the above.

"To that end, we are unable to provide psychiatric assessments at the jail other than for patients whom we have previously followed. I sincerely regret having to make this decision, but we have little option at this time.

"Should you have any specific concerns, please address them to the Ministry of Health, as the solution to this dilemma is solely within their domain."

That's signed by Dr Watler, a psychiatrist at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital, telling the jail that he can no longer provide additional services to them; as I indicated earlier, where we have psychiatric patients in the province of Ontario ending up in jail cells.

I guess what we see in a number of cases is a government here that wants to run government and come up with solutions through ads. If they have a problem where a patient is waiting for a number of months and it's brought to their attention, what do they do? They come up with an ad, they come up with a gimmick and try to sell their programs to the people of Ontario. Let me tell this government, let me tell the Premier, the Minister of Health, the cabinet, it's not working in northwestern Ontario. When the money does not flow, the doctors are not there to provide the services we need.

I've spoken a number of times on the anaesthetists' services that we require in the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora in order that we can carry on with the surgery program. At the present time, the government is dragging four of our GPs through what they would like to call negotiations. The four GPs who are being dragged through these are threatening to remove services. That would mean there would be no more operations in that hospital, that they would have to take surgery off the books. That means that anybody having a possible problem with a delivery would have to go to another facility.

Again we're finding that the other facilities are saying: "No, we can't accept these patients because we are overburdened. We're not going to accept these patients." All the government has to do is sit down to meaningful negotiations with those four GPs and work out a solution. That's all we're asking. The GPs are telling me that no one from the government is sitting there working with them to find a solution to this problem, a government that has just no interest in working out solutions. They seem to want to bring people on and create animosity between groups. They've done it with the teachers, we've seen it with the nurses, now we're seeing it with our doctors, some of our most important people, people whom we in northwestern Ontario depend on.

People who are going to be moving into our communities will be looking and finding out whether we have those services when they actually want to come into northwestern Ontario and work. Another gimmick that the Minister of Health came up with over a year ago was announcing - again another announcement - $36 million to attract doctors to our rural and northern communities. Madam Speaker, you will remember I've raised that issue a number of times: Where is the money? It's just not there. We're seeing it over and over again. I have to agree with the NDP that we are seeing problems in terms of our health care services, in terms of our educational services throughout the northwest.

But when it comes to the unlikelihood of the NDP suggesting that they will raise taxes in one portion of the taxation sector, I have a problem because we've heard it before. We've heard the NDP talk about raising taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, when we heard that when they were in government in the years 1990-95, the rich happened to turn out to be anyone who had a job. We found out that the taxes were raised for those across the board. It concerns me that this is the only party I know of in North America at this time that is suggesting tax increases rather than holding the line. I have a real problem with that.

Maybe Mr Harris should have waited for the budget to be balanced before his cuts. Maybe he should have ensured that we weren't going to be facing the situations we are facing today in terms of emergency health care services, in terms of anaesthetists, in terms of our psychiatric services, in terms of another program which I failed to mention, the diabetic education program in Kenora. I've brought to the attention of this House many times the importance of that program to a very significant group in northwestern Ontario; again a non-commitment from the Minister of Health to allow that program to go beyond one year. They waited until the last hour in determining an additional year of funding for that program but absolutely refused to give them a commitment to a very important program.

Getting back to the NDP and their tax increase, we have to take a look at that. At the time that I sat in this House with the NDP in government and the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance at the time, telling us that he's going to spend his way out of a recession, that hurt a lot of people. It had a great, devastating effect in terms of the finances of this province. They ended up being the worst financial managers in the history of Ontario. The facts just point to that: four years of huge deficits averaging $10.3 billion a year. The NDP spent 24% more than they raised over four years.

The provincial debt - this is a very interesting figure and one that I'm sure you'll hear again from me - grew from $39.3 billion in 1990 to - guess what? I'm sure you know the figure - $90.4 billion at the end of 1994-95. That was when the NDP government was trying to spend their way out of a recession. The public debt interest costs increased from $3.8 billion in 1989-90 to double that, to $7.9 billion in 1994-95. These are things that people are going to be asking about when they hear about an NDP platform that says yes, they're going to reverse the tax scheme; they talk about reversing the tax scheme.

1600

I would warn anyone out there who thinks they're going to get an easy ride with the NDP suggestion that they're going to do this to take a look at that fiscal record when they were in government and we had huge deficits, on an average of $10.3 billion a year, when the debt grew - I want to repeat these figures; I think they're very important - from $39.3 billion in 1990 to $90.4 billion at the end of 1994-95. This is a record that the wannabe Premier, Mr Hampton, is going to have to answer for when we take a look at the next election.

Tuition fees, an area that I had a great number of people come to me about and suggest that they were troubled with: If I go back and take a look again at the NDP record on tuition fees, we find out that they increased them 50%. College fees increased 36% from 1990 to 1995; so university tuition fees up 50%, college tuition fees up 36% from 1990 to 1995.

I can see what the NDP is trying to do in terms of this resolution, in terms of what's happening to health care and to education throughout the province and in northern Ontario, particularly in northwestern Ontario. But when it comes to their resolution in terms of taxation - the only political party, as I said earlier, that I know is suggesting a tax increase for the people of this province - I cannot agree with this resolution.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I want to just pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker mentioned, not because it was any particular member of the Liberal caucus; he's just the one who spoke before me.

It's interesting to listen to Liberals in Ontario talk about credibility around budget matters and around the economy and about fiscal responsibility when they're the ones who in 1990 were out beating their chests in pride over the $25-million surplus they said they had that evaporated after the election and turned into, when one did a proper accounting of the books, a $3-billion deficit. Where do they get off preaching to anybody on how the economy and the budget of this province ought to operate?

It was really interesting to listen. That was the first speaker up from the Liberal caucus who has had to try to defend and explain this little dance that the Liberals are planning to do in the next election, whereby they will be making the same promises as the NDP in terms of health care investment, education investment, social service investment and environmental protection, but they're not going to touch that tax cut. They're going to leave that tax cut in place for all their rich friends because they can't handle the politics of what happens if they say that they're going to take that money and reinvest it. At the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere.

Originally, the Liberals were hoping that they would have the opportunity to live off the avails of the Tory surplus, but Wall Street and Bay Street and a few other stock markets around the world have taken care of that. There isn't going to be a surplus. In fact, if the economy continues to fall, who knows where we will be 12 months from now in terms of not just the economy in Ontario but across the North American continent and potentially around the entire world. So the ability to say there will be money left over from the Tories' tainted economic agenda to invest in schools and hospitals isn't there.

The Liberals are hoping that somehow they can manage - that's why it's so interesting to watch today's debate. It's the first opportunity where we all get a chance to hold their feet to the fire and say, "You've talk about investing in health care, talked about investing in education, talked about investing in our communities, but where's the money?" Where are you going to get the money? The money's got to come from somewhere. It will be interesting how they vote because at the end of the day -

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: I hear my colleague from Hamilton East, as I heard the member for St Catharines. Both are well-noted progressives within the Liberal Party and I've got to believe that they're just squirming big time because they know that at the end of the day that the reality is you cannot promise to improve health care and education if you don't show where the money is going to come from. As long as the majority of their colleagues insist on following the Harris tax scam, the reality is that money is not there.

What we're going to be left with in the next election is not three alternatives. There will be three parties, but there won't be three alternatives. There will be the Mike Harris version of what Ontario ought to look like, which I think my leader Howard Hampton very effectively outlined in his leadoff speech, or there will be an approach by New Democrats that invests real money in education, real money in health care, real money in social services and real money in environmental protection, and will show where the money is going to come from.

The Libs are going to be offering up some watered-down version of both and I'm shocked - I want to say I really am shocked - because they've been here before. In 1990 they tried to be a little bit of everything and a version of what the different parties offered. They started at 50% in the polls and went down in flames and the NDP formed a majority government. In 1995, under the leadership of the Liberal who sits beside me now in the House - on the edge of the Liberal caucus; I want to be clear to anybody watching that there's a line here, a very solid line.

Mr Baird: A line in the sand.

Mr Christopherson: A line in the sand. Under her leadership there was the Liberal red book, which really was just a watered-down version of what the Tories were offering under the Common Sense Revolution. Probably, if I can just point out, the best example to me was on workfare. The Tories, much to their discredit in my opinion, shamefully said that forced labour is something we ought to bring back in the province of Ontario. They took that position, they were clear about it and they ran on it. The Liberals condemned that - the last thing I need is Tories handing me paperwork in the middle of a speech, even if it is against the Libs. It's always worth reading, but not out loud.

I was talking about the Libs and the Tories having said that they were going to go for workfare and what that means. What did the Liberals do? The Liberals condemned -

Mr Baird: Read it, read it.

Mr Christopherson: John is indicating that I must look at this. Yes, that's what I'm going to say, John. Thanks.

Now I'm worried about saying it.

The Liberals condemned, of course, the Tories' workfare and called it everything that it is, all the awful things that it is, but then they ran on a platform that said: "We don't agree with workfare because that's not right. What we do agree with is mandatory opportunity."

Give me a break. Mandatory opportunity. A perfect Liberal slogan for a Liberal view of how you just slip and slide on the issues.

I want to say that that is the essence. In addition to putting forward our economic base, if you will, in terms of where are we going to get the money to invest in the key things that matter to us, we also want to flush out the Libs. It's no big secret. Every member in this House who read the resolution knew that. That's what it's meant to do. It's meant to show them for what they are, which is - well, I can't go there.

1610

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I don't think you're allowed to use that word in here.

Mr Christopherson: That's right, I realized I can't say that. But I can go on to describe why it's important that we understand where the money is going to come from. I offer up, admittedly given the poll numbers of both the other two parties, the governing Tories and the official opposition Liberals, that it is indeed important for us to be able to stake out our ground and provide an alternative that is meaningful.

I want to say very sincerely that, as much as I know my Tory colleagues will disagree with the essence of what is in this resolution and what our platform is, I think there's an acknowledgement that it is an alternative view of Ontario that needs to be debated and articulated from now until the election and during the election campaign.

Again, since there are two opposition parties here and we will be attempting to do the same thing, we feel it is important that when we hear our colleagues in the Liberal Party stand up and condemn your phony tax scam - because it is - and when they stand up and condemn the cuts to health care, the closing of hospitals, the damage you have done to the world-class health care system we have, they're right.

When they stand up and condemn you for the schools that are going to close all across this province, the chaos that has been created in the education system, the morale damage - at least, the morale damage is only one item in terms of teachers, and that affected all our kids, and I have a 6-year-old daughter, so I feel this as passionately as anyone can - they're right to say those things.

But what upsets us here in the NDP is that, while they say they're going to correct it, the only way you can correct the kinds of things you have done - because as much as it's policy, at the end of the day it's really more about money, the money you took out to give to your rich friends. What upsets us the most is to have another political party say they disagree with you the way we do and they want to see investment in health care, education, social services and environmental protection the way we do, but they don't show anyone how they're going to pay for it. In this day and age, politics has changed a lot. People understand a lot more how things operate. Probably better and more than many members of this House, the public understands what's going on. It's important to have this kind of debate.

Let me also speak a little bit to the essence of what we are putting forward. We are not, regardless of what the Tories and the Liberals want to say, suggesting we are going to raise taxes for everyone. That is not the case. We are saying, however, that there are people in this province who are doing very, very well by the Mike Harris agenda, in particular its phony tax scam, thank you very much.

That doesn't require a lot of convincing with people. People themselves know that the tax scam has meant to them - what? Anybody watching right now, what has it meant to you? Maybe a cup of coffee a week, maybe a few bucks here and there, probably not even noticeable. Certainly most of the people I speak to when I travel across the province tell me they don't even notice the impact of the tax cut in terms of anything in their paycheque.

But boy do people notice when you start closing hospitals, when you start seeing, as we did in Hamilton, that there's a $38-million deficit in the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp budget as it stands right now because of what the Tory government has done that has the CEO of the second-largest hospital in Canada, that's in Hamilton, saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "We can't meet any more demand on our system, because we don't have the cash."

The latest announcement to come from our hospital is that they're going to have to borrow the money to get through to the end of the fiscal year. I'm not aware that this has ever happened before in the history of Ontario. That is not the way we operate hospitals.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): You should feel comfortable talking about borrowing. You know all about borrowing - $11-billion deficits.

The Acting Speaker: Solicitor General, come to order, please.

Mr Christopherson: Besides, it was Mike Harris who said: "Oh, I won't do anything to hospitals. I won't do anything to health care. I'm going to keep it at the same level." They brag about the fact that it's up a bit, but the reality is, when you look at the increased demand on the health care system because of birth rates and, probably more importantly, the fact that our population is aging, the baby boomers are now getting to the point where they're requiring more and more health care services and more extensive and more expensive health care services, that is not adequate funding to meet the health care needs. If it were, we wouldn't have the kinds of headlines we do. That's what's happening in my community.

If you're one of those who make $300,000, $400,000, $500,000, $1 million - I don't know an awful lot of them, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who are watching this who don't know a lot of them, but they're out there. They make that kind of money. When you take a look at the Tory tax scam in terms of what it has meant for them, we're talking serious coin. We are talking tens of thousands of after-tax dollars. That's real money. You start cutting somebody a cheque for 20, 30, 40 grand and say, "There you go; that's what you get for voting for us," hell, I'd think you're wonderful. Who wouldn't?

The problem is, there's only a tiny little percentage of people who get that kind of benefit, and for those people, in terms of the health care and the school crisis, at the blink of an eye they can just send their kids off to a private school. They're lucky, and that's fine; it's their right in a free and democratic society, and I don't think people even begrudge that. But it does give those who already have a lot an out that no one else has.

We're close enough to the American border with that privatized American health care system that if you earn a few hundred thousand dollars a year and you feel that the publicly underfunded health care system doesn't give you what you want for your family members, then you can bloody well cut the cheque that will make sure you can get the services down in the States.

Isn't that exactly what our access to universal medical attention was all about and was meant to prevent: that those who have money can have their kids' health taken care of and those who don't have the money are out of luck? Hasn't the example of the American system proven that we went down the right road, that Tommy Douglas, the Premier of Saskatchewan - the CCF Premier, I would point out, which was the predecessor of the NDP. The first social democratic government in North America was the government that brought in the first universal health care system on the entire continent. As New Democrats, we continue to be proud of that. That was all about preventing the kind of scenario I've just described.

By the way, I would point out for the information of the Tories that that was also the first government, provincial or national, in the last three decades that brought in a balanced budget. They brought in the balanced budget that the federal Liberals, the federal Tories and the provincial Liberals and provincial Tories only talked about.

So it's important to understand that it is entirely possible, if you set it as your goal, to have an economy that works for the benefit of the population, that is responsible, that is credible and that can still be socially responsible in the way, I would point out and remind members, that is consistent with the things that made Canada four times the best place to live, as voted by the United Nations.

It wasn't because we took care of our rich better than any other country, it wasn't because we sold off our health care system, it wasn't because we slashed our environmental protection that we were voted the best country in the world to live in by the United Nations four times. It was because of the kind of society we built, a society that had a world-class education system that was accessible to everyone, a world-class health care system that made sure nobody went without proper health care just because they didn't have the dollars. That's the price that we pay. That's the price that the vast majority of people in Ontario pay for this kind of agenda.

1620

What we are saying is that with only 6% of the population, because that's the number who make more than $80,000, we can generate, by going back to the tax rate - this is not some huge eat-the-rich kind of ridiculous, radical, wild-eyed thing that the Tories and Liberals are trying to portray. What we're talking about is going back to taxation levels that are back to 1995, just that. And by the way, these are folks who have done very, very well since 1995. What we're saying is, by asking that 6% to pay their fair share, the same share they were paying in 1995, we get in excess of $1.5 billion.

That is real money that we can put into health care to make sure it remains the kind of world-class system we were so proud of once. We can put that real money back into our school system so that our children have a real future, not the hollow one that Premier Harris talks about.

That's the essence of the resolution before us. It's to say that the polarization that has gone on under this Mike Harris Tory government - that the very, very wealthy, the most powerful, influential people in our province, who already have in abundance, pay back a little of what they have gotten out of the three years that Mike Harris was in government. We're talking about 6% of the population going back to the same tax rates we had in 1995, and by virtue of that, we can do what we need to, or at least make a really good start, with real money, in health care and in education.

The vast majority of the population, the 94% who are left over, who by the way are getting next to nothing in this - the government likes to talk about percentages. Give me a break. Who wouldn't take 10% of $1 million over 30% of 35 grand a year any day of the week? Don't play that game. That's the reality of what's happening here. You've convinced the vast majority of people that somehow they've gotten the same benefit that the very wealthy have, and that's not the case. The very wealthy have done very well. The rest of the population are the ones who are suffering under the kind of heartless cuts you've imposed; not the necessary efficiencies that any reasonable person would agree to but heartless, inconsiderate, damaging cuts to those things that have made this a great province and a great country.

We believe, as New Democrats, that if we follow the direction that's outlined in our resolution today, we can begin to put ourselves back on track and take us back to the kind of province and the kind of country that have been the envy of the world. We can do it.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Having listened to the member for Hamilton Centre, there's just no question in my mind that the New Democratic Party of Ontario is indeed an authority on the tax, spend and borrow cycle that's gone on in this province for the years from 1990 to 1995.

They formed an unholy alliance with the Liberals back in 1985-87, and you couldn't tell the difference in that coalition as to who was who. As you look across the House today, the way they vote, the way they think, the way they speak, they all believe the very same thing. They are both specialists in spending. The Liberals did a little better job. They were more of a specialist on taxation. The NDP have specialized in borrowing. As you can see, the Liberals doubled the spending; the NDP, in their five-year term, doubled the debt.

In both cases, they have been opposed to tax cuts right from the very beginning. It's surprising that the NDP - and you would know best about this, Madam Speaker - have now taken a different twist: They're only opposing tax cuts for the top 6%. Therefore, I gather they agree with the other 94% who are getting a tax cut. The NDP's present cure seems to be the same old prescription that created the decline of the province throughout the 1990s.

I really have to wonder who in the leader of the third party's office calls the shots. Who is in that headquarters? Who comes up with these high-tax solutions that seem to be the solution to absolutely everything? They're convinced that if you only get those taxes up high enough, sooner or later the patient will respond. Well, I have bad news for them. The NDP almost killed the Ontario patient back in the early 1990s. Tax, spend and borrow was their basic policy.

The leader of the third party keeps talking about increasing taxes on the rich and wonders - maybe he has never wondered about the brain drain. Why do we lose so many of our people to the US and other countries? When people have choices they will indeed flee high-tax jurisdictions; people like our professors, our physicians, our engineers, computer experts -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Even veterinarians.

Mr Galt: Even veterinarians and top administration. These are the people who have the most to lose. Ontario for a long time had been the home of low tuition fees and high income and property taxes. It makes sense: get trained in Ontario and then flee and go to a place where the taxes are much lower.

It would appear that we are indeed on the right track, as you look at some of the recent polls indicating the PCs of Ontario at 58%, on the right track. They agree with the government's direction. Why? Because of the recovery plan that our party has put in place. We've had the courage to carry through with those commitments which include cutting taxes. We've made the tough decisions of cutting taxes, reducing spending and eliminating red tape and it's now paying off, to the jealousy of the NDP and the Liberals.

It was only yesterday in Kingston, at the Premier's conference on jobs and prosperity, that five youths were telling us that we're not making enough tax cuts. It's just too small. It should be 50%, both federal and provincial. They understand how the cutting of taxes stimulates the economy and increases the revenue.

Even a grade 9 student who spoke showed us a graph of how things had changed. The one interesting graph he showed was where Pierre Trudeau became the Prime Minister of Canada and the disaster afterwards, the person who was the father of the debt. When Pierre Trudeau came to office, the interest rate was low and there was practically no debt in Canada. When he left there was a record high debt, there was a record high level of interest, and he kept telling us that the deficit and the debt are tools to be used. I wonder who was used. It was the people of Canada, the Canadians who were used. By the time he left office, the public thought that everything would come from government. They didn't realize the horrendous debt that those Liberals had laid on this country.

Then we have the provincial Liberals here. They're supporting what Jean Chrétien, the present Prime Minister, is doing. The NDP, and I give credit to them, brought forth two motions that required unanimous consent: one, to debate excess monies that had been accumulated from employment insurance and, two, to debate the federal cuts on transfer payments in Ontario. There was not a single person in the NDP or a single person in the Conservative Party that said no. Where did the no come from? It came from the Liberals protecting the federal Liberals and their ridiculous economic policy.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Puppets.

Mr Galt: The puppets for the federal government. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. It's most unfortunate. Anyway, that just happens to be how a Liberal provincially and a Liberal federally will perform.

The Harris government has a prescription for economic recovery. It has four ingredients. First, get spending under control, and you might ask why. Well, all over the world, particularly in North America where there are smaller governments, there are higher levels of economic growth. They just go hand in hand. We inherited a debt of $11.3 billion, dropped it to $4 billion -

Hon Mr Turnbull: Deficit.

Mr Galt: Deficit, sorry. Those two words keep bouncing around. It's down to $4 billion and by 2000-01 it will be at zero. I predict it will be sooner than that. It's tremendous how it has come down.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We still have a deficit after three and a half years.

1630

Mr Galt: I just heard the NDP complaining that when they came to office to a balanced budget -

Mr Pouliot: I am trying to stay out of the poorhouse, Mr Speaker.

Le Président suppléant (M. Gilles Morin) : M. le député de Lac-Nipigon.

Mr Galt: - the Liberals had a deficit of over $3 billion, but when we came to office we found there were two sets of books and we had to put them together to find there was $11.3 billion. Spending since 1995 of $58.3 billion has been brought down to $54.3 billion in spite of the federal Liberals cutting health spending by more than $2 billion.

When the Canada Health Act came in, the federal government put 50 cents on the dollar for health care.

Mr Wildman: You had to borrow $5 billion to finance your tax break, running up the deficit.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Galt: That dropped to 29 cents on the health care dollar back in 1981, and where is it today? They keep cutting federally in their transfer payments and Ontario now gets 7.6 cents on the dollar that we spend on health care.

What happened to post-secondary education? It started out at 50 cents on the dollar. It's now less than 10 cents on the dollar. Then the feds totally wiped out everything to do with apprenticeship programs, although I hear a rumour they may be backing off that particular one.

What's the second ingredient for this prescription? It's tax cuts. Everywhere that taxes are lower, it attracts jobs, it attracts investments. Just look across Canada; look at any of the US states. Since July 1998, thanks to our Treasurer, the income tax rate in this province is the lowest in Canada, dropping from some 58% to slightly over 40% of the federal rate. It means that the average family will save some $1,385, and these are tax-free dollars that will be saved. That's really like getting a salary bonus of well over $2,000.

When our 1998 budget came in, there were some 36 tax cuts that will be brought in over the next several years. Small business is indeed important to this province, a topic I've spoken to on many occasions. Last year small business created some 82% of the new private sector jobs in this province. We have supported small business in many ways, particularly through some of our job creation efforts, by reducing the employer health tax to a payroll of some $400,000. That tax was brought in by the Liberals. We've reduced the bureaucracy and red tape, a lot of which was brought in by the NDP. We've reduced the personal income tax, brought in by both Liberals and NDP. Over the next eight years we'll reduce the corporate tax from 9.5% to 4.75%. This will help some 90,000 small businesses. We're also reducing the education tax on commercial and industrial businesses by $500,000. In Northumberland by 2005 that will represent $1.7 million less in taxes that the commercial and industrial taxpayer will have to pay.

I know this is all very foreign to the Liberals and to the NDP in their coalition, but it is helping to restore competitiveness and improve confidence to investment and business and consumers in this province. High taxes kill jobs and reduce productivity. I can tell you the students who spoke to us in Kingston yesterday understand this. They explained it to the group. The member for Kingston and The Islands was there to hear them. They were so effective, he was impressed. I know he had to be impressed, because this was coming from the youth of our province, the people who will be paying taxes when we're in our senior citizens' homes.

When taxes get high, small businesses spend most of their time and their money trying to avoid these taxes, when they should be out there working on their business and working on productivity. It causes entrepreneurs to lose interest in their work. As income goes up, they lose most of it to taxation. The University of Waterloo, in its master of taxation program, states, "Most personal and business decisions are structured to minimize tax liabilities." Who's surprised by a statement such as this? I'm sure it's a coalition of the NDP and the Liberals. Reduced taxes give small businesses the opportunity to compete and the results are investment in job creation and in the future.

Ingredient number three is reduction of government regulations. Excessive red tape does indeed increase the cost of doing business. It's a deterrent to investment and to job creation. The Red Tape Commission has amended or repealed some 1,500 regulations. They brought in the business impact test to help stem the tide of -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Normally we can hear the member for Northumberland so well, but when there are so many interjections I have trouble listening to him, so please.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for recognizing the importance of this presentation.

Ingredient number four is more labour market flexibility. Countries where there is some flexibility in the labour market certainly create jobs and there's more economic activity. We repealed that job-killing NDP Employment Equity Act and we've reformed the labour code. It now requires a secret ballot for union certification and for strike votes, and we've removed the ban on replacement workers. What has the result of all this been? The result is in just slightly over three years in office, the economy in Ontario is booming: Ontario has created over 400,000 net new jobs since 1995; unemployment is down to 7.1%. Investment is up, taxes are down and the welfare numbers have dropped by a little over a third.

Compare that with BC, where the opposite policies have been in place under an NDP government. Out there, on the Canadian left coast, business investment has dropped due to onerous regulations and taxes. Economic growth has slowed and it's teetering today on recession. The average taxpayer has dropped in their real disposable income. Unemployment is up. Increased numbers are moving out of the province of BC, particularly to Alberta.

The contrast is absolutely remarkable. Our approach has put us on a path to sustained economic growth, job creation and greater disposable incomes. It is indeed a winning prescription which will continue to produce success for our government and for the people of Ontario.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate and the comments that have been made. It was nice to see, when my colleague from Hamilton Centre was speaking, the great support he was getting from the Tories. I can see a sort of coalition starting to occur, the Tories and the NDP forming this great coalition going into the election campaign. I'm sure the brothers and sisters in the labour movement would really appreciate knowing what was happening.

When you look at the resolution, no one can disagree with the chaos this government has caused when it comes to health care in this province, the chaos they've caused when it comes to education in this province, the chaos they've caused when it comes to environmental protection in Ontario. It is an atrocious record. It is one of mismanagement; it is one of incompetence. We see it day after day. We see it when the Premier on the weekend has to stand up in Ottawa and publicly humiliate, embarrass, cast aside his Minister of Health and blame the Minister of Health for the fact that as Premier he has mismanaged and cannot control when money goes out. It is unbelievable.

It is the first time in the history of this province that a Premier stands up and says, "We approved something six months ago, but I have no control over when the money goes out." It is unheard of; it is unbelievable; it is unreal; it is not credible. The Premier calls the shots. I cannot believe that Mike Harris sat there for six months and did not know that not one cent was flowing. If he did, then it's total incompetence on the part of the Premier.

To hang out the Minister of Health, poor Elizabeth Witmer basically being ridiculed in front of 2,000 Tories, was absolutely disgraceful. But as we know, the Premier's loyalty in these last fleeting moments is gone. Norm Sterling has been a victim of that lack of loyalty by the Premier, Elizabeth Witmer and many other members. Clearly, you've shown your incompetence.

1640

But when you look at this resolution it clearly does distinguish - I know my colleague from Hamilton Centre has to do his best to help his party in its sagging fortunes, but he knows probably better than anybody in the NDP caucus the reality of the new Ontario, the reality of the new Canada and the reality of the new democratic institutions around the world. Frankly, raising taxes is not one of them.

Not even his brothers and sisters in the labour movement or the political parties across North America and around the world that are socialist or New Democrat agree with that philosophy. Roy Romanow knows that increasing taxes is not an option. Alexa McDonough knows that increasing taxes is not an option. We know that. Glen Clark knows that increasing taxes is not an option. Tony Blair knows that raising taxes is not an option. These are men and women who have seen what the reality of modern-day politics and what the reality of governing today are all about. But for some reason the NDP in Ontario still believes that raising taxes is an option here.

We have made it very clear and my leader, Dalton McGuinty, has made it very clear that we will not raise taxes once we form the next government. It is that simple. People in Ontario who are looking for an alternative to the slash-and-burn Harris Tories will have an alternative. People in Ontario who want an alternative to the bully, to the nastiness, to the mean-spiritedness, to the divisiveness of Mike Harris and his Reform-a-Tories will have that alternative. They will have to choose between an NDP that says, "Elect us and we will raise your taxes," and a Liberal Party that says, "Elect us and we will not raise your taxes." Yes, it will be a clear choice, and we will put that choice to the people of Ontario.

Let's look at the record of the NDP in its five years of government. Here's a party that questions credibility on finances, on economics. Even my friends on the Tory side cannot disagree with this. In their five years of government, taxes increased across the board. This is the party that raised personal income tax. This is the party that raised retail sales tax, tobacco, fuel, corporation tax, mining tax, employer health tax, land transfer tax. This is the party that increased taxes in all those areas in the five years.

They took the debt, which took 130 years of Tory and Liberal governments combined to bring to $39 billion - 130 years of governments in Ontario could not increase the debt to the magnitude that the NDP did in five. They increased the debt in five years more than 130 years of other governments in Ontario. That truly is an astounding achievement, and they want to talk to us about credibility when it comes to taxes, when it comes to raising taxes and when it comes to handling the finances of a province.

The deficit: $10.3 billion a year in deficits.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): What about the coalition government, Peterson and Rae?

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the fact that my friends on the Tory side are heckling and agree with the NDP record. That's great, and I hope you go out there in the campaign and tell the people of Ontario that you do agree with their record. I think that's wonderful. Continue to do that. Continue to agree with the NDP record from when they were in government. Try to do them that favour, try to help them.

The reality is that the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. We are going to deal with health care. We are going to deal with the environment. We are going to deal with education. I can tell you that we will unveil an election platform that will outline the costs and outline how we're going to pay for those costs.

It is simple to say, "Increase taxes." That is the simplest way of doing it, to say we're going to increase taxes. That's simple. The NDP thinks it's simple, and we've seen their record. It is absolutely amazing. Talk about credibility. This is the party that's supposed to represent the labour movement. Remember that? The NDP is supposed to be the party of the labour movement. Remember who took collective agreements and bargaining rights away from working men and women in this province. Which party did that? Which party introduced the social contract, that said to every public service worker union in this province: "The contract you signed is null and void. We're going to rip it up. We're going to take away from you the right to collective bargaining"? That was an NDP government, not a Tory or a Liberal government. It was an NDP government that ripped up collective bargaining, ripped up contracts and took from labour leaders and working men and women across this province the right to bargain. This is the record: social contract, increased taxes time after time.

Mr Christopherson: And your answer was fire people, Dominic.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, please.

Mr Agostino: This is where they want us to maintain some credibility. Yes, there'll be some issues with which I agree with my friends on the left, but raising taxes is not one of them. The debate is not a question of whether or not we believe there should be improved health care. It is not a question of whether or not we believe there should be improvements in education. It is not a question of whether or not there should be improvements in environment and child care and social services in this province. It is a question of how we get there, and raising taxes is not how we're going to get there.

We have seen the impact already. This government that prides themselves on being fiscal conservatives and doing a great job has imposed on homeowners and businesses in Ontario the greatest increases they've seen in history as the result of your downloading, as the result of your mismanagement. You talk to people in my riding of Hamilton East, business owners whose taxes have gone up by 300% or 400%. Tell those people that you are not in favour of increasing taxes. It is a scam; it is a hoax.

Mr Guzzo: Have they ever heard of Chrétien?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa-Rideau, please. You'll have an opportunity if you want to take advantage of it.

Mr Agostino: I understand the Tories get a little upset when we attack the NDP because the coalition starts to fall apart there for them. Just bear with us. You'll get your chance to prop up the NDP when you speak.

Let me go back to taxes. The Tories: Mike Harris is supposed to be the Taxfighter. Why don't you ask homeowners in my riding; why don't you ask homeowners in downtown Hamilton; why don't you ask homeowners on the Mountain and many other parts of our region, in Flamborough, if they think Mike Harris is not a Taxhiker. Ask them about their property taxes; ask them about their business taxes as a result of what you have done. It's a hoax. It's smoke and mirrors just like your hospital announcements, just like the Premier's phony cheque-presenting ceremony this morning. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and the people of Ontario will not buy your little shell game.

There are alternatives to this tired Tory government, to this mean-spirited group which believes that the way you move forward is by beating people up in Ontario, by putting people down, by dividing Ontario. There is an alternative. Very clearly we as the Liberal Party under Dalton McGuinty will unveil a platform that'll show clearly how we're going to improve education, how we're going to improve health care, how we're going to improve the environment. Unlike the NDP we will not increase taxes to get there, period.

Le Président suppléant: Monsieur le député de Lac Nipigon.

M Pouliot: Je vous remercie -

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: How many federal Tories were elected in Ontario?

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton East. You had your chance. The member for Lake Nipigon now has the floor; only the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: I take a great deal of pride and pleasure in saying a few words regarding Mr Hampton, our leader, the future Premier of the province of Ontario, regarding his resolution vis-à-vis the tax scheme.

I want to share this with you, Mr Speaker. On the way to work this morning, I was right at Bay and Wellesley and I had the good fortune to see three of my distinguished colleagues. Ironically, a true story, they were waiting for the light to change to come to Queen's Park. I will not name names because I wish to save people some embarrassment.

1650

Interjection: How early this morning?

Mr Pouliot: I asked - early this morning - my Conservative colleague, "How are you?"

He said, "Gilles, nice to see you." He said: "Fine. I'm up about a half." In the Conservative jargon - you must understand here that it's the rich against us. Markets were up, so the Conservative was having a good day. Futures and commodities markets were good.

Then I asked one of my New Democrat colleagues, "How are you?" He said, "Gilles, not so fine." I said: "You want to talk? What's the problem?" He said: "On my way to work, I saw so many people without shelter, and I thought: `What about the richest people who don't need the tax cut, that 6%? Why shouldn't we take that money and use it for shelter for the less fortunate, among other needs?'"

Then I asked a Liberal. He said, "How are you, Gilles?" I said, "More importantly, how are you?" He said, "Comme çi, comme ça." They're true to form.

This is what happened on the way to work this morning. That Liberal chap, God help him.

Interjection.

Mr Pouliot: No, it wasn't you. That leaves 30-some-odd others.

He was chronologically driven by last night's news. If that Liberal had been in the 1960s, one day he would have been into whales, the next day he would have been with the environment, all this overshadowed by the picture of Che Guevara, wrapping himself in the Cuban flag, with no heat in the dead of winter because he would have proclaimed that he was boycotting oil companies.

You can trust the Liberals, I'll say this much. I will trust the Liberals, should they ever go back forming the government, that they will respect every Conservative promise. That you can take to the bank.

What do you make of a world under the scheme, the tax cut of the government, where you make $25,000 a year - try to recall this in your previous life, Speaker, $25,000 a year; that's about 12 bucks an hour - and you have a spouse and two children, but if you make $250,000 a year, which is 10 times the $25,000, of course, then you shall get not 10 times the tax break but you shall pocket 30 times the tax break?

While you do this, you give it to the people who least need it. Go to hospitalville, a couple of blocks from here, and there you shall see people in the corridors. You shall be refused admission to the emergency. It's to the point where the best way to visit Toronto is to get into an ambulance. It is that bad.

Unless your parents are rich, well-off, your daughter or your son will hardly ever have a chance to go to a university, because in order to satisfy the insatiable appetite of some - the most fortunate in this kind of winner-take-all lottery - you've had to cut education, you've had to cut health care.

The people in the township of Marathon are looking at their taxes going up because of the downloading. They're written to the accomplice, Mr Eves, Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, whose responsibility it is to loosen the purse strings and to do it in fair fashion. Well, they haven't had a satisfactory response. I guess when the phone does not ring in Marathon, it is the government calling. They will try and try again. New Democrats would have. We did this. When we were the government, our first priority was to instill more fairness in our society. Times were difficult. You recall that. We went through a recession. But we closed ranks. We didn't make the rich richer.

When we say that it's the rich, it's the rich against us, we mean exactly that. Does it make any sense to you that if you are the chairperson of a large corporation or a bank president or an athlete making millions, the more you make, the more you keep? Money, percentage and otherwise - you can only eat one meal at a time, dress in one set of clothes and use one television at a time. You have to spread it around.

What my leader is saying is: "Beware of the disparity. Be careful. Look out for the middle class." It is being diluted, and for any 10 persons of the middle class who are no longer under that category, two will gravitate to the coattails of the well-to-do, of the rich, and eight will go downwards.

There is so much to say and yet so little time. When I began, I said it was with a great deal of pride that I get to share with my colleagues a few words on the opposition day motion. I would hope that common sense will prevail and that the members will see it within themselves to give support to the resolution put forward by Mr Hampton.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I had many things to say, but when the resolution was put forward I thought it was going to be debated in a manner that the NDP would have defended their position as well. What I found out immediately was that the attack was on the Liberals, that as soon as the Conservative Party had put forth their argument, the attack was on the Liberals.

What it's telling me is that the Liberals are on the right track. We are a great threat towards the representation of all people in Ontario. It seems to me that the alternative of having a compassionate government in place is the fact that the Liberals, in forming the next government, will of course represent all the people.

We're not fighting whether one is on the poor side or on the rich side. Any good government, if it wants to be judged as a good government, is one which represents all people, not one which only represents the poor or would represent the rich.

But let's take a look at what's happening here now. This present government, which came into power in 1995, first decided: "There is a deficit and there is a debt. We've got to find the money from somewhere, like all governments, or we can collect the taxes and redistribute them in a manner that is fair, especially for those who are the less fortunate in our society who need the help."

But this government went about taxing and beating up the poor, taking the money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Their argument, of course, is that it's much easier to do that, that if you take it away from the poor, they're not organized. By being not organized, they cannot lobby us, and they can easily cut 22% from the poorest in our society and then give it to the rich, or we have a tax break for the rich and then turn it back to the rich.

1700

What happened? Chaos broke out. What we had first was that people become homeless. There were no subsidies given to build affordable housing, so they cut that off. Hospitals started to suffer because of the great cutbacks. Nurses were being laid off. Chaos broke out.

You saw the great evidence in the House this week when my colleagues in the Liberal Party pointed out that people are dying in emergency. People are waiting for days to have operations, because no money was there. The Premier himself announced openly that there would be money flowing very quickly to arrest that situation. He actually talked about cutting back on the red tape that has not allowed things to work freely, but what has happened? It took them six months to bring the money forward to help in emergency care.

That was deliberate. It is a morbid attitude by a government that knew there are issues to be dealt with in the emergency, in hospitals, and took six months to flow this money. I think some investigation should be done. They should call an investigation into that matter, as to why this money did not move quickly enough if the Premier had given that direction.

Who suffered? Those who cannot afford it in our system found that they were laid up in emergency. They could not afford to fly over to Buffalo to get attention, to get their health care concerns addressed. I think an investigation should be done into this.

Let me address the NDP on this aspect of it. Here are people who are very concerned about the poor. There's no doubt about that. They have done a wonderful job in some respects. But when they were in power, one expected somehow that they would have managed their affairs much better.

They completely threw out their bible, the collective bargaining agreement which they negotiated all along, and completely disregarded the things that were of great concern to those individuals. The unions were completely upset. They were betrayed by a government that should represent their concerns. What happened? The democratic process spoke very loudly: The people threw them out.

Of course, the benefit of it all came to the Conservatives. The people again thought that here could be a balance, a representation of all people, but immediately as this government came into power, they attacked the poor and they took the money from the poor and gave it to the rich. They have also given the rich a break. Then when the money needs to be redistributed for those to benefit, it's not coming.

What bothers us most about all this is the arrogance of this government and the manner in which it speaks about the poor: "The poor like to be poor; that's why they are poor." They have been denied access, they have been denied opportunities, they will be denied more education because education costs are going up. Only the rich will have access to education in the future.

Therefore, I would say to my colleagues that the true alternative is a government that can represent all people, one that understands that those who are most vulnerable in society must be looked after.

Of course we know that there is a deficit and a debt. We know we can't spend more than we have, because what happens is we create a great debt. This government, which prides itself on handling the fiscal policy of this province so well, has found itself in a greater debt situation than when they came in. The debt is larger, and it's like the greatest secret that ever happened. The debt is larger today, but they brag that the deficit is down. The fact is, you have a greater debt on your hands.

Who is paying for that? Our children. They will be taxing them. They will pay more in tuition fees. They will inherit a loan by the time they graduate of $20,000 to $25,000 on their heads for their first degree. They will be paying for the debt and the manner in which the government has handled the affairs of this province. But they brag about the responsibility and how fiscally responsible they are. I don't feel they have been that fiscally responsible. The fact is that they've pulled the smokescreen over the eyes of the people, but people in our province are much wiser, much brighter and they see through the smokescreen.

As we look at this resolution, we see who the real, true representatives of the people are. It's the Liberal Party, which has said that we will not raise taxes. No matter what they say on both sides, our leader, Dalton McGuinty, made it very clear and many of our colleagues have made it very clear when they speak that there shall be no taxes increased in our time.

We will handle the money in a very fiscally responsible way and, furthermore, will make sure that those who need it get it and not those who don't. The rich can look after themselves and handle their affairs. They don't get the benefit of this great tax break, but we all benefit and continue to make this the greatest province in Canada to live in.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm pleased to join the debate with respect to the motion brought forth by the NDP.

What we're dealing with here is a motion that's dealing with the tax scheme put forth by the provincial government. I think what is fundamental with respect to this exercise is looking at not only the impact of this tax scheme but also the economic situation that is facing the province in terms of how it is operating today.

Everyone gets a tax cut but the percentage of the tax cut is greater for those with low or moderate incomes. Sixty-four per cent of the tax reduction, or $2.9 billion, will go to the nearly three million middle-income taxpayers who earn between $25,000 and $75,000 in income.

As a result of the tax cut, the top 10% of Ontario's taxpayers will pay a greater portion of Ontario's personal income tax revenue, which is 45.9%, than they did before the cut, which was at 42.8%. The top 1% of Ontario taxpayers, those with individual incomes above $177,000, will also pay a bigger share, which is 18.9% of Ontario's personal income tax revenue, compared to 16.7% before the cut.

What the members of the opposition are trying to spin and what they've been trying to carefully spin throughout our mandate is that a tax cut will result in people being made homeless, that it will result in cuts to fundamental services. They really don't understand that in terms of fiscal policy, what they did was run up the biggest debt in the province's history and they didn't fix any problems. This government has been put in power to fix government problems, and that's what we've been doing.

One of the areas we've been dealing with is health care, and health care spending when we came in was $17.5 billion. Today, even with the tax cut that we've put forth, which not only has increased revenue into the coffers of the government, but we've also been spending $1.2 billion more, we're spending annually $18.7 billion towards health care.

That's been done notwithstanding what the federal Liberal government has done across this country in decreasing government health care funding in excess of $7 billion. In particular to this province, health care and social spending have been cut by the federal government to the tune of $2.2 billion. That's $2.2 billion that this province obviously could have used. But notwithstanding that, we have increased spending in the health care sector.

1710

I want to deal with my own local riding, which is Simcoe Centre, and in particular with Royal Victoria Hospital. The president of the hospital, Ted Long, commenting on the government's approach with respect to restructuring, is quoted in this article:

"Although some hospital administrators blame the deficit problem on the rapid-fire pace of the provincial restructuring of the health care system, Long has been vocal in his belief that, `Restructuring was necessary to ensure the money goes where it is most needed.' His challenge has been to convince the province it's needed here," which is RVH, and in Barrie.

That's my challenge. I would say that there have been significant investments in not only my riding but all throughout Simcoe county. We've had investment of MRI equipment, kidney dialysis, breast screening and speech pathology, significant investments, in the millions and millions of dollars, to provide better health care to the citizens of Simcoe Centre.

The government's focus with respect to the spending of its dollars in terms of the health care sector - at this point in time we're spending $18.7 billion. Making up that $18.7 billion: the drug programs are $1.2 billion, OHIP is $5.3 billion, hospitals are $6.8 billion, and other health care programs are $5.5 billion.

This government has made a mandate in terms of not focusing its health care system on hospitals but also looking at home care and long-term-care investment. I think the recent investment in my riding of a nursing home, 120 new beds, an investment of $10 million in this particular facility, is very good news. We have a significant shortage of long-term-care beds and we certainly applaud the government's measures with respect to the long-term-care investment that this government is going to make. We're looking at 546 new long-term-care beds in Simcoe county, which is great news because of the shortage. That's a significant investment by this government in that particular aspect of health care and we applaud it.

With respect to the revenues and our operating expenses, as I've commented, the deficit that was faced by this government when we took office was $11.3 billion. That's the deficit. The debt was in excess of $100 billion. In the balanced budget plan that we're pushing towards, the deficit target for 1998-99 was $4.8 billion. It's been revised down and it's forecast for the 1998-99 period to be $4.2 billion.

That certainly is a significant decrease, an $11.3-billion deficit down to $4.2 billion, but even with that, in the operating expenses for the government for the 1998-99 period we're looking at a public debt interest of $9.2 billion. That's almost half of the spending that is put towards health care. Obviously, if we could get our books in order and our debt and start to pay down our debt, you're going to see those public debt interest payments go down, and where that money would go, obviously, is not towards the banks and the financiers but towards government priorities.

That is very important in terms of how we spend the taxpayers' money. It's important that when we're dealing with tax cuts, what we're talking about is taxpayers' money. It's important that we fundamentally recognize in this government, aside from the opposition and aside from our federal Liberal counterparts, that we firmly believe that taxpayers' money, which is theirs, is better spent in their hands in terms of creating jobs, in terms of stimulating the economy.

Even with the tax cut, which we view as a stimulus to the economy, we've seen an increase in revenues. That's just solid proof that the tax approach is working in terms of having the economy grow and being able to support the important social programs that we want to provide. There's no other way you can go, because the bottom line is that if you have a tax-and-spend policy, like those of the two previous governments over the last 10 years, what it's going to result in is basically slowing the economy to a halt. Whereas in the previous government they were looking at something like 10,000 net new jobs over an entire mandate, this government, since we've taken power, has increased the number of net new jobs in excess of 400,000.

The Ontario economy is still growing and leads the country, notwithstanding what Paul Martin is trying to spin by saying: "We're in a little bit of trouble here. You're going to have to stay with us. This Asian flu is going to be bothering us, and we're going to have to put some controls over monetary policy." That's got to be a spin that just basically insults the intelligence of the average Canadian.

The bottom line is that the federal government is responsible for monetary policy. They're also responsible for dealing with other foreign governments in terms of dealing with that monetary policy, so who are they to say that we should be putting on brakes and dealing with restrictions on capital flow? They've been setting the policy since they've been in government, since 1993. This isn't something new. They're a part of the equation. So don't say, "Oh, we're going to have to look at what's happening out in the foreign sector and what we're going to have to deal with, the international problems out there." The bottom line is that the September employment figures show that 62,000 jobs were created in this province, which was 85% of all jobs created in Canada.

As I said, since our first throne speech in 1995, there have been more than 400,000 net new jobs created right here in Ontario. Our welfare rolls have dropped by 20,000 as more people have been employed during that last month, September, and we see the results of the fabulous growth right here in my riding. In Simcoe county there have been record numbers of new housing starts and expansion of industries like Honda, which created more than 1,200 direct new jobs. The average spinoff of an automobile sector job is four to one, so that's going to be tremendous job creation within Simcoe county. It seems like a new business opens almost every day in the riding of Simcoe Centre.

Our government will continue to work hard to encourage business and commerce to come here to set up shop. Since we've been in power, that has basically been the theme: removing barriers to economic growth and to encourage investment in this province. That's the only way we're going to be able to have a strong, vibrant economy and create growth. Our government's plan is working and so are a lot more Ontarians, and that's good news.

The tax cut is fundamental in terms of that increasing revenue and putting forth a very sound economic platform in terms of people wanting to stay in this province. Certainly our economic growth compared to the rest of the country - as I said, in September, 85% of all the jobs were created right here in Ontario, and we've been leading this country for the last three years. It's also fundamental when you're dealing with the infrastructure. As you can see, throughout Ontario there's a lot of road construction going on, highways being repaved, new highways being built.

1720

The government is also taking initiatives with respect to rail in this province, in particular as a result of the federal government's legislation in 1996, which gave the green light for CN and CP to get out of the rail business where they felt it was not in their best interest. That's not even putting in a plan to allow communities such as mine, the city of Barrie, the town of Innisfil and the township of Bradford-West Gwillimbury, who fundamentally rely on the rail, on the Newmarket subdivision, which goes from Toronto right up to Bradford-West Gwillimbury, and then we have this line from Bradford-West Gwillimbury up to Barrie - it's slated by CN to be discontinued.

I'm very pleased to say that the province has taken an interest in this railway through the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to look at acquiring that line in terms of negotiations with CN because it's fundamental to the infrastructure of Simcoe Centre in terms of economic growth, having a very competitive infrastructure, and providing an option in terms of not travelling down and up Highway 400.

I'm very pleased to be a part of this process and I think, once we maintain the track, we'll also be looking at hopefully convincing GO Transit or some operator to provide a rail service obviously for passenger and perhaps freight. I think it will be a tremendous boon to tourism in Simcoe Centre because Simcoe Centre, as everyone knows, is one of the best places to live in this entire province, one of the greatest waterfronts you can possibly have. They spent over $35 million on that waterfront and, I can tell you, it's a great place to live, a great tourism area. I'm very pleased to see that an initiative is being taken. The acquisition of that rail line is fundamental to the growth of my area, so I support it wholeheartedly.

That's one of the things, when we look in terms of paying down the deficit and balancing our books and also paying down the debt, that give the government more flexibility to deal with its priorities of the day, because if you're not paying out debt interest payments - and as I said, in 1998-99 the debt interest payments of this government are $9.2 billion. That's a lot of money being put out there. At the same time, we have the federal government reducing our transfer payments by $2.2 billion. All that money could be going towards government priorities. I think it would be in the best interests of our taxpayers to make sure we get that debt and the deficit under control.

But I believe the programs with respect to the tax cut scheme have borne fruit, because we have increased our revenues. We are seeing job creation in this province. We are seeing that we have the lowest marginal tax rate throughout the country. Just look at the performance of other governments. British Columbia is in very, very poor economic shape. There isn't a province out there that is near the economic performance of this province, and that's fundamental with respect to how we've gone about creating a very positive economic climate. But you have to put money into the stakeholders, who are the taxpayers. It's their money. It shouldn't be the government taking that money from them and saying, "We'll determine how we want to spend your money." That's the federal government's approach. I don't agree with it, and I think a lot of average Canadians don't agree with it, because we are taxed so heavily.

I fundamentally support the tax plan of this government. I think it is sound fiscal policy, and I also think it has been in the best interests of taxpayers to have that money in their pockets.

Mr Bradley: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on yet another trick resolution from my good friends to the left, who have a knack - I want to compliment them. They should pay overtime to their staff who think of these resolutions to put forward in the Legislature with a hook in them. It reminds me of the government. They would agree with me on this. The government puts something in each bill so that if it's maybe a pretty popular bill, the opposition will vote against it. It's what I call a hostage. There's always a hostage in there. It'll be a bill that will be popular; let's say a bill that would do something really good for Ontario. Then they put one little segment in it that they know the opposition could not possibly agree with. That's what they do.

I know how difficult the NDP had it when they were in government. I appreciate it. I've been in government; I know how difficult it is. My good friend from Welland-Thorold campaigned so hard on public auto insurance, as did his predecessor Mel Swart, who along with Thelma celebrated - at least the group gathered. The celebration's actually on October 29, but the group gathered for their 60th wedding anniversary on the weekend. I know he was in favour of public auto insurance, but when it came to government, unfortunately the NDP decided it wasn't possible to implement it. Now, I'm not criticizing them. I understand how difficult it can be.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Listen, all I'm saying is, I understand how difficult those things can be. When I hear them talk about tax cuts, my gosh, I turned on the television set the other day and I heard the Premier of British Columbia saying he's going to have some tax cuts now for his province. I must say I was surprised. I think maybe in Saskatchewan in their last budget they had some tax cuts. So we're seeing those kinds of tax cuts.

I look at the resolution today and it's not about tax cuts. I see the difficulty that one faces and I know that we have difficult times meeting these obligations.

I happen to think we had a rather interesting episode today. Here's where the NDP will agree with me. We had Premier Harris last weekend say at the convention, after his government had suffered the criticism last week over hospital emergency wards being clogged and ambulances having to head all over Toronto - my friend Bud Wildman said that if you wanted a good tour of Toronto, the best way to get it was to get in an ambulance, because they had to tour all over Toronto to find a hospital. I happen to agree that was the case.

The Premier this weekend said: "I didn't know this money wasn't flowing. I'm going to get to the bottom of this. What the heck has the health minister been doing? What the heck has the bureaucracy been doing?" So he pointed his fingers in 10 different directions and then all of a sudden the money was moving, even though it was his own Management Board and we know the Premier has great influence on Management Board.

Even if we know that the Premier knew all along this money wasn't flowing, he pretended he didn't know that it wasn't flowing, and some people - certainly not the overwhelming majority - in the news media seemed to believe this, because they had the cameras going. The cameras headed down to Mount Sinai Hospital with the cheque being given out, and I know that probably the editor at the end of the story cut off the part that said, "Mike Harris really knew that this money wasn't flowing."

What happened was, it was another farce. It was similar to Mike Harris saying that the Minister of the Environment should be bringing in his new program for clean air. We know where the program's blocked. It's blocked by the Premier's office. That's where it's always blocked, but you can't fool the news media. They are going to see through this. They're going to be doing their stories three and four days down the line and they are going to understand, because they know the system well, that this was all a phony charade and the Premier knew exactly what he was doing and he was the one blocking that money.

To go back to my friends from the NDP, I worry, I want to say to my friend from London Centre, when I hear them agreeing with and cheering along with the other side. She must agree with me secretly, I think, that when they are on that side, it's difficult. I was going to tell Buzz Hargrove about this, because Buzz doesn't like those people. That's what Premier Harris said on the weekend. He said, "The enemy is those big, bad unions." That's what Mr Harris said, when of course this has done everything it wanted to do anyway, with its majority in the House and with the change in rules, regardless of what any labour union had to say.

1730

But I know that Buzz and Bob White must both be beside themselves when they hear this banter back and forth between the Conservatives and the NDP. Buzz's new book called Labour of Love- I should give him some advertising - is being launched tonight. "Labour of Love," it says, and it's in Yorkville. Politicians are not now invited to this. It's strictly for labour; it's not for the politicians. But I want to say I'm going to be interested in Buzz's book -

Mr Baird: With a forward by Dalton McGuinty.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.

Mr Bradley: - because I will want to see whether or not Buzz would like the NDP and the Conservatives always seemingly on the same side and making speeches on the same side. That doesn't always happen.

My friends in the NDP, I'm just having some fun with them, because they're fine people, I'm sure, and I know the situation. They believe that they must get votes from the Liberals. I tell them they should worry that what's happening in some cases is those votes are going from the NDP to the Conservatives, to the Reform Party. Remember Oshawa, the huge number of votes that went from the NDP to the Reform in Oshawa. That's what I think they should be worrying about. I think Buzz Hargrove knows that. I think Bob White knows that. I think the leadership of the trade union movement in their heart of hearts know that the return of this government to power, if you thought the first round was bad, you should see what's coming in the second round.

I recall as well - and times are difficult - there was a demonstration when my friends in the NDP were in power, about 3,000 people out there representing the developmentally disabled. They were protesting against the NDP government of Bob Rae. I explained to some of the people that the Bob Rae government didn't want to make those kinds of cuts or not provide the funding that was needed, that they were in some very difficult economic times.

But times have changed. The American economy is booming, and now we find with the American economy booming that revenues are coming in, despite the tax cut, despite the fact that this government gets its money from the federal government and then gives it away in a tax cut. It doesn't spend it on health, doesn't spend it on education; it gets its transfer payments and says, "Here, folks, have a tax cut." I tell you, that is why people are not sympathetic.

The Premier today was back to his old ways. When he was answering in the House today, members will know, he said: "Listen, there's enough money in the system. What's wrong is it's not being spent correctly." That's what he said a few years ago when he was cheering the federal government on, saying to Brian Mulroney, "Please cut more," saying to John Chrétien, "Please cut more." So said Mike Harris. Now he's back to that today. He says there's enough money in the system, it's just that the people who run those hospitals squander the money. That's of course a silly argument.

I know and I think a lot of people know that this government is trying to have its budget balanced next year, not this year. The Provincial Auditor already caught them trying to shove money into a different year. If they wanted to, we could see a balanced budget this year. Next year, again with that booming American economy and all of the trade that's done with the United States, far more trade than ever in our history, we're going to see an offshoot into Ontario of that, and they can thank the Clinton administration for the fine economy that we have here in the province of Ontario. I know they'll be sending a letter -

Mr Ford: Talk to British Columbia, Jim.

Mr Bradley: The member mentions British Columbia. I don't know why I'm going to defend the NDP, but I am. The NDP government of British Columbia must trade with the Far East mostly, and so when there's a recession there, we see a downturn in the British Columbia trade. But in Ontario we trade with the US overwhelmingly and therefore we have all these revenues coming in. So there will be funding available to be invested in education and health care and other areas of endeavour.

One last place I can tell you it will come from is that health tax. Do you ever hear the Tories mention that health tax? They don't mention that. When you fill out your income tax -

Mr Galt: That's one you brought in.

Mr Bradley: No, no.

Mr Galt: The one that you brought in in the late 1980s.

Mr Bradley: The government brought in this health tax. They called it the fair health tax - they always have the word "fair" in there - health tax for everybody, and of course there are revenues coming in from that tax.

I understand what is happening here. I know my friends in the NDP who were critical of us today didn't want to bring in the social contract and tear up every collective agreement in Ontario. They didn't want to make cuts to municipalities and the transfer agencies such as hospitals.

Mr Pouliot: We can see through that style, Jim.

Mr Bradley: I'm saying, in your heart you didn't want to do it, and I knew that. I know you didn't want to raise tuition for those students by some 40%. You didn't want to do it. I know the government in British Columbia of Dave Barrett, the NDP government in Manitoba, the NDP government in Saskatchewan with Allan Blakeney, they all had back-to-work legislation or anti-labour legislation they didn't want to bring in. I know they didn't want to bring it in and I sympathize with them.

What I'm saying is I know why this resolution is before the House this afternoon. I understand it. I agree with the part that says, for instance, we have to invest money in the health care field. There's no question about that. I think you'd see a consensus among the people who are opposed to this government in that regard.

I know that despite the fact the NDP raised several taxes for the wealthiest people in our society when they were in power, that didn't bring in the revenues that they had hoped for. That simply did not bring in those revenues. They meant well by it perhaps, but it didn't bring in the revenues.

Mr Wildman: What about the tire tax?

Mr Bradley: Unfortunately, my time is up and I must now yield.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I will speak very briefly. I want to make the point that my leader's resolution here is very critical of the Conservative agenda. It states very clearly our disagreement as New Democrats with the Conservative agenda. We understand that the Harris Tories believe, I think, that if they can cut taxes to the wealthiest people in this province and transfer wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, those people will spend the money in Ontario, they hope, and that will stimulate the economy and produce jobs. That's their belief. The problem with it of course is there's no guarantee they will spend the money in Ontario - they may spend it anywhere - but that's what they believe, and in order to do that they are prepared to see major cuts to health care, to education, particularly to environmental protection, and to other important community services.

That is the Conservative agenda and our leader is saying we don't agree with that. We believe that the wealthiest in our society should contribute to a reinvestment in those services that have made Ontario a good place to live. We believe that people who make $80,000 or more individually should be assisted by the government to reinvest in health care, in education, in community services and environmental protection that will benefit the whole of our society and stimulate our economy and growth and development in Ontario. That's our major difference and that is quite clear. We're saying that those people should be assisted in reinvesting; the Tories say they shouldn't. So it's quite clear there's a difference of opinion between us and the Conservatives, a fundamental disagreement.

This resolution today gives all members an opportunity to express their views and to vote to demonstrate where they come down, on which side of that disagreement. They either come down in favour of tax cuts and a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the wealthy, or they don't. They either come down in favour of cuts to education, health care and environmental protection and community services, or they don't.

We will come down squarely in favour of protecting those services for the benefit of our society and ensuring that the wealthiest people in our society, who by definition do not need assistance, do not need more money, help to reinvest in services that will benefit the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society.

When it comes to a vote, I hope all members who believe in a progressive society will vote against the Conservative agenda and in favour of my leader's resolution.

1740

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I open my comments with a small quote I found in a book. The quote reads, "Real wealth is being able to afford a family and the government in one salary cheque." The irony of that quote is that it was in the Farmer's Almanac for the year of our Lord 1985 for Canada and the United States. It's a telling point, because it seemed that things got worse since then, not better.

When the opposition talks about the sharing of wealth in our province from the wealthier families to the lower-income families, I sometimes am reminded that what they wanted to do - and I think the member for St Catharines explained it fairly succinctly when he said they tried to tax the higher incomes and they didn't get more money. They want to punish the higher-income earners. They follow The Communist Manifesto, practically, that says you must distribute all wealth equally entirely across society. It doesn't work. It has been tried, and it doesn't work. Look at the socialist countries in Europe, in Asia and in other parts of the world.

The reality, in hard numbers, of this income tax cut is this: Let's take two examples, one being a couple with two children and one earner with an employment income of $25,000 per year. Before the Ontario tax cut, they paid $515 of Ontario tax. After the full reduction of the rate cut, they have a net tax payable of zero, and cumulatively, if you add up the amount of money that was reduced over the four years that we have implemented this tax cut, $20 for 1996, $255 for 1997, $380 for 1998. These are the savings of taxes they have experienced. When the first full year of the 30% tax cut is implemented, in 1999, there will be an additional $340, for a total cumulative Ontario tax savings of $995.

The members say that $995 buys nothing but a coffee cup. I'm sorry, but to the people out there who earn $25,000 a year, $995 is an important amount of money. It can buy you a refrigerator.

Mr Christopherson: Could you buy a hospital with it? Is it enough to buy a school with it? Going to buy an environment with it?

Mr Spina: This is personal income, not government income.

Let's look at a typical middle-income earner, a couple with two children and a family income of $60,000 from two earners. This is their taxpayers' dollars: Before the Ontario tax cuts, they paid $4,605 per year; at the end of the full income tax reduction, they will pay $3,210, a cumulative reduction of $3,500 over those four years. That $3,500 is money that can be used to clothe children.

I leave you with this closing comment. It's a quote that was made on September 22, 1996. "When talking about fiscal responsibility, one element is to make cuts, to find greater efficiencies in government, to make government more efficient generally. That is what Mike Harris is doing." The person who gave us that quote was none other than Dalton McGuinty in the Ottawa leadership debate on September 22, 1996. I rest my case. We are doing the right thing.

Mr Gerretsen: It's tough to follow that act because whether that quote is accurate or not, the point still is -

Mr Guzzo: You were there.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Gerretsen: The point still is that the government showed its incompetence again today, when we were talking about health care, with the fact that it now has to rush around to all sorts of hospitals all over this province giving money that was meant for emergency care that should have been paid six months ago, and where we saw the last weekend here in Toronto itself 17 of the 19 emergency wards of the various hospitals were closed down. I think that's an absolutely pathetic situation.

This government is closing 35 hospitals and is telling the local people in those communities, "We're closing your hospitals but we're making the other institutions more efficient and we're also making sure that we're going to reinvest enough money so that there's enough money for community care access." That's what they're saying, and what are they doing? In my community they have closed the Hotel Dieu Hospital, and a court just confirmed that yesterday, but at the same time they've also cut off 2,000 patients from the community care access they've been receiving over the last number of years.

Last night I had a number of examples such as a 90-year-old woman who had received community access care for the last three or four years and, all of a sudden, it was unilaterally cut off, and a number of other people who are in similar positions like that as well. How about the 89-year-old who suffers from Alzheimer's, lives with her family and has received for seven years three hours of care per week by an outside individual. She has been cut back to three hours for every two weeks. Or how about a couple who are trying to keep a 79-year-old mother at home who's legally blind and has been cut off from all home care whatsoever.

The question is legitimate: How are you going to pay for all this? I think it's very interesting. The government, in its own news release on September 28 said - this is the government's own release - Ernie Eves, the Minister of Finance who still hasn't got the property tax situation and appeal situation settled in this province, which is hurting small businesses in this province on a day-to-day basis because these people were told, as you may recall, that they would have the right to appeal their assessment before October 31 and the bill still hasn't come back -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.

Mr Gerretsen: Anyway, that minister, all of a sudden on September 28, said, "Lo and behold, we've got $4.1 billion more in revenue" than his own projections indicated. That tells me something. It tells me that sometime within the next year or so this government is going to make a major announcement that it's going to balance its budget a heck of a lot sooner because there's all sorts of money hidden in the various budgets.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: No, no. Here, look. There's $4.1 billion.

Mr Christopherson: There is a surplus.

Mr Gerretsen: Well, they've taken $4.1 billion this year more than they anticipated.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Gerretsen: That's a darn good place to start in order to get some of the money back into health care and into the educational infrastructure of this province. We all know that tax cuts simply aren't in.

Mr Christopherson: That's where the $4 billion came from.

The Acting Speaker: Hamilton Centre.

Mr Gerretsen: That $4 billion is extra revenue that the government did not anticipate in its budgetary documentation this year. We know that.

The other interesting one is the fact that the government has been saying, "We've created over 400,000 new jobs," since they've got to office. Read your own material. Since September 1995 your own document says it's only 302,000 net new jobs, which is much less than the projection of 725,000 jobs.

1750

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the opportunity to enter this debate and I guess to conclude this debate. I just want to say that I'm very glad we brought forward this resolution under the name of our leader, Howard Hampton. It's high time the positions of the three parties in this House were very clearly on the record for all Ontarians to see. This is a debate about numbers, about money, but it's fundamentally about commitment, the kind of commitment we have to our health care system and to our education system in particular, and to the many other services Ontarians want.

Let me give you just a few numbers. We could talk all day about numbers, but let me give you a few numbers that I think are quite relevant. When you look at the tax cut that the Harris government has implemented - and I understand why, from their perspective, they want to defend the tax cut. As a New Democratic Party we are very clearly against what they're doing, but at least we understand that they're clearly on the side they are.

Sixty per cent of taxpayers in the province make less than $38,000. The vast majority of Ontarians make less than $38,000. That large majority of Ontarians gets 26% of the value of the tax cut. If you look at the other end of the scale, you have 6% of taxpayers who make more than $80,000, yet that small 6% get the same amount of the tax cut, 26%, as do the vast majority, that 60% at the bottom end. That's the kind of justice the Tory caucus and the Tory government of Mike Harris believes in, taking from the middle class and the poor and the working class and giving to the rich. That's very clearly what they're about and they make no bones about the fact that's where they stand. They don't like it when we remind them, but that's where they are.

Our commitment to education, to health care, to the services we want to provide needs to be there in more than just words, because when we look at our Liberal colleagues to our right, they, like us, say they are against the tax cut; they, like us, say they are in favour of putting more money into health care and into education, except when you get to the fundamental question about connecting that commitment of words to the real commitment of money. One doesn't work without the other. You can't say, "We want to put more money into health care. We want to put more money into education. We want to put back the cuts that Mike Harris has driven home in each of those vital services," and pretend, as our Liberal colleagues want to pretend, that the money is just going to flow from somewhere. It's the kind of voodoo economics that just will not work.

Just listening to the debate today, I certainly have had and I know my other colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus have had complete confirmation of how uncomfortable many of our Liberal colleagues are in the position their leader has taken on this. Because many of them understand - and we saw that reflected by some of them attacking us, dredging up everything they could dream of that people might not have liked about the former NDP government; or on the other hand being a little wiser, as some of them have done, and just actually staying quiet on the issue, which as I say is a little bit wiser, because who knows what might happen to the positions they have taken so far? That's where they are today; I don't know where they're going to be tomorrow.

The fundamental problem with the position our Liberal colleagues have taken is that you can't put together a commitment to education and to health care and not be prepared to reinvest. You can't reinvest unless you're prepared to tell the taxpayers of Ontario where that money is going to come from. It's not going to just drop from the sky. Or are they suggesting, our Liberal colleagues, that in fact it's going to come from the very cuts that they are criticizing, or want to be seen as criticizing, the Harris government for implementing?

I just want to say this: We, as a party, are being very clear in what we are saying. We say that we are completely against what Mike Harris is doing to our health care system and to our education system, and we acknowledge that to that limit, to that extent, our Liberal colleagues are saying very similar things, but then the fundamental parting takes place.

Mr Agostino: We are not going to raise taxes.

The Acting Speaker: Hamilton East.

Mr Silipo: If the Liberal Party is afraid to say that they would take back that portion of the tax cut that goes to the top 6% of taxpayers, that would generate back into the public coffers the $1.5 billion that we would need to reinvest into education, into health care, into many of our other services, then let them defend that position. But let them at least be clear and honest about that position.

Something tells me that the level of discomfort that we've seen in them today is a good sign that many of them don't like that position, but that's the position they've taken. We, on the other hand, believe in investing and in telling the taxpayers of the province where that money is going to come from.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved opposition day number 2. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Brown, Michael A.

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cleary, John C.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16, the nays are 65.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Pursuant to standing order 37, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning government cutbacks in emergency room funding. He is obviously not here -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, order. It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

October 20, 1998

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TUITION FEES

PINOCHET ARREST

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

HIGHWAY SIGNS

PALLIATIVE CARE

SCHOOL TEACHERS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

JOB CREATION

VISITORS

JOANNE MALAR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

PERSONS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PAY EQUITY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ABORTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

ROAD SAFETY

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

CURRICULUM

PROPERTY TAXATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

ELECTORAL REFORM

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

PROSTATE CANCER

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

DENTAL CARE

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION