Hansard Transcript 1998-Nov-05 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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 Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's with great pleasure that I move second reading of this bill, An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry, because we in the province of Ontario know how important the management of our forests is. Over the years there has been tremendous concern by the public as to the management of our crown forests and how forests on private land are managed. It has become quite frankly a very political issue. For that reason, for the privatization of forest management over the years, really taking custody of our forests over the years and how the government has operated that, it makes very important that the public has assurance that our crown forests especially are being managed to the very highest regard.

I think people would be aware that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is an association that already exists. It was incorporated by an act of this Legislature in 1957. At that time, the act set up a voluntary professional association that offered its members a professional forum and educational opportunities and other benefits typical of any professional association. But because of the increasing need and the demand on this profession, it is time to move the bar up to basically grant this association self-regulatory powers so they can discipline themselves, and also receive scrutiny and, if it happens, complaints from the public and be able to deal with those in a professional manner. It's very important that this happen.

The growth of the profession's numbers and the value of its certification has led to calls within this organization for the government to vest the forestry association with licensing power. In essence, what the association wants is the government to enhance the reach, the authority and the accountability of the profession in order to lead to greater conformity to the highest standards of forest management throughout Ontario. I believe no one in the province could really argue with that.

As I've mentioned, there certainly is a public policy need for this. The central rationale for this transformation in this association to a professional one is the growing need for an accountable, independent profession to provide expert professional services aimed at ensuring the best possible forest management practices. There are three significant trends that have contributed to the emergence of this need: the mounting public concern over the state of the forests, the consequent politicization of forest management and the changing role of government in Ontario in managing the province's forest resource.

First, I'd like to touch upon the mounting public concern. As a northerner I certainly understand, and any member of this Legislature would understand, especially with the latest go-around by the government in trying to deal with the overall management of our forests in the Lands for Life process, that there is great public interest, both in the south and in the north, right across this province, in how our forests are managed.

Probably, being Canadians, we strongly identify with our forests. If we don't work in our forests, a lot of us recreate in our forests. Even if we don't do that and maybe just live in some of our larger urban centres, we look to our forests as a very strong symbol of this country and also as a very strong resource that contributes greatly to our economy. Regardless of where you live in this country or this province, the management of our forests is of paramount concern. We've seen over the years a growing concern by everyone in how our forests are managed.

It is very important that the public have a comfort level with this and that they know that the people who are charged with managing our forests are working at the very highest standards with the very latest skills and professionalism that is available anywhere in the world. That is one of the main reasons for doing this.

1010

The key to meeting this public demand is to increase the accountability of those who manage the forest. This greater accountability can be achieved by extending the reach of the forestry profession to cover all individuals practising forestry, ensuring the educational qualifications and enforcing adequate practice standards for those individuals and defining an appropriate scope of practice for them. By vesting the professional body with the licensing power that I call for in this act, these goals can be achieved in a way that demonstrates the government's commitment to accountable forest management in Ontario.

Another reason, and it really relates to the first issue of public concern in this, is the concern that we have the very best standards and the best professional knowledge being applied to our forests. There would be those in society who would comply with the profession and others would call it junk science. A lot of people might have ideas about how they feel the forest should be managed, but what we have to ensure is that the people who have the responsibility and who are charged with this management have the very best scientific knowledge and training to do this, so that junk science doesn't enter into the management of our forests.

Just like in any field, whether it's the justice system or politics, it's not only that the right thing is being done, but the perception that the right thing is being done is very important. That's why establishing a professional organization for foresters would ensure that not only is it getting done but the perception would be that it is being done properly. I think that would alleviate a lot of concern.

A strong, authoritative, self-governing forestry profession is needed to serve as a standard-setter and a referee in the forest management debate. Without such an honest broker, there is a risk that the public dialogue over Ontario's forests could degenerate into a battle of junk science issuing from competing interests. I believe that's a very important reason why this legislation should proceed, and I would encourage members to support it.

The third reason, and I talked about this at the beginning of my opening remarks today, is that there is a very large, changing role in how our forests are managed. This is the third and the fastest moving trend that points towards the need for a very strong forestry profession, and that is this changing role of the provincial government.

Throughout the industrialized world, governments are shifting towards the role of "steering, not rowing." I recognize this quote by Osborne from his book Reinventing Government. In the old days government basically did everything, especially in the Ministry of Natural Resources. It was a hands-on ministry, for sure. It not only managed the forests, it actively, with thousands of employees, did much of the work that today is being done by the forestry companies themselves.

In my area, in Timiskaming, forest co-operatives and federations, forest companies that are not on such a large scale and some of our largest producers, come together and hire professional foresters to manage the forest they cut. They work this in agreement, and with this there are many advantages. There are economies of scale in working together with one good team of foresters. The other thing that's important about this is that the companies are working together and you get a very good, rational distribution of wood fibre supply, so that you don't have large roundwood going to a plant that's just going to chip it up to make particleboard, for example. It's important to have good coordination, and certainly a lot of this is working very well.

With this, the public should know that these new entities, such as the Timiskaming Forestry Alliance, are personed by professional, first-rate foresters, and with this designation, the public could be assured that the very best science, the very best professionalism is being applied to the local forests.

This is why a licensing program within the profession would give this assurance to people that the profession has licensed its people, that professional foresters that are licensed in Ontario have the very highest credentials to manage Ontario's forests.

Again, I am very pleased to bring this bill forward. I certainly hope the members of the Legislature will support this, especially today, to allow it to move on. I'm certainly willing to work with the government if you want this to go to committee maybe in the next stage or go to third reading, whatever the government would like to do. This, as you know, is a non-partisan bill, and I do this in the interests of professional forestry in this province.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate today and to indicate that members of our caucus will be supporting the passage of second reading of Bill 71 today, An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this forward, although I would have hoped the government would have done that, because I think the Ministry of Natural Resources in particular, specifically the minister, could use some good news these days, and this would have been it. However, it appears that the government agenda is full with other things and so a private member has been asked and has agreed to bring it forward, and I would like to thank Mr Ramsay for doing that.

It is an important piece of legislation. There has been a tremendous amount of work that has gone on to getting us here today to second reading. It would be a shame if we missed this opportunity to allow foresters to move to what is a logical next step, that is, to be self-regulating, to have the association have the ability to license, to deal with disciplinary measures, licensing measures etc. So we really have a tremendous opportunity here, and I do hope that other members in the assembly today will pass second reading and we can either deal with committee or move directly to third reading.

I have, over at least the last two years, probably a little bit longer, been watching the progress of this project with a great deal of interest. I'm sure that a number of members, including myself, receive the newsletter that goes out from the Ontario Professional Foresters Association called the Professional Forester. I receive it mainly in the capacity of critic for MNR for the NDP.

But in any event, as early as April 1996 there was a notice under committees that said very clearly that a licensing committee had been formed. As a result of discussions and views that came up at the annual meeting in February with respect to licensing and reopening that issue and the need to look at licensing again, particularly in light of the shift of the management of forest responsibilities from government to industry, it was clear that members of the profession thought this issue needed to be raised again. Work had been done in the past, but this time there was clearly a determination that some move had to be made, there had to be legislation that would allow for regulation, allow for certification, allow for the association to do that.

So as early as April 1996 the foresters association created a licensing committee and asked its members to have the mandate to explore the merits of licensing. Draft terms of reference were developed at that time. Tasks were set out for that particular calendar year to define what licensing would mean, to review how licensing was applied in other provincial and federal jurisdictions, to look at the pros and cons and to develop a position paper.

As I followed it through, in the next newsletter, in July 1996, there was a second article, which again talked about the committee being formed, repeated what the terms of reference were, looked at what the tasks were that had been set down and asked for members of the association, both active and retired, to begin to provide their input into this very important issue.

It seems that as the months passed and as the work progressed, the space dedicated in the Professional Forester to a look at the licensing issue became greater and greater. Almost two years after the day that a committee had actually been struck, in April 1998, there was a very large segment of the newsletter dedicated to all of the work that had been done and a summary of all the decisions that had been made by the association over that two-year period to look at this licensing issue.

It is safe to say that the bill that is before us has the overwhelming support of professional foresters in this province, and two thirds of them are members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. Clearly, the association was given a direct mandate to put together a draft bill, to present that to the government and to try to work with this government to have that brought through as a government piece of legislation.

1020

If you look, for example, at the public consultation that occurred with members, it was very extensive. Beginning in the fall of 1996, the licensing committee that had been established researched, developed and distributed to all members three discussion papers about this issue.

Articles on licensing and self-regulation were in the next four issues of the association's newsletter. That carried them over the next year.

The association sponsored a workshop on the standards of practice at Lakehead University.

At the February 1997 annual meeting, there were speakers and discussions on the licensing of foresters in Ontario and how licensing worked in other jurisdictions. There were almost 200 members who attended 14 meetings that were held on this issue in different communities across the province.

Members then also were asked to fax in to the licensing committee or the director any questions, concerns or comments they had, and that was done on a regular basis.

Finally then, in June 1997, there was a vote of the members on whether or not the association should proceed to licensing, and clearly there was an overwhelming majority who supported that need and supported the movement forward to a draft bill. There were 861 registered professional foresters who were eligible to vote; 65.5% returned their ballots and, of those, 80.8% voted yes. So it was clear that council had a very strong mandate to proceed to a draft bill and to proceed with discussions with this government about licensing and certification.

It's also fair to say that the association has done a tremendous amount of work to talk to other non-governmental organizations who have an interest in forestry, and consultation documents and letters were sent to almost 70 of those to outline what the association was doing, to ask for input, comments, to raise questions or concerns. A number of those 70 organizations did reply.

There were also fairly extensive consultations undertaken during the summer and this fall with MPPs so that MPPs could be aware of why the association wanted to move in the direction that it did and why it would be a good public policy issue for foresters to be licensed in Ontario.

So it's safe to say that there has been very extensive consultation. It has occurred over a two-year period. Many of the concerns that had been raised have been dealt with. People who would have an interest have been spoken to. We are here today with a very solid mandate from the members that this is the direction in which they want to move and that is why they are asking for support for this bill today.

It's important to look again at why it is necessary, why it is important, and why the opportunity now exists for Ontario to move towards licensing of professional foresters. If you take a look at what has happened in this province over the last number of years, there have been many professional groups who have felt that in the best interests of the public and in the best interests of maintaining high standards in their particular profession, the best thing that could happen would be for their own association to be self-regulating, to have the power to license, to have the power to discipline, to have the power to set accreditation standards and educational standards.

If you look during the early 1990s at what happened in the health care profession, some 22 health care professional bodies were regulated under our NDP government at that time, and that followed a process that had begun 10 years before we got here. If you look at what happened to midwifery in the time that we were the government, the same thing happened: accreditation, licensing, discipline, all of that occurred.

We are at a stage now where, frankly, in a de facto sort of way, the government has already moved to that. Under the old Crown Timber Act, registered professional foresters did have to sign forest management plans. When we made changes and brought in the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, we too required that registered professional foresters had to be a very important part of the development of those forest management plans, and there are sign-off conditions attached to that legislation as well.

If you look at the recommendations of the class environmental assessment on timber management, the board members there also recommended that registered professional foresters have a much greater role to play in the development of forest management plans.

We have seen gradually, in the profession itself but also through legislation that affected the Ministry of Natural Resources and, de facto, affected foresters in the province, a move to certainly increase accreditation, increase standards, increase obligations. What we see now in terms of the request before us for licensing is a logical conclusion to all of the things that have already happened.

I also think we have clearly seen in this province a dramatic shift - and that has become very clear in the last two years in particular - of forest management responsibilities from government, from the Ministry of Natural Resources, directly on to industry. Clearly that is a trend that is going to continue in this province, and I think clearly there flows from that a public concern about how our forests are being managed. We have to remember that forestry resources are public resources. How we manage them in a sustainable way now and in the future is important not only to Ontario's economy, but it's exceptionally important to the thousands and thousands of people out there who are employed in this industry in any number of our communities across the province.

The public needs to be sure that the best interests of the forests are being met - not the best interests of employers, not the best interests of forestry companies, not the best interests of other user groups of the forest, but that the public interest must be met all of the time if we are going to guarantee a sustainable resource in the future.

I think the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is well positioned to play that role for the public. This is an association, it is true, that was incorporated by an act of this government in 1957, but it is an association that has always maintained high standard with respect to forest management. It has had a soft certification process, it is true, but one that did involve disciplinary measures and removal of that certificate to practise. It has always maintained very high standards with respect to education. It has had a code of practice and a code of ethics, and it has been for a very long time now in a very good position to ensure the public that the work that is undertaken, the forestry services that are provided, is of the highest calibre, the highest quality.

But we need to go one step beyond, and that has to do with the licensing, because the licensing itself will be one more proof that in fact professional foresters take their responsibilities very seriously and understand that if they do not do their work with the highest quality, protecting the public interest, then they will lose their licence to practise, and many of them would then lose all hope of employment in this province in particular. That is a very strong deterrent for anyone who doesn't want to practise safe forest management or proper forest management, who doesn't want to deal with sustainability, who doesn't want to deal with the best public interest of the forest and timber values and timber use.

So it is a very strong motivating factor, and one that the association obviously wants to have in its possession, to guarantee to the public very clearly that anyone who practises in this province is certified, has to follow a particular code of practice, has to follow a particular scope of practice, and will have a designation as a registered professional forester that flows from both work experience and educational experience that is common to all. For all of these reasons, it will give the public a greater sense of surety and security that the forest is being managed well on their behalf by these individuals.

It is clear that we had some concerns originally when we were approached by the association in two areas in particular, one with respect to how the public would be able to participate in the association and in its regulatory bodies. We know that in a number of the other professions that have been regulated over the last number of years there has been a method for public input and public participation. Clearly in the bill, as I read through it, I see that in a number of areas there is room for the public to participate. That is essential. They will be participating in the board of directors, on the registration committee, the discipline committee and the complaints committee.

The second concern we had was focused around the issue of grandparenting and how we would deal with those people who wanted to continue to practise or who practised non-forest work but had an association with the forest. Clearly, in the bill, in the bylaws of the council, those issues about different classes of licences and how people will be brought into the fold are all lined out, so we feel confident and comfortable that our concerns have been met.

I want to congratulate the members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association for their tremendous work over the last two years, and I hope that some who are in the gallery today will see the rest of us pass this at second reading and on to third.

1030

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise today, and I will be supporting the bill by the member for Timiskaming. I want to congratulate him for bringing this matter forward.

It may seem strange that a member from the greater Toronto area would speak to a forestry bill. Very few people realize that there are in fact many acres of forests within the GTA, and specifically York region. We particularly have a concern that that forest is appropriately and professionally managed in the public interest. I, for one, believe that licensing will be in the public interest. What I'm concerned about, and it's why I'm going to suggest this bill go to committee, is that we have an opportunity to refine some of the issues, ensure that it's not overkill and ensure that we don't get involved in over-regulation, but that we have in this bill the necessary parameters to ensure there is a full-fledged profession of forestry that can effectively do its job in this province.

It's a commitment that I believe we as a government, as a province, can make to sound forest management, so I will be supporting this bill. Again, I commend the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and the member for his work on this.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): To begin with, I would as well like to congratulate the member for Timiskaming for bringing this bill forward. It has received nothing but positive support throughout my region of the province in the northwest, in the Kenora-Rainy River area. There has certainly been a great amount of interest in this bill. As you will know, forestry in that region is very important to the economy, and I've heard nothing but this being an excellent idea, a self-regulated profession with not only foresters but public members on the board and on governing committees. We've heard a little bit about how the actual makeup of this would come about. They're talking about the inclusion of the public on committees such as their registration and discipline committee.

As we know, in the northwest forestry affects all of us, not just those in the industry but those who rely on not only the forest products but those areas as well. I'm talking about the various competing interests for the resource area, not particularly the fibre but the area itself, whether it be the angler and hunter interests in the area, whether it be the tourist operator interest, whether it be the environmentalists' interest. These folks all have tremendous interest in the areas we talk about where the forestry practices take place. I'm very happy to see that they too have been considered in terms of the registration of professional foresters.

My riding probably makes up a good portion of the 33 million hectares of productive forests owned by the crown in this province. It probably makes up a good portion as well of the six million hectares of private forests, so again, it's an issue of great interest.

I also have a number of woodlot owners in my area, in the northwest. It's interesting that they rely a lot on the information and the advice given to them by professional foresters. We've noticed that the woodlot owners will continue to be able to look after their own lots on their own, but I'm sure they will also continue to rely on the advice given to them by professional foresters.

We know that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is behind this bill. They've done a number of publications to support it, and we know of their excellent record and their support for this concept.

The movement of direct delivery of forest management to the companies from the Ministry of Natural Resources is just another reason, which is very evident, why we should be looking at these folks moving into such an organization. We know the Ministry of Natural Resources has dumped or moved over a lot of the responsibility of the management of our forests to these companies, so this can only help in terms of the management of these very important areas.

"Public concern about forests is growing." I take that headline out of a publication by the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. They certainly have noticed the public concern. As we know, "Ontario's Environmental Assessment Board in 1994 ordered greater involvement by the RPFs," registered professional foresters, "in forest management on crown lands." They go on to say, "Public concern about Ontario's forests has been growing," because, as I indicated earlier, "there are multiple, and often competing, demands on our forests." They certainly recognize that as well.

They go on to talk in their publication about how it's time to license foresters in Ontario, and I would just like to read into the record what they have to say about it. This is from the Professional Forester, their publication. It reads:

"The time has come to license professional foresters in Ontario. With government downsizing, Ontario needs an independent, accountable forestry profession to ensure our forests are managed in the public interest.

"The Ontario Professional Foresters Association needs your support and input to this watershed project. Licensing will significantly improve forestry practices in Ontario and ensure scientifically sound, high-quality standards be applied to all practitioners."

That is something that my constituents will like to hear and will appreciate coming from this association. I cannot say enough about how much they support this.

Another concern that has been brought to my attention, and it also has been addressed, is that of out-of-province foresters. As folks in the northwest will know, we quite often see a good number of foresters coming to us from literally all over the world, whether it be a company that has moved them in from another mill they own or another region they're doing their forestry practices in or whether it be labour coming to us from other provinces. We have a great variety of foresters, be it from Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, the east coast, or, as I indicated earlier, even from the States and other countries. When we talk about the out-of-province foresters, they've indicated here, "A class of licence called a special permit will be developed that will enable out-of-province qualified foresters to practise in the province on a one-time basis for a limited period of time." That's another concern that was brought to my attention and one that I think can be laid to rest by the issuing of this special permit. I'm sure there will be many folks in my region who will be happy to know that is being addressed.

In closing, I would just like to congratulate the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. I hope that this bill, with the help of the members in the House, will move onwards, either into committee or even on to third reading.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): First, let me say that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is certainly a well known and long-standing association that has an excellent reputation in the province of Ontario. In giving them this authority to institute a peer review and hold their members accountable, certainly you couldn't pick a better association in the province to carry out the kinds of standards and codes that would be put in place under this legislation.

Licensing used as a regulatory tool is something that is perhaps long-standing in Ontario. It is used by a number of groups of professionals, which include organizations such as accountants and engineering, and registered professional foresters are only one more of that group. This government has implemented other organizations to carry out these functions within their industries, which includes the travel agents of Ontario, the auto dealers association, along with others, including, I believe, the funeral directors in Ontario. As a regulatory tool, it's in the public's best interests to have these kinds of associations because it doesn't require any government funding or any government involvement, as the public sector is part of the governing agency, part of the association and part of the control which is implemented on the various associations.

1040

Specifically in this piece of legislation, licensing will not prevent owners of private woodlots from managing their own forests. I think that's a very important part of this legislation, in that it's non-intrusive. However, if someone who has a private forest does want to create a forest management plan and they deal with a professional forester, they will have the assurance that the person they are dealing with will be qualified to give his opinion on where that goes.

This also has had a large number of regional meetings. I believe 15 were held across the province in the spring of 1997. I believe there were well over 200 people who attended those meetings. The membership of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association has been surveyed and in that survey I believe over 60% of the ballots were returned. Of those returned, there was over 80% support for this type of professional association in Ontario. So I believe the public is being well served by this. It'll give me some pleasure to support this bill, although we'd like to see it go to committee so that it can be merged with the other legislation that we've done in this area.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The first thing we should do here is commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this bill forward this morning. It's a bill that's overdue. It's a bill that should have come forward sooner. I think the member for Sudbury East alluded to the history of the registered foresters in the province and the various government bodies that had recommended a stronger role.

Some of the comments from the other side disturb me just slightly. I know they weren't meant to. One of the things we often do around here is pass, on second reading, legislation such as this and never get to third reading. I presume, from what I've heard on the other side of the Legislature, that they intend fully to support this bill. But that's all very nice if we don't actually get to third reading. I suggest there's no reason we couldn't do the committee hearings this fall, and before we break for Christmas have this piece of legislation put in place so that we will be able to deal with it and get on with life.

The public has to understand there are a number of reasons why the profession needs to be licensed at this point, and they kind of come through a history. One of those would be the Crown Forest Sustainability Act passed by Mr Hampton and Mr Wildman, which privatized the management of all the crown forests in Ontario, at least all of those below 50, I believe. When we have privatized that, and at the same time gutted MNR, we no longer have the foresters in MNR who used to prepare these plans. We no longer have a sufficient staff of foresters within MNR to go over each and every plan as carefully.

We know the horror stories coming out of the Ministry of Natural Resources because the auditor has just reported about some of the absolutely outstanding boondoggles of the Ministry of Natural Resources over recent years: the fact that they somehow can't account for $4.5 million in the wildlife trust, and somehow have $800,000 of travel expenses they can't account for, and it goes on. People should have a look at the auditor's report on MNR and you would know what the government's actions over the last few years have done to a ministry that was proud and has a lot of good people but has not had the tools to manage Ontario's assets as they should.

The second thing every member should know, particularly the rural members, is that the change from what used to be the managed forest tax rebate to a change in assessment has also provided the public with a huge incentive to manage private woodlots and to qualify under this act by means of filing a managed forest plan. The public needs to know who it is who has the expertise. Who is it who can legitimately offer them advice on these plans? In my constituency, where we have a large amount of private land, there too is an interest by the general public in having good advice on how to manage their woodlots. There is a real need for them to know and for the Ministry of Natural Resources to know what is a managed forest and who the professionals are who can provide the advice on how to manage their particular woodlot or forest in a reasonable way. The demand for the services and the demand to know who can provide these services so the public can have confidence in them, and the government have confidence, is probably - well, not probably - it is at an all-time high in Ontario.

I've had some chats with some professional foresters in my area. My friend and neighbour John Christian, for example, well known throughout MNR and well known to a number of people in this Legislature, has talked to me on a number of occasions about this bill. It's very clear, from John's point of view, that this bill needs to move very quickly through the Legislature. I think the government has understood this. I'm kind of surprised that the government, in privatizing many of these functions, did not recognize this sooner. Nevertheless, I understand from the goodwill across here that we will be moving very rapidly to have this bill through this Legislature by Christmastime. I see no problem with that. Certainly from our side of the House we are very supportive.

My colleagues have canvassed most of the forest issues. I also wanted to talk about the SFL process, which is culminating in my riding. The operators on the Spanish and Mississagi crown units are signing right now - I think last Friday, actually - agreements with Northshore Forest Inc in order that those former crown units will be managed by professional foresters privately, by a company that provides the services to all those people who are presently operating on those lands.

There's been a tremendous amount of controversy. The process is being worked through. I have a fax in my office saying there are still some problems, but by and large, an operator told me just last week that they would all be signing the SFL. What that means to the public is that there will be one body across the entire region providing the management operational plans for these woodlots. That is very significant. Ontario needs to have those plans managed and has to have them managed in a way that the public can have confidence in. That's why it is so important at this point in the game to move forward with the licensing of professional foresters so we do have the confidence.

At this time I'll conclude my remarks. I hope the government will move quickly with this legislation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the few seconds left, let me say that there have been several demonstrations out in front of this building about the future of forestry in this province. I want to ensure that we have a forestry industry and also that we have protected large tracts of land for park purposes and for the enjoyment of the people of this province. I hope this bill will assist in that regard.

1050

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm delighted to take part in the debate on Bill 71. I'd like to say at the outset that I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing forward the legislation. There is a significant amount of interest in my riding in Muskoka-Georgian Bay in this type of legislation and in any type of activity at the government level regarding the forest industry.

I also want to make the point that it is a delight to participate in and listen to a debate where all the speakers have knowledge of the subject and are engaged in talking about the subject at hand. Certainly today we've heard, from all members who have spoken on the subject, a good deal of expertise in the area of forest management. I listened with great attention to the member for Sudbury East, who I thought provided an excellent summary of the history of forest management regulation in Ontario and provided a very compelling argument for supporting the bill.

I will say at the outset that I will be supporting the bill, but with some reservations. I think it should go to committee. That is not a delaying tactic on my part or on behalf of my constituents. But there are some issues that need to be discussed in committee. I'd like to raise some of them now and perhaps I'll have an opportunity at committee, if it goes to committee, to further explore them.

Along with the public interest in good forest management and in making sure that government regulation is not overly cumbersome, there are also private interests that have to be respected and considered when we look at this type of legislation. When you look particularly at section 13 in the bill - I'll just read it because it's brief - "No person shall engage in or hold himself, herself or itself out as able to engage in the practice of professional forestry unless the person holds a certificate of registration issued by the association."

That is a critical issue in the debate. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will limit participation in the forestry profession. The people who currently are involved in that activity and are not members of the association or are not what this legislation would consider professionals have an interest in being heard in this debate, and they should have an opportunity to speak at committee as to their concerns or whether it's all right for them. It could well be that they will support the legislation.

In my riding, the small operators in the lumber industry, those people who have one-person or maybe two-person operations - despite the fact, as the member for Timiskaming has said quite eloquently, that government now is more in the steering process with respect to forestry than in the rowing process - see a replacement of red tape within the industry. We have to make sure that all people in the industry and small farmers, people who are really never represented by lobbyists, are heard, that their interests are heard.

I think of Harry Truman, who when he had a meeting with lobbyists, at the end of the meeting said to them, "Gentlemen, you should be aware that I also have an interest and a responsibility to represent those people who don't have lobbyists." That certainly is something we have to keep in mind when we're speaking about this kind of legislation.

I want to make the point that, going around to summer and fall fairs in my riding, there is usually a spot at the fall fair where they have old photographs. When I go to these fall fairs, I look at the photographs. They're photographs of Bracebridge or Gravenhurst or Huntsville at the turn of the century. It's interesting to see that there are no trees in any of these pictures. In my riding now there is an abundance of trees, there are lots of trees. I think it's part of a trend. We are more cognizant of the need to preserve the forest. I think there will be an increasing amount of forest in the future. The member for York-Mackenzie made the very good point that this is not a northern Ontario issue. It's an issue that goes through the whole of the province. There is more and more interest in preserving trees and preserving the forest, so there is I think more and more need for public debate to include discussions about how every individual is affected by this type of regulation.

In conclusion, I just wanted to say again that I'm supporting the legislation but I feel it should go to committee. There are concerns about over-regulation, there are concerns about limiting membership in the profession, and those all have to be addressed before the legislation proceeds.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill and the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and what they want to accomplish.

I was interested in the comments from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is concerned that this might not get very far, that it might be passed here today and not go to committee. I can assure him that I'm certainly enthusiastically supporting the bill, not only in the vote today but also to go to committee. I have a reservation and I will mention that in a few minutes. I would have some difficulty in third reading if that particular issue were not recognized.

I think it's interesting, the member for Timiskaming introducing this, recognizing that government is now here to be steering and not the old process of rowing. It's obvious he's read the book Reinventing Government, or at least he's copying some of the statements from it. That is indeed the direction: the restructuring of government. Some 98% of the countries around the world are now restructuring their governments with that intent in mind.

Compliments to the Professional Foresters Association for their very professional lobbying approach to bringing this bill forward. They did not use partisan politics. They've approached members on both sides of the House. David Curtis came to me. He's a professional forester and a lawyer from my riding who lives in Brighton. I think we also have some very famous foresters like Bob Carman, who is secretary of cabinet. His father, who has passed away, was also a professional forester and lived less than a kilometre from where I live in Northumberland - two exemplary men in our society.

I'd like to just draw a few comparisons with some of the other professions that are self-regulating: engineers, for example. We really don't tell engineers how to design and build bridges. There are all kinds of self-regulating people in the various colleges of medicine. I think there are 13 or 14 there. We just recently passed a bill that teaching would be a self-regulating profession. I think when you develop a self-regulating bill or act, that group becomes a profession. I think of my own profession of veterinarians, which is also a self-regulating body.

This brings me to my area of concern because, as I read the bill, it appears that the lobby group, the current professional association, will also be the licensing body. That, to me, is a conflict of interest. I don't think it's wise to have your lobby group also the licensing body. If that is the way it is when we get to third reading, I would have to vote against it.

I've talked to some of the foresters. I think maybe they appreciate this particular problem, that it needs to be separated out, that those who are going to be self-regulating, those who are going to look after that activity, including those who would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, have a different role from the group that would be the lobby group.

I know it's a small organization, and to split it up and have two different bodies might be cumbersome for them. They have close to 1,000 who are presently registered. But I think it would operate in a much better way if they were separated out and they had the self-regulating body and called it a college or professional foresters of Ontario or whatever name they would give to it - it would have a specific responsibility to ensure that their membership paid attention, came up to the standards - and then have the other group that could lobby on their behalf and do so in the very professional way they have in the past in bringing this one forward. It's very logical that their association would lobby to bring this forward.

I think this group has a big responsibility in the future. Some of it has been alluded to: the change in government and those responsibilities. But there is another area and that relates to, as we've been bringing in over the 20, 25, maybe 30 years, high-yield agriculture. We're producing far more grains, far more crops on less acreage. The marginal lands of Ontario and Canada and probably the world are really returning to forests. Certainly the area that I'm familiar with in Northumberland, and particularly east of there as you approach the Shield, tremendous tracts of land that used to be cultivated are no longer meeting with the plow. This is certainly a pressure in the future for foresters.

Time is running out. I can enthusiastically support this on second reading. One major change needs to occur prior to me voting in favour of it on third reading.

1100

The Acting Speaker: Member for Timiskaming, two minutes.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank all the members of the Legislature who partook in the debate today. I very much appreciate your encouragement and support that this piece of legislation should move on to committee stage. I accept that advice and recommendation and after a voice vote at 12 I certainly will be asking for that referral so that we can deal with some of the concerns that members have expressed here today. Again, I thank all who have partaken in this debate.

Just to reiterate, this legislation will mean that only qualified persons with the appropriate professional designation will be allowed to practise forestry and call themselves professional foresters. Through this, the public will have assurance that the foresters who are managing our forests are properly qualified and will do work that meets an approved and professional standard.

I'd like to say that in proposing this law, I believe that Ontario forests must be managed to the highest possible standards. Sustainability and environmental benefits can only be achieved by using the best available science, practised by professionals of the highest calibre. Since, as we've said before, the government is moving to direct delivery of forest management and increasing the responsibility for forest management by the forest companies, professional foresters will be held very much accountable for their decisions and actions not only to their employers, but to the professional association itself.

This legislation proposes that the public be represented in the management of the foresters' association. There will be public members on the board of directors and on some of the key governing committees, such as registration and discipline.

In summary, with the passage of this legislation I believe Ontario will have a truly independent, scientifically sound, and fully accountable forestry profession as a partner in protecting Ontario forests' estate.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

TAXATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further middle-class tax cut.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Mushinski: It is my pleasure to introduce a private member's resolution today that, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further personal income tax cut for middle-income taxpayers.

The reasons for this motion are clear. There is no doubt that tax cuts stimulate job growth and, as a result, the economy in general. Since our government's tax cuts began, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been in this province. Over 400,000 jobs have been created in Ontario since September 1995.

Under the previous two governments, during the early to mid-1990s, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of Canada gained jobs.

In fact, from 1985 to 1995, previous governments increased every kind -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Ms Mushinski: As I was saying, under the previous two governments during the early to mid-1990s, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of Canada gained jobs.

From 1985 to 1995, previous governments increased every kind of tax imaginable: the personal income tax, corporations tax, retail sales tax, gasoline tax and all the so-called sin taxes, just to name a few. I won't even mention commercial concentration tax and what that did to the city of Toronto. In all, those governments raised taxes 65 times over that 10-year period. They even gave us a new tax. It was called the employer health tax. In 1988, under the Liberals, the sales tax rate increased from 7% to 8%, adding another $850 million a year to Ontarians' tax burden, about one third of which was paid for by business. In 1990, under the same government, OHIP premiums were replaced by the employer health tax, which was a new payroll tax. This tax raised over $2 billion a year, but the net impact on business was a job-killing $553 million annually. Both the NDP and the Liberals were instrumental in increasing gasoline and fuel taxes, which raised about $1 billion.

This government wants to support individuals and businesses in Ontario. We don't want to cripple them with continuing onerous tax burdens. As we announced in the 1998 budget, over the next eight years the corporate income tax rate for small business will be cut in half, to 4.75%, which is the lowest rate in all of Canada. This will benefit some 90,000 small businesses. This government also announced in the 1996 budget a three-year plan to exempt the first $400,000 of payroll from the employer health tax by 1999. In this year's budget we announced that we would accelerate the final phase of this exception.

We also want to let hard-working Ontarians keep more of the money that they earn. We think we have shown that by phasing in our promised 30% tax cut way ahead of schedule. In fact, 90% of Ontario taxpayers will be getting a tax cut of 30% or more. This government is giving extra tax cuts to modest-income taxpayers through adjustments to the Ontario tax reduction program. Some 70,000 taxpayers will have their Ontario personal income taxes eliminated and an additional 290,000 will have their income tax reduced by more than 30%.

1110

We believe that further tax cuts for the middle-income earners, who represent the largest group of taxpayers, will further boost our economy and put more money back into the pockets of average Ontarians. The data is in and the information is clear: High taxes are bad for the economy. High taxes stifle job growth. High taxes reduce consumer spending. This government will not repeat history. Since we came into power, we have delivered on our promise to cut taxes. In fact, since 1996 we have done so 66 times. We're also working towards supporting employers with two new strategic tax incentives: the workplace child care incentive, announced in 1997, and the workplace accessibility tax incentive, announced in the 1998 budget.

Economic studies have almost universally found substantial short-run and long-run benefits from tax cuts. Our government knows that reducing taxes provides a direct stimulus to consumer spending and creates jobs. The old tax-and-spend ways of government was crippling Ontario. The people told us that things had to be done differently to create a stable and prosperous economic climate in Ontario. They told us to restructure a government that was inefficient and had grown too large. They told us to lower taxes. They told us to reduce the deficit.

We made a plan and set out a program of steady deficit reduction and tax cuts. Each year, we have beaten our target. We are well on track to eliminating the deficit by the year 2000-01. We have kept our promises to reduce taxes for individuals and for businesses. Our policies have brought about economic growth and job creation well above the Canadian average. Consumer confidence in Ontario is growing faster than in the rest of Canada.

Previous administrations in Ontario raised taxes repeatedly and the deficit grew in spite of that. We have shown that it is possible to cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time. The benefits of the tax cuts are clear. By offering further tax relief to middle-income earners we can leave more dollars where they belong: in the pockets of the hard-working citizens who earned those dollars in the first place. This is another way that we are acting on our commitment to make Ontario one of the best places in the world in which to live, work and invest.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the chance to speak to this resolution today and to indicate why I will not be supporting it. I listened very carefully to Mrs Mushinski in her presentation and actually was interested in whether hers would simply be a defence of her government's record, which I certainly expected to see, but also why and how she would justify the way in which she has worded this particular resolution. Is it an admission that her government's policies have not been working as they relate to the middle class, or is she simply, as I think she was trying to claim, suggesting that this would be a logical extension, from her perspective, of what they have been doing?

The interesting thing is that when you look at what the tax cut is doing, we have pointed out time and time again, and indeed others outside this House have pointed out, that one of the things we are seeing come about as a result of the fiscal policies of the Mike Harris government, which of course as you know has as its central thrust the 30% income tax cut, is that the gap between the richest citizens in our province and the poorest citizens in our province widen to the point where a study that was just released a couple of weeks ago called The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Inequality between the Rich and Poor in Canada, by Armine Yalnizyan for the Centre for Social Justice, points out that if you look at the situation in 1996, which is the last year for which figures were available for this study, the richest families made 314 times as much as the poorest families in Canada, but I think a lot of that can be extrapolated to Ontario. I see nothing in what the Mike Harris government has done or in this resolution that's going to assist to change that around.

We know that a good indicator of how well our society is doing is when we are able to reduce the gap between the richest citizens and the poorest citizens. I am astounded that a member of the Tory party could stand here - if they want to defend their government's record, that's fine, but I hope they realize that by virtue of this very resolution they are admitting that their own policies are not working. Why? For a couple of reasons. First and foremost, they have been trumpeting this notion that tax cuts create jobs. Their own job numbers show that the jobs are not being put into place to the extent that they said they were going to, so that isn't working.

We are seeing service after service that has to be cut in order for the Mike Harris government to find the money they need to be able to pay for the tax cut. This talks about middle-class taxpayers. I'm not sure how Ms Mushinski defines middle-class taxpayers - I listened and I thought we might get some sense of that - but I can tell you that many people in my own community and in communities across this province, but I'm seeing this in a very big way in my own community, who would categorize themselves as generally middle-class taxpayers are saying to me and are saying to this government if it would only listen that they don't particularly care for their income tax cut, because they would rather see their schools stay open, they would rather see their hospitals and other health services continue to be there than see the very small benefit that they might get from this tax cut.

You know what? As they begin to do the numbers, they realize that there isn't really much benefit. Because at the same time as Mike Harris is cutting income tax by 30%, they forget to tell people, they conveniently pretend that people are not going to notice, that they've also pushed a lot of the costs on to the property tax system, and so property taxes are going up for the middle class, low income, seniors and for many others across this province. They conveniently forget to tell people that in fact it's by taking money out of our health care system, it's by taking money out of our school system that the money is being found to pay for this tax cut. At the end of the day, families, middle class and working class across the whole sphere, are paying more, unless of course you happen to be in the top range, and I want to come back to that.

What are people seeing? They are seeing higher user fees, they are seeing higher property taxes, they're seeing higher tuition fees if they're trying to send their children to post-secondary education. That's the result. They're not seeing the jobs. Yes, the economy is growing, and we're all happy that it's growing, but we also know that we are still living through a fairly uncertain time. Find me two economists, chosen at random, who will agree as to what the economic situation is going to be in this province and in this country over the next two to three years. It just isn't there. For people to come forward and say, "The solution to all of our problems is a further middle-class tax cut," I'm sorry, it just will not wash, and I for one will not support it.

The impact of the tax cuts so far has not provided any great benefit to middle-class and low-income people in this province. When you look at the fact that 60% of Ontarians make less than $38,000, even if you go up into what I guess traditionally might be considered to be middle-class income, you're talking about people between $45,000 and, say, $76,000, being 23% of taxpayers, that category of taxpayer is not seeing any huge benefit from Mike Harris's tax cuts. Interestingly enough, the 6% who are at the top end, or if you want to go further up, it's indeed the 3% making over $100,000 who are getting over $1 billion worth of the tax cut. They may be the ones who are seeing a positive at the end of the day when they do their numbers, but for middle-class families, for working-class families, what they are seeing is less in the way of service and indeed, at the end of the day, more that they are paying out for fewer services. That's the Mike Harris reality.

1120

What people out there are telling me is that they would rather see their schools stay open; they would rather know that they have a hospital that's functioning when they have an emergency; they would rather know that there are services in our health care system they can call upon and rely upon, than to simply be caught in this kind of cycle the Harris government wants to spin that the answer is all magically in cutting taxes. The taxes are what pay for the services that we want to have in this province.

I don't know what kind of world the Tory members are living in, but the kind of world I and my constituents live in tells me that they want to see, yes, good fiscal management of public funds, but they want, first and foremost, to know that the services that have made Ontario and Canada the best place in the world to live continue to be there. In the Mike Harris world, those are the services that are disappearing, whether it's in health care, whether it's in social services, whether it's in the school system, as we are seeing now in a very big way.

I say to Mrs Mushinski and any of the other Tory members, who undoubtedly will support this motion, you can continue to spin your rhetoric, but people out there are understanding the reality of what you're doing, and the reality is not answered by a simplistic notion of cutting taxes; it's answered by providing the services people need.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I rise today to speak in support of the private member's resolution, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further middle-class tax cut."

Ontario leads the way in tax cuts. In 1998 the broad-based Ontario income tax cut will provide five times more in tax reductions than the selective cuts made by the federal government. The Ontario tax reductions mean more relief for more people.

As indicated by my colleague, our government has announced 66 tax cuts since 1996, one more than the number of tax increases by the previous two governments in 10 years; 66 tax cuts over the past three years that have been effective in boosting our economy and nurturing the creation of new jobs.

To stimulate employment, we've introduced the Ontario new technology tax incentive, the business-research institute tax credit, a capital tax deduction for research and development expenditures, a co-operative education tax credit, the graduate transitions tax credit, the Ontario computer animation and special effects tax credit, the film production services tax credit and an interactive digital media tax credit.

To help individuals, we've cut personal income taxes five times.

We've also introduced the Ontario child care tax incentive; the workplace child care tax incentive; expanded criteria for a retail sales tax exemption for the purchase of vehicles to transport people with permanent physical disabilities; made two enhancements to the Ontario tax reduction; made three cuts to the self-employed employer health care tax; and announced the workplace accessibility tax incentive.

In addition, we have cut the small business corporate income tax nine times, the employer health tax three times, the commercial and industrial education property tax eight times and selective retail sales tax reductions seven times.

Tax credits for business have been announced for racetracks, Ontario sound recording, Ontario film and television and Ontario book publishing. It's an impressive list, and it adds up to more money in the individual's pocket, tax relief for businesses and a major boost for job creation in Ontario.

Many economic studies worldwide have found substantial short-term and long-term benefits from tax cuts. They provide a direct stimulus to consumer spending and create more jobs by making the business sector more dynamic. When business owners are allowed to keep more of the money they earn, they expand their businesses and they hire more people. Every time someone uses their tax cut, they're helping to build a prosperous Ontario. They're helping to build the brightest possible future for our children.

We've said all along that a tax cut for every Ontario taxpayer is the best job creation program, and the Ontario economy has produced more than 400,000 net new private sector jobs since 1995. That's 48.6% of the total new jobs in all of Canada right here in Ontario. In the past 18 months, 53% of the private sector job creation Canada-wide has been in Ontario, even though Ontario has only 38% of Canada's population. Meaningful and lasting jobs, jobs that grow, are created by the private sector.

Governments can help by establishing an environment that supports job creation by cutting taxes, reducing the deficit and eliminating red tape. The government of Ontario is doing just that. Tax cuts help the economy grow by supporting the entrepreneurial spirit in this province that frankly was stifled by the two previous governments, that were trying to do too much at a cost nobody could afford.

Clearly, letting people who earn the money in the first place keep and spend more of it is fuelling growth and investment and helping the economy create jobs in record numbers across this province. We want to continue to leave more money in the hands of hard-working Ontarians, who have endured 65 tax increases in the previous decade. Most of the tax cuts will go to the nearly three million middle-income taxpayers. Taxpayers earning between $25,000 and $75,000 will receive 64%, or almost $3 billion, in savings from the tax cut every year.

With this private member's resolution, we are committed to taking further action to provide tax relief for Ontarians and to foster job creation. Tax cuts don't just create opportunities. They ensure a quality of life that allows all Ontarians to take advantage of new opportunities today and in the future.

1130

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on this tax resolution to say that I think the public has to weigh the costs of this commitment. The people of Ontario are now recognizing the price they're paying for Mike Harris's fiscal plan.

First, property taxes: The government dumped, downloaded $600 million of extra costs on to property taxes. That is a fact. The government admitted it: $600 million. So when people across the province now are seeing their tax bills, they say, "Mike gave me a tax cut on my income but I'm paying for it here in my property taxes" - particularly, I might add, for small business. Small business has been hammered by them on the property tax issue. As I said, $600 million dumped on to property taxes.

I always say to my business friends: "Do you know where this money for the tax cut is coming from? Take a look at the budget." Mike Harris has added $22 billion to the debt of the province. When he became Premier, the debt of the province was $88 billion. According to his numbers, it's $110 billion right now. It took us 125 years of our history to get to that number, but Harris has added $22 billion in four years. So I say to my business friends, Harris has had to borrow every penny of the tax cut. The tax cut has cost roughly $10 billion in lost revenue. Every penny we've had to go out and borrow. The interest we're paying just for the tax cut each year is about $400 million. Yes, you say to the public, "There's a nice tax cut for you." Where did the money for it come from? We went out and borrowed it. I know from my experience in business that it's normally not wise to borrow money to pay yourself a dividend; normally, it's wise to get your fiscal house in order. But every penny is borrowed money.

Look at the numbers on the job front. Mike Harris right now is 75,000 jobs behind his target. He said when he ran, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs." That's what Mike Harris said. By the way, I would never have said that. I don't think governments create jobs, but Mike Harris said, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs." Right now, today, he is 75,000 jobs behind his target. I guarantee that that will be an issue in the campaign, because that was a broken promise - among others. He promised, "I will not close hospitals," and then yesterday, of course, he said: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I know I promised I would not close hospitals." Just yesterday he went down to the OHA and said: "I was wrong. I am closing hospitals." He said, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs," and he is 75,000 jobs behind that target right now, so we look forward to his mathematics on this.

I might talk about the price we're paying for the Harris government. It was just this morning that they announced in the area I represent in Scarborough an MRI, a magnetic resonating machine, for Scarborough. This is typical Harris. He makes the announcement and then there's no money. He said, "We're going to let you have an MRI, but we're not going to give you any money." Do you know what it's going to cost Scarborough General Hospital? It will cost $800,000 a year to run it. Do you know how much Mike Harris gave Scarborough General? It was $150,000. So it's one of those phony gifts from Mike Harris. He gives the gift and then he doesn't fund it. It is a phony gift. Not only that, but the residents of Scarborough have to raise all the capital money. They've got to go out with cap in hand and raise all the money. This is a typical example.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You've given it; you've got to take it.

Mr Phillips: Well said, Mr Speaker.

Nothing could illustrate better than this sort of thing: "I'm going to give you a tax break," and then Mike goes and borrows the money to do it. "I'm going to give you an MRI," and then not fund it.

I used to be chairman of Scarborough General Hospital. I tell you, to find the money to keep that machine operating - they said: "Do you know what you do, Scarborough General? You lease it out at night." Believe me, hospitals are going to have to find some creative ways to fund the MRI machines.

I use that as an example to the public about the - let me select my words properly, Mr Speaker, so you don't rule me out of order - the phoniness of these promises. Go back to the tax break. Everybody loves the tax break, "Give me a tax break," and now what Ontario is finding is: "I got an income tax break and I'm paying for it on my property taxes. I'm paying for it with my young people going to school now, with tuition fees going up astronomically." At my old school the MBA tuition fee has gone from $3,000 a year to $18,000 a year. Good old Western has taken it up to $18,000 a year. So Mike Harris goes around saying, "I did this on the income tax," borrowed all the money to do it, and then we find that people are paying dozens and dozens of new fees.

Nothing could illustrate better than the auditor's report this week. That was perhaps the most damning indictment of the mismanagement of a government I've seen. Believe me, you can lay out the auditor's reports from the last 15 years, and if you can find a more damning report than the one that Mike Harris presented -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale doesn't want to hear this. Just so the public knows, Mike Harris gave a consulting firm $180 million. The consulting firm said, "We think this thing may be worth $50 million to $70 million." That includes their profit and everything else. Good old Mike gave them $180 million. It was fairly easy to get after people on social assistance and beat them up, but when it came to taking on somebody of equal size, Andersen Consulting took this government to the cleaners - and it isn't the government; it's the taxpayers - $180 million for perhaps $70 million worth of work, at most. Not only that, they've taken their fees up 63% since they were awarded this contract in January of last year. They billed the government - this is the most extraordinary thing. They charged interest on their bill and then they marked it up for a profit. It is obscene, but that's Mike Harris looking after the tax dollars. Yeah. Giving a $180-million contract to somebody who said it may be worth $70 million is obscene, and frankly, taking taxes down in one area and then forcing them back up in another area, property taxes, is equally troubling.

It may look to the public like, "I want to cut taxes," but look at the price you're going to pay for it. Look at the fine print in this thing, and I think the government is now being exposed for it really is, an unusual government.

Mr Bisson: First we saw the phony tax scheme introduced by Mike Harris, and we all know at the end of the day who benefits from that tax scheme. Is it the middle class? Obviously not. The reports that have come out since the tax scheme has been put in place have shown that those people who have benefited by the phony tax scheme of Mike Harris have been the people at the upper end of the income scale.

Now we have this member who comes in here and gives an equally phony resolution, supposedly talking about how she's going to do something to help the middle class. I really wonder where this government has been when it came to trying to assist the middle class of the province over the last three years. If you go back and look at the record, you will find that this government, in initiative after initiative, has hammered the middle class like no government in the past.

The government crows and says: "Oh, we've given them a tax break. Oh, we're so good. We gave them a tax break." I already said the middle class, by and large, didn't benefit by the tax break, but what we have had to pay to offset that tax break that they've really given to the people at the upper end of the income scale is a whole bunch of hidden taxes. For example, now when seniors go to buy prescription drugs, what do they have to pay? They have to pay a user fee. They call it a copayment now. When a person wants to rent an arena in their local municipality, or a football field or a soccer field or whatever it might be, the fees have gone up. Why? Because municipalities have lost money by way of transfer from the provincial government, and now people and associations are having to pay a lot more. Every time you take out any kind of permit with the government, you are now having to pay fees where they didn't exist before, and where they did, those fees for permits and other registration-type arrangements have gone up.

But that's not the worst of it. The one that I find most offensive is what's happening with property taxes. This government on the one hand says, "Oh, we've given people a tax break." We know middle-income people didn't benefit from that tax break, but let me tell you, are we ever paying for the changes they have made to the property assessment system. By and large, this government has shifted the burden of assessment income for municipalities from the corporate sector on to individual homeowners.

Now we see the government is about to introduce legislation that will supposedly cap the increases we're seeing in property taxes because of the new assessment system. What did they do? They capped the richest people in society, the large corporations, and also the not-so-large smaller businesses, which I support; they should not have done what they did in the assessment system in the first place. This legislation basically kills the assessment bill for small businesses, but on the other hand they're saying, "We're not going to cap individual homeowners." Now all that loss of revenue that we're seeing because of these assessment shifts is moving over to the homeowner, so the middle-income people again are the ones who are getting it in the ear.

1140

This government talks a good line when it comes to giving people a tax break, but when it comes down to the final analysis we're finding, as middle-income people, we are further back than we ever were before.

For example, the Centre for Social Justice had a study that was funded by the Atkinson foundation and they found some very revealing statistics on what has happened since the Harris government has come into power. For example, they found that since 1995-96, the poorest 10% of Canadian families with children under 18 saw their average after-tax income drop from $15,208 to $13,453. What happened to the supposed middle class that this government is trying to help? We find example after example that they've actually been hurt.

I say to this government, you talk a good line. If you ask most people at the front end, "Are you in favour of a tax break?" I think everybody, including myself, would say, "Yes, I'd love to have a tax break." I think that's what people probably said in the election of 1995. A lot of people bought the argument of the tax break as put forward by Mike Harris during that election. But now people are starting to realize that supposed, phony income tax break that they really didn't get means that the richest people at the other end of the income scale are getting the lion's share of the savings when it comes to tax cuts, and then at the opposite end we're having to lose services that are important to us when it comes to our local communities.

We're seeing hospital closures - over 37 hospitals being closed in the province of Ontario. We're seeing health care services being reduced to a shadow of what they used to be before. We're seeing schools across the province closing. In the city of Toronto alone, in the public board, 138 schools are being closed. Do you think all this is just happening by coincidence? It's happening for the very same reason: this phony income tax break that this government supposedly has given people. What it means is that people have lost their ability to get any benefit out of this.

I certainly don't support this particular motion and I will encourage other members to vote against it, because in the end the people who are going to get hurt are the middle class.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to speak on the resolution of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I know she has done an outstanding job on behalf of her constituents. I'm equally happy today that Scarborough General is one of the four hospitals in Toronto to receive an MRI. We now have 30 MRIs in Ontario, and once our final announcements are made and there are 35 MRIs in Ontario, we'll have more MRIs than the rest of Canada combined.

What's important in this issue is to look back to May 7, 1998, when the member for Oxford brought forward a similar resolution. Mr Hardeman had brought that resolution forward. It was the second ballot item of the day. What happened after we had a vote on the first item was that members of the opposition just ran. They scrammed. They ran out of this place so quickly; I've never seen so many people do the 40-yard dash so quickly. What happened was that they got up and spoke against tax cuts for families. When it came time to vote, they were not there. They said they were going to vote against it, but when the day came to vote, they were not there.

Members of the opposition who spoke today, who said that they are against this resolution and will be voting so, I challenge them, if they're against tax cuts for families, to stand up today and be counted. Tell the people of Ontario that you are against tax cuts.

Mr Silipo: You'll see my vote.

Mr Newman: The member for Dovercourt says we'll see his vote. That will be interesting. That would be the first NDP person who stood up and voted against a resolution like this, because they were the party that ran right out the doors of this Legislature last time. But before they decide to vote No, they ought to check their own Web site because on that Web site it says: "Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton says the wealthy are doing very well on their own, they don't need more tax breaks and special attention from the government. It's working families who need people on their side fighting for things that matter most."

I say to the member for Dovercourt, if you're on the side of working families, support this resolution. These people earned that money in the first place. They deserve to keep more of it.

Hospitals: There are more announcements today on MRIs, which I think are outstanding for the people of Ontario. I've encouraged the members opposite if they are so much opposed to this bill -

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Where is the money? Put some money behind it too.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton East.

Mr Newman: If the members of the opposition are so against this resolution, let's see them stand up and say that's how they're going to vote, because at the end of the day I think what's going to happen today is what happened back in May: You're going to see members of the opposition running out the doors because they don't want to be on record as not being in favour of tax cuts for working families.

Mr Agostino: I can assure my colleague across the floor that I certainly won't be running out any door. I'll be happy to stand here and vote against this Republican, Reform-minded resolution that you have in front of you.

We like to talk about middle-class families; we like to talk about working people. The Tories all of a sudden are part of the working people, which is the biggest joke since the announcement of the MRIs this morning. What is really clear here is this is nothing more than a trial balloon for the next election, nothing more than Mike Harris's office telling the members of this Legislature on the government side which bill to introduce to float the balloons for the next election.

We've already seen the results of your tax cut. We've seen the impact it's had on the middle class and working people in this province. We have seen an agenda that is more fitting of Texas, Mississippi or Alabama than it is of Ontario. We've seen the results. We've seen 500,000 kids in this province whose benefits you've cut by 22% because you think those kids are living high off the hog. We've seen hospital closures. We've seen school closures by the hundreds. We've seen a total ban of environmental protection. That has been the result.

The biggest joke is the fact that you claim to be good fiscal managers. My colleague talked about the giveaway, the gift you gave to Andersen Consulting. If you were the CEO of any major corporation, you'd be fired after that screw-up. Think about it. They come in and ask for $70 million and you say: "Oh, no, we'll negotiate a better deal. We'll give you $180 million and an open-ended contract." That is Tory fiscal management, the same fiscal management that is taking the accumulated debt in this province from $100 billion to over $120 billion. You almost match the NDP record in five years of increasing debt in this province. That is Tory fiscal management.

Now you want to go further. Let me tell you, we are on the side of working families, because we believe working families and the middle class deserve their community schools that you're going to close. That is why we're on the side of working families. Kids need to go to a neighbourhood school. Neighbourhood schools that you're going to close are the heart and soul of a community. The middle class and working people need to be assured that there's 24-hour emergency care in hospitals if they need it, and they're not sitting in an ambulance for an hour being driven around to find an emergency room that's open. That's what working people need; that's what middle-class Ontarians need and look for in a government, not your phony tax cut scheme.

Ask the homeowners whose property tax went up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% how they feel about your tax cut, because you've downloaded $600 million on to municipalities. Ask those folks what they think of your tax cut. Ask the seniors who have to pay a user fee as a result of your tax cut how they want to pay a further user fee as a result of what you're doing. You've abandoned municipal transportation; you've taken all the grants away from municipal transportation service. Ask those people how they feel about your further tax cut. It is not the vision of Ontario; that is not a vision we are going to fight for.

I'll be happy, proud, to stand in the next election and tell Ontarians: "Vote for Mike Harris, because he'll give you a further tax cut and he'll continue to close your hospitals and close your schools and cut environmental protection and continue to cut benefits for kids. Yes, vote for Mike Harris and you'll guarantee four more years of all that."

We, as an alternative, will make it very clear to Ontarians that we believe that money should be reinvested into health care, into education, into environmental protection, into children's services. It is clearly a different vision of Ontario, not one that favours the wealthy, because we believe our communities need to be safe, they need to be healthy and kids need to be taken care of. If you support the tax cut, what you're supporting is further closures of hospitals, of schools, and further abandonment of our kids in this province. I will not be part of that. I'll be happy and proud to vote against it.

1150

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It just galls me every time I get into this Legislature and I listen to some of the people on the Liberal benches speak down to the people of Ontario. It really frustrates me. Mr Phillips, the member from Scarborough, when he tries to fleece the voters by telling them we've added $22 billion to the debt - what they should do is look at the budget. In February 1995 the NDP set a budget which had an $11.9-billion deficit. We came in and had to make some drastic changes right off the bat to reduce the deficit that year to about $8.5 billion. Every single one of those deficit dollars that got added to the debt was as a result of the previous government, the NDP. When the Liberals try to get up and fleece the voters and say that the debt when we took office was only $89 billion, they're speaking down to the voters. They're assuming they're dumb. They're assuming they don't understand how to read budgets. That's just so offensive.

The other thing that really bothers me about that is that the Liberals stand here now and talk about the size of the debt, which we agree needs to be addressed. The Liberals have voted against every single expenditure reduction measure we've taken, every single one. It flies in the face.

Mr Conway said in the North Renfrew Times in May 1995, during an election: "We are going to have to get our financial house in order, we're going to have to reduce government spending. And that's not going to be easy. I don't want to mislead anyone on that." They lose the election; we make the expenditure reductions; they vote against every single one.

Dalton McGuinty in August 1996 says, "Given that Ontario has had to borrow about $10 billion during each of the past four years to meet its expenses, nobody can seriously argue against getting our costs under control," yet voted against every expenditure reduction measure we've ever taken. They want it both ways. It's ridiculous.

Again, the little patting on the head of Ontario taxpayers that says tax cuts - realize, folks, that's your money. You earned that money. Government takes it from you. When you get a tax cut, you're just being allowed to keep more of your own money. The Liberals think they can spend money better than you. That's insulting. We believe you know how to spend your money better than the government does, but the Liberals think, "No, no," pat you on the head, little Ontario taxpayer. "Give us your money. We'll spend it properly." I'm totally opposed to that kind of attitude. I support this resolution today because it's the total opposite of what the Liberal attitude is towards Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am pleased to rise to say that I will not be in support of this resolution as well. We have here a government that has suggested that they have given every resident in Ontario a personal income tax cut. The government sold this idea during the 1995 campaign, where they were running around saying, "You're going to receive a 30% income tax cut."

I had a good number of people who were voting in the Kenora riding come to me and say, "This Mike Harris guy is suggesting that I am going to get a 30% income tax reduction." The first thing they weren't looking at was it was a provincial income tax reduction. The second thing they weren't looking at was that user fees and other rates would skyrocket once Mike Harris got into power. I have hundreds of examples of where people have come to me saying, "Why has my fee for my licence that allows me to work increased fourfold?" I say, "Did you not know about Mike Harris's 30% income tax reduction?" They say, "I haven't even noticed that; it hasn't made any difference to me there, yet I'm paying four times for a fee that allows me to go out and twist a wrench," or do whatever.

Just recently I was literally inundated with calls from people suggesting: "I've just put $3,000 or $4,000 into my road sign on the Trans-Canada Highway. Mike Harris has come along and told me now my fee to have that road sign there is going to triple." I could not believe what I was hearing. There was no indication of that, no warning, nothing. People who had invested a lot of dollars in their road signs are now faced with a fee, where they're saying: "I'm going out with a chainsaw to cut it down. I can't afford that." It finally got through to the Minister of Transportation - the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism had something to do with this as well - and they began to realize that this is getting too close to election time. "We can't do this right now. Maybe we'll get them later." But I tell you, it was an underhanded approach to get those fees. We're finding that everywhere.

The previous speaker spoke about the provincial debt. That is something I'm going to be letting every one of my constituents know about when we head into the next provincial election. A lot of people don't understand, yes, the deficit's been eliminated, but look at that debt going up. You're getting your 30% income tax reduction, but watch the debt. What are we doing to the future taxpayers of this province, to the next generation of this province?

Thirty-seven-dollar registration fees for vehicles: You don't believe that Mike Harris tax on the drivers of northwestern Ontario is not going to be remembered? Forget it. I tell you, I cannot support this private member's resolution.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I think the quote that the member for Niagara Falls made from the Liberal Party was quite interesting. I have a couple from the NDP.

On March 15, 1996, Howard Hampton said, "Balancing the budget over the long term has to be part of our game plan." Then, on September 15, just a little later in that same year, he said, "First of all, we don't have a debt and deficit crisis." This is after the credit agency had downgraded Ontario nine times during their term in office.

More recently, in February 1998, Standard and Poor's expressed confidence in our province's finances, stating, "Ontario is benefiting from a booming economy and remains on target in its deficit reduction schedule."

You have to ask why this has been occurring. It's because of the tax cuts that we've already made. It stimulated the economy. As a matter of fact, it stimulated the Ontario economy so much, and a little spinoff to Canada, that the federal government has actually been able to balance its budget. They are unaware, and I'm sure the members in opposition are also unaware, that the only reason the federal government has been able to balance the budget is because of what Ontario has been doing to stimulate the economy.

Just in the last minute that I have, I want to point out what the poor middle class are being hit with. The average family, a mother, father and two children, is paying approximately $7,000 for health. They're paying approximately $5,000 for education, plus the post-secondary education costs. They're paying $4,000 a year for interest. They're spending about $4,000 on social programs. Those are the major ticket items in Ontario and that's running at $20,000. The average family, over and above that in taxes, is paying federal income tax, property tax, GST, PST, gasoline tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, and the list goes on and on. That family is only making a little over $50,000. They indeed, as the member has introduced here, need a break.

The middle class has been consistently hit in the province of Ontario, and it's high time they did get a break from these kinds of taxes. We have given them, with the cut in the provincial income tax, a bit of a break. There's no question they need a bigger break. That will stimulate the economy even further in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, you have two minutes.

Ms Mushinski: A lot of reference has been made to the Centre for Social Justice report that was released recently. I think it's important to note that we actually agree with the findings of that study. You see, the middle class did take it on the chin under the Liberals and the NDP. That particular report only goes to the year 1996, which was less than one year into our mandate, so the study really is a condemnation of the previous two governments. It's a report card on the opposition parties' years in government. Let's not confuse the public with respect to their track record.

The Peterson and Rae governments hiked personal income taxes on individuals making $25,000 annually by $290. Mike Harris cut their taxes by $510. The opposition hiked the PIT of $40,000 earners by $630 annually. Mike Harris gave those same individuals a tax cut of $1,100. Middle-income earners at $50,000 saw their annual income tax bill rise by $890 between 1985 and 1995. Mike Harris cut their taxes by $1,555. Middle-income taxpayers with earnings between $25,000 and $75,000 per year received 64% or $3 billion in tax cut savings each year under our plan. With our tax cuts fully implemented, the top 10% of taxpayers pay a greater portion of Ontario's income tax.

We have made it our business to be the champions of the middle class because we're sick and tired of seeing successive provincial governments put the screws to hard-working families.

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 71, An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, I'd ask that this bill be referred to the resources development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

TAXATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Ms Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski has moved private member's notice of motion number 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 9.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The problem the Mike Harris government is causing Sudbury and northern Ontario continues to skyrocket. Not only is Mike Harris intent on closing our schools and destroying our commercial tax base, he now wants to close down more job opportunities in the north by getting rid of valuable resource-based jobs.

The region of Sudbury has an unemployment rate of 10.8%, which is up from last month and has shown a whopping 2% rise over the course of the last year, making northeastern Ontario the area of highest unemployment in this entire province.

What is the Mike Harris solution to this plaguing problem? Harris says, "Let's sell off the geoscience lab in Sudbury to the highest bidder and forget about the 24 people who are employed there."

"What's 24 more lost government jobs?" is Mike Harris's response.

In fact he says, "Who cares about the 2,365 people and families who have lost their government job?" in my part of Ontario. The answer is simple: I do and so does Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals.

All northerners now realize that the Common Sense Revolution and Mike Harris do not represent the north. In fact, we have no voice in the north. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines is simply a puppet pulled by the strings by Mike.

We need government jobs in the north. Stop the onslaught against the north. Stop the carnage. Care about us.

SPECIAL TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): The city of Sudbury recently passed a resolution at its council meeting to petition the government of Ontario to permanently fold the special transitional assistance grant into the community reinvestment fund, or the CRF, as a permanent financial adjustment for northern Ontario and rural municipalities, thereby ensuring revenue-neutrality.

The north will be burdened significantly more than the south when the non-permanent special transitional assistance is removed by the year 2000.

There are two scenarios. The first scenario is that in the year 2000, when the STA is no longer funded, revenue-neutrality is no longer achieved in the north as the north is required to further reduce municipal spending by 2.3%. For the south as a whole, it's not as significant and revenue-neutrality is still achieved.

The second scenario is when the STA is permanently rolled into the funding. Revenue-neutrality is permanently achieved in the north and the province as a whole. Year one efficiency targets: In order to reduce municipal spending to ensure revenue-neutrality, the south as a whole must reduce spending by 2.7%, while in the north they must reduce their budgets by 4.4%.

I urge this government to maintain the special transitional assistance grants in northern Ontario. My constituents of Nickel Belt want a level playing field which ensures revenue-neutrality between municipalities in northern and southern Ontario.

JACK ROSEN

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am pleased to rise today to inform this Legislature of the honour to be bestowed on a constituent of mine, Mr Jack Rosen. Mr Rosen has been selected to receive a citation from the Zachor Committee in Ottawa on November 18.

The ceremony will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Mr Rosen, a Holocaust survivor himself, is one of only 50 Canadian Holocaust survivors selected to receive this award and will represent all Holocaust survivors in Canada. The award acknowledges the outstanding contribution survivors have made to Canadian society.

Mr Rosen has been a dedicated community volunteer and has contributed numerous hours to many charitable causes in Hamilton. He was a charter member of the now defunct Hamilton Supports for Israel for 25 years.

Recently, Mr Rosen received the 1998 Volunteer of the Year Award from the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp for his many hours of volunteer service at McMaster University. Mr Rosen has been affiliated with the Hamilton Holocaust Survivors Education Committee and is called on repeatedly to address high school students. For the past 40 years he has been affiliated with the Jewish National Fund through the blue box campaign.

Jack, Hamiltonians are all proud of you and proud to boast of your accomplishments and the honour to be bestowed on you on the 18th. Congratulations. Sincere best wishes.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I have raised concerns in the past regarding the handling of long-term care. I can tell you that I have no confidence in the way that minister handles his affairs. I have no doubt now that there is a hostile takeover of small, community-established nursing homes by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care. This government fails to see, time and time again, the importance of community-based health care.

Van Del Manor Nursing Home has been seized by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care as of a day or two ago. Mrs Stella Pinnock, owner and administrator of Van Del Manor, with over 30 years of experience in health care, has been constantly harassed by the bureaucrats with an agenda. That agenda is to take over these small nursing homes.

Will the ministers rescind their order to take Van Del Manor Nursing Home away from the operator, and will the ministers have an independent investigation into the matter?

Will they work with Mrs Pinnock to provide the necessary resources to serve the needs of the residents and their families? Will they stop harassing the small nursing home operators, who work hard to provide community care for this province?

That same property has been approved for funding, and today, while they approve funding, they are taking away the woman's property.

I say to this minister, stop harassing and have a special investigation into this matter today.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I came about 40 minutes ago from Williamson Road Public School. This is one of the schools that is on the list being reviewed for closure in the city of Toronto.

Williamson Road is in the heart of the Beach. The Beach is a community in which the schools are already very overcrowded. Most of the schools are older schools. We have substantial new development coming into our community with the residential development of the Greenwood Race Track land and of course development of the CN lands at Main and Gerrard. Parents are already worried about the lack of capacity.

One of the things that was so evident to me as I walked down the halls of Williamson Road is the argument that the minister makes about inefficiency. The hallways of Williamson Road Public School are as wide as the classrooms. The teachers and the students and the Toronto board can't help that now; it was a design from a number of years ago. It's not usable classroom space and yet it's counted as such in the funding formula.

The rigidity of the funding formula is what is causing much of the chaos in our boards right now. The minister can fix that. His own expert panel recommended that there be an appeal process for just those sorts of circumstances like building characteristics. I asked him yesterday - and I plead now with all of the Tory backbenchers to ask him - to implement those recommendations for an appeal process.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I would like to remind all members that this week is Holocaust Education Week in Ontario.

Holocaust Education Week occurs every year before November 9, the anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass.

Its purpose is to deepen public awareness about the Holocaust, the Yom ha-Shoah of 1933 to 1945, in which six million Jewish Holocaust victims perished, along with others who were targeted by Naziism and its collaborators for religious, racial and other reasons, as outlined in the Holocaust Memorial Day Act by my colleague Ted Chudleigh, the member for Halton North.

Holocaust Education Week affords all Ontarians an opportunity to learn about the underlying causes of the Holocaust. It provides Christians and Jews and others with a forum within which to reflect together on their historic relations, on the issue of deeper reconciliation and on how to ensure that "Never again" becomes more than a slogan, but a reality for all time.

There are many ways in which to observe Holocaust Education Week. For some of us, this will mean attending an educational event organized by the Canadian Jewish Congress; for others, a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Centre. For still others, it may mean simply spending a moment in silent contemplation.

As we approach Remembrance Day, it is important that we remember why at times a people must go to war. To those who fought to defeat the evil Nazi regime: We shall remember.

1340

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Last week Premier Harris and Health Minister Witmer came to Thunder Bay to announce government approval for a new acute care hospital in our city. While this news pleased many of us who were frustrated by the delays in reaching this final decision, there was still something missing in this good-news announcement.

All across the province where the Health Services Restructuring Commission has been rendering decisions, the province commits to 70% of the costs of new capital construction, except, it seems, in Thunder Bay. While the government has formally approved a new hospital for our region, they are only providing something less than 58% of the capital needed to build this important facility.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Why should the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario be treated any differently than those in the rest of the province? In fact, just two days after the Thunder Bay announcement, the people in the Premier's own community of North Bay learned that they were to get a brand new hospital as well, with the province picking up 70% of the acute care capital costs.

There are many challenges ahead for us as we move to secure top-quality health care in our region. Among other things, a major fundraising drive will be needed in order to reach our goals. It seems utterly unfair that this government would approve this new facility, yet deprive us of the provincial financial support that applies everywhere else across the province.

I'm calling on the Premier and the Minister of Health today to recognize this unfair treatment and to provide the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario with the financial support we need and deserve.

HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WORKERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Beginning this weekend, the International Union Federation, which is the international federation of all unions of hotel and restaurant workers, is having its annual convention here in Toronto. Over 80 leaders of unions representing hotel and restaurant workers from all over the world will be here in Toronto, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome all of those distinguished guests to our city.

The conference will then proceed to culminate on Tuesday with a day which will honour all of the hotel and restaurant workers. The mayor of Toronto will declare Tuesday, November 10, Hotel and Restaurant Workers Day in this city.

When we think of the tourism industry, we often tend to think of it as a never-ending series of infrastructure projects, from hotels to wonderlands. But today, in conjunction with this very important event taking place over the next few days, I also want to recognize and honour in this House all the men and women who work hard in the hotels and restaurants in Ontario. It is their effort, their hard work and dedication to serving their guests that make this province a great tourist destination.

I would also like to congratulate the leaders and all the members of local 75 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union for their initiative in putting together this great event.

WAR MEDALS DONATION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian. In a December 1915 publication of Punch Magazine, a poem was published that seemed to echo the pathos of sacrifice in battle on the Western Front. It is a poem that has become a requiem for those Canadians who fought and died under the Union Jack, the Red Ensign and the Maple Leaf.

The poem, of course, is In Flanders Fields and was composed by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae. McCrae died on January 28, 1918, shortly after receiving word that he was to be appointed consulting surgeon to the British army, the first Canadian to be so honoured.

Today I honour not only the author of the poem but also Mr Arthur Lee. Mr Arthur Lee arrived in Canada at the age of 12 and later became a Canadian citizen. The last line of the oath of citizenship is, "I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Arthur Lee stepped forward when he heard that the medals of that great Canadian, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, were to be auctioned off and that there was a chance that the medals could leave our country for good. Mr Lee purchased the medals to ensure that the medals of this fine Canadian stayed in Canada.

Arthur Lee certainly has fulfilled his duties as a citizen of Canada. After the auction was concluded, Mr Lee then proceeded to donate the medals to the McCrae Museum in Guelph. This unselfish act will ensure that future generations of Canadians remember the sacrifices of the past which have ensured the freedoms of today.

The poem concludes with:

"If ye break faith with us who die,

"We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

"In Flanders fields."

Mr Lee is with us today in the members' gallery. Sir, to you I offer our highest praise and thanks, and to our veterans, we shall never forget.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope you will have some patience with me as I work my way through this. There is a group in this community that has been protesting for a long time now the agenda of this government and in particular the hiring of Andersen Consulting to take money away from those who are on welfare in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need a point of order here.

Mr Martin: It's coming. I asked you if could just -

The Speaker: No, I appreciate it -

Mr Martin: OK. They have also been protesting in other jurisdictions around the question of this gap that's growing between the rich and the poor. We found this past week that there's a lot of substance to what they're talking about. If they're not allowed to bring that to the attention of this government, chances are it will never be brought. They've been just recently, by yourself, cut off from attending at Queen's Park to demonstrate in that way that we have taken for granted belongs in a democratic -

The Speaker: With great respect, I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the point of order. Member for Sault Ste Marie, can you take your seat for a moment.

Mr Martin: It's coming.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. I'll give you a brief moment to be very succinct and made your point of order. If your point of order is that somebody doesn't have access to the building, that's not a point of order. I'll tell you that right up front.

Mr Martin: You've made a ruling, Speaker, that this group - and you'll recognize the name of a Mr Behrens - cannot attend at this place to carry out their democratic right to and -

The Speaker: I've never made such a ruling.

Mr Martin: In their letter they say you have.

The Speaker: Let me just say this quickly, if you could take your seat, please. I will be happy at any time to meet with you with respect to this issue. It may be a very important issue; I'm not suggesting it's not. It's an important issue to you and those people, I'm sure, as well as me, but with great respect, it's not a point of order in this assembly. I'll be happy to take it up at another time, but bringing it up as a point of order here is completely out of order. But I appreciate it; thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. I will in fact take advantage of your invitation and we will sit down and talk about this, because it is an important issue.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for one member from each recognized party to speak on Remembrance Day, and one member from each party to Kristallnacht/Holocaust Education Week.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1350

REMEMBRANCE DAY JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Like many in my generation, I grew up on war stories: my father's stories of the North Atlantic, my grandfather's library about the First World War. To understand the real experience of war, we should listen to the voices of those who were there.

A friend in my generation, Gord Christmas from Simcoe, has captured stories of various wars. As Gord begins:

"Every November 11 we see them gathered in legion halls and cenotaphs across the country. Their ranks get thinner every year and their backs a bit more stooped, but for a few moments, when the clear, mournful notes of the last post float by, spines stiffen to attention, stomachs tighten. They seem once again the youths in grainy newsreels and faded photographs."

Gord Christmas, a civilian instructor with the Simcoe 2853 Army Cadet Corp, 56th Field Regiment, published his stories on November 11 last year in the Times-Reformer. Gord and his son Joseph, a cadet, are in the gallery today.

I wish to continue with Gord's words:

"By their stars you know them and where they've been: bits of coloured ribbon and shining points of brass on each blue blazer."

Gord describes:

"One hearty-looking fellow sports a nose like W.C. Fields. He looks like your favourite uncle, or granddad, perhaps. You know, the one that's got great taste in whisky. Today he can't forget the time that nose was stuck in a slit trench downwind of an orchard in Normandy. The smell that came out of it wasn't the cidery tang of crushed apples or the fresh odour of mown grass. Rather, it was the green, coppery reek of corpses rotting in the sun. Colour his ribbon red, white and blue, France and Germany, 1944-45.

"Among the `old sweats' there will be a sprinkling of `old salts,' wearing the blue, white, light-green ribbon of the Atlantic Star. They share recollections that, even filtered through more than half a century, still remain sharp and clear as the snap of a windblown white ensign.

"The fellow standing alone among the trees wears the blue and gold of RCAF aircrew. He knows he has helped make history, this once handsome man; the `guinea pigs' they called them, a new cliché at the time. He was one of the successful recipients of a brilliant Canadian doctor's efforts at reconstructive surgery. Still, he'd rather have his old face back, but it melted one night when his Lancaster blew up on the run to Cologne.

"Next to him in starched splendour stands a matronly woman, looking a bit like the Queen Mother, but with a hardness in her eyes. Her war was spent as head nurse in a field hospital a mile from the front line.

"Some of it is a bit of a blur now, like a hellish procession of smashed limbs, blinded eyes, gaping wounds. They came to her strapped to Jeeps, on bloody stretchers, or on the back of a buddy. They were her boys and there were so very many of them, the only sons she would ever have and she remembers the face of every one.

"One group, until recently, had no ribbon. In fact, it had no war. It had been termed a `police action.' This police action cost over 300 Canadians their lives. The Korean veterans will be there, as they always are, overlooked in the remembrance of grand campaigns and sweeping strategy.

"Nobody knows how many Canadians served in Southeast Asia or their individual reasons for being there. It doesn't matter really, their blood was as red as anyone else's."

"As well, somewhere in the crowd there may be a representative of the dwindling band whose sacrifice started it all. He will probably be in a wheelchair. Memories for him are dim, vague recollections of hell. He will, if pressed, give you the names of towns that were burned into the conscience of a generation: Ypres, Mons, Vimy, Amiens. He won't tell you about the dead body that formed part of the trench that fell apart when he leaned against it. No, he won't tell you any of this. You wouldn't understand. What he will tell you is, if he could just get out of this damned chair, he'd do it all over again.

"We could do with a few of his kind now. For him and the few like him that are left now, November 11 will always be known as Armistice Day. Call it what you wish, but the next time we get the chance, maybe it wouldn't hurt a few of us, born into the peace these people bought, to pick out a blue blazer and shake the wearer by the hand and say thank you. The ranks are thinning. Someday it will be too late."

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Je remercie mes collègues de mon parti, que je représente, de m'accorder à nouveau cet honneur de parler en leur nom et d'exprimer les sentiments personnels que je ressens à l'égard de mes cadres militaires à l'occasion de la célébration du jour du Souvenir que nous célébrons mercredi prochain.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to say a few words in anticipation of Remembrance Day, a day that rightly continues to be a significant one in our lives. This day is important to me because of my own military background. It is an experience that has no equal in civilian life. As someone once said, "A regiment is not a group of men; it is a way of life."

One of the most difficult challenges human beings face is to genuinely understand those hardships they have never personally experienced. It is almost beyond their capacity to understand how ordinary individuals can leave the security of their communities to face certain danger and possible death. Today a common sentiment seems to be a defence of our privileges at the expense of our obligations, yet it is in defending the values of civil society that the military finds its raison d'être. At its best, the military embodies values that run deep in the fabric of our nation's history and that see their greatest expression in the acts of great courage we honour today.

It is the ideals of loyalty, honesty, courage, diligence, fairness and responsibility that are carried in the hearts of those who serve to this day. It is those ideals that inspire the high calling of the defence and protection of all we stand for as a nation.

It is military training that creates individuals who are able to defend a country at the price of their lives. Nevertheless, it is the increasing value modern society places on individualism that makes military values seem outdated. It is one aspect of the crisis the modern Canadian military is having to deal with on several fronts.

Although the world wars are behind us, the demands on our service personnel are intense and complex. It is unfortunate that military service has been tainted in the eyes of the general public. Recent scandals that are the responsibility of only a few have cast an unfair stain on everyone associated with it, yet we should know that it's unfair to attribute the sins of a few to an entire organization.

In the absence of war, present-day servicemen and -women give the best of themselves in the areas of peacekeeping and emergency response. No one will deny the exceptional work done in support of communities in eastern Ontario and Quebec during last year's ice storm.

1400

Canada has played a leading role in peacekeeping since the earliest UN missions. As of August, 1,977 Canadian military personnel are stationed in 21 centres around the world on peace and humanitarian operations. They have served under fire in Bosnia, supervised the cease-fire on the Golan Heights, helped in the reconstruction of Haiti and cleared mines in Cambodia. One hundred and three have died on peacekeeping missions since the end of World War II.

The military continues to need exceptional and specialized skills to meet the complex mandates that present them with enormous moral dilemmas. In the words of Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire, who led the United Nations mission to Rwanda, and who was my guest here a couple of years ago:

"Significant components of the forces have been at war for the last five years. Last night, I was at Air Transport Group, thanking them for what they did for me in Rwanda. They were in a war zone. Those bullets were pumping holes in those Hercules aircraft even though the country did not declare war, and they were risking their lives. Have we recognized that fact? ...are we aware that we nearly have as many war veterans standing now in uniform as we did at the end of the Korean conflict? Nearly the same number.

"Have we adjusted policies to respond to those who have already done the test - some survived and some have not - the test of the unlimited liability clause? Have we adjusted to meet that requirement?"

How many of us realize the circumstances under which today's military must live and work, the inadequate pay and living conditions, the stresses on family life of a career without public honour?

In the future, our armed forces will continue to be placed in circumstances like Rwanda, where they will be in contact with populations quite willing to brutalize their countrymen to achieve their ends. "The soldiers will smell, see and live among carnage that has not previously been seen in the modern era."

Can we turn our backs and say that the military is irrelevant and has no role to play any more? Can we really refuse the call to service that is being heard in those centres of crisis around the world?

If we feel that we must, after all, meet our obligations, then we must also support our military forces in ways sufficient and appropriate to their needs.

I would like to say a few words about a Canadian hero who served in the armed forces many years ago, but whose spirit is carried on in the hearts of every soldier who has served his country to this day. This Canadian hero enlisted as a lieutenant into the 22nd Service Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force on November 10, 84 years ago.

From its first day in Belgium on September 16, his battalion saw heavy and sustained action for many months. At one juncture, the young lieutenant undertook the installation of blasting charges with a patrol of four men. For his heroic action, he was awarded the Military Cross.

In April 1916, he took command of a ground troop from Able Company, one of those selected to take part in the battle for Courcelette on the Somme on September 15. After seeing action at Vimy Ridge and the Passchendaele on August 27, the 22nd Regiment took part in the Cherisy attack, which broke the strategically important Hindenberg line. For his gallantry and devotion to duty he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. Later, a bar was added to his Military Cross when, after his commanding officer had become a casualty, he gathered the remnants of the battalion and continued to attack. The young officer received serious wounds to his lung and both his legs in the action. Although it was the end of his active service, his public service had just begun.

The much-decorated soldier went on to serve Canada as a diplomat at the League of Nations in Geneva and in subsequent postings in London and Paris, with many distinctions to follow. General Georges Vanier was appointed Governor General of Canada on August 1, 1959. It has been written that Vanier "won the affection and admiration of Canadians by his concern...for the poor and the humble, for youth and for the family."

It was my great privilege to serve as aide-de-camp to this remarkable Canadian, who throughout his life held close the values of military and public service. When he was asked why he enlisted so early in the First World War, when few others had, Georges Vanier echoed the purest sentiments of soldiers throughout time: "During the last months of 1914, I could not read the accounts of Belgian sufferings without feeling a deep compassion and an active desire to right, as far as it was in my power, the heinous wrong done."

As a seasoned old clergyman once said: "The army is very interesting. Very hard people on the outside, but inside they are really very soft and very human."

Today I see such dignity in the faces of our veterans, both old and young, many who have lost so much. They know in their hearts, as we do, that their sacrifice has bestowed honour on our nation. For that, we thank them profoundly.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak in regard to Remembrance Day. I want to take this from a bit of a different perspective because, like many members here in this assembly, I was a child born after the war, born in the 1950s, not having any personal experiences with what happened, both in the First World War and the Second World War.

Like most of us, I learned about what it meant to those people who did serve by observing what happened to them throughout my time developing as a young man and eventually into an adult. Like most young kids growing up in Ontario in the 1950s and 1960s, I thought at first that war was something that was glamorous. I'd watched a lot of American movies. I heard about GI Joe. Somehow or other everybody went off to war and it was a great big adventure. But I learned different as I started to observe and learn and started to understand better what the veterans had gone through. How did I learn? Like most other people, by observing people around me.

I always remember one gentleman who lived next to us, a man by the name of Albert Vaillancourt. He served from 1939 to 1945 in Europe. As a young man of about 14, 15 years old, I decided I would ask Albert the ultimate question. I asked Albert if he had ever shot anybody, at which point Albert cried. Thinking of that story today, it touches me, because it was only then that I recognized it wasn't glamorous.

The other observation was that I always noticed at that time that most of the people I knew who had served never talked about action. As Albert did, as did most other people I know who served in the war, they talked about the fun times they had, about the comrades they bonded with, about the funny experiences that happened in training, about time on leave, but never did I hear veterans talk to me about action. I never really understood why until much later in life.

I remember people like Joe Gauthier, who flew on a Lancaster as a tail-gunner. I remember about four years ago having the opportunity to go to the Timmins airport and observe one of the only flying Lancasters still available, actually flying out of Hamilton. This Lancaster flew overhead. It was something monstrous to see. It finally landed. It taxied up to the appropriate spot. The MPP went out there to meet with the flight crew and look at it. I noticed Joe walk to the back of the aircraft. All I knew was that Joe was a tail-gunner. I didn't really know what that meant, but I think I got an idea when I saw him put his hand up on the canopy of the Lancaster for what he could reach of it and started to cry. Many other people didn't get a chance to come back, especially those who flew, as Joe did, as a tail-gunner on a Lancaster.

I think of experiences of my own family. I think of my aunt. My uncle passed away some years ago of cancer, but served in World War II, from 1940 to 1945. Not more than about a month ago, I told her about having gone to see a movie that all of a sudden brought it home to me, and that was Saving Private Ryan. I don't want to trivialize, but that movie made me understand that if I had ever gone to war I wouldn't want to talk about the travesty of what happened. I happened to relate that to my aunt and my aunt all of a sudden, with a tear in her eye, said, "Your uncle never went to bed at night without having a nightmare about what happened to him from the time he was there." Unfortunately, my uncle Con operated flame-throwers. I could imagine that's not something that you'd want to remember. Poor uncle. I now better understand why he was a bit more nervous around loud noises and other things. It was only when my aunt explained that to me that I really did understand.

I think of people like Lyle Young, another uncle of mine. All I know was that he had served in the war but never talked about it. Uncle Lyle was the friendliest guy in the world you could find. He died about 1968. As a young man, I just remember looking up to Uncle Lyle as somebody who was just bigger than life.

1410

It wasn't until I was around 15 years old and I was in the Air Cadets and I'd gone to Ottawa that all of a sudden I read my uncle's name on a piece of paper. He had won some medal for some action he had participated in during the Second World War in France a couple of days after D-Day.

I came back and talked to my father and said, "Dad, how come he never said anything?" He said: "Gilles, your uncle, like everybody else who served, all of my friends who served, doesn't want to talk about what he saw. It's things they want to leave in their past because it's something that's too terrible to remember."

So I ask members of the assembly and I ask others who are going to be attending cenotaph ceremonies over the next few days, some this Sunday in Timmins, and on the 11th in all other places across my riding, as across the province, to remember what these people did for us, because what they did, we cannot imagine. All we can do is be thankful.

As we're always asked to do when we go on November 11, let us remember them.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Will the members please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

KRISTALLNACHT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Monday, November 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or Night of Broken Glass.

On this date in 1938, many Jews saw their businesses, synagogues and homes vandalized, while authorities just looked the other way. It is this concerted act of terror, this breakdown in civil and moral responsibility that marked the beginning of the worst phase of the Holocaust in Europe.

Victims of that horrible night of violence will never forget the shards of broken glass left in the wake of the riots. In that glass were reflections of shattered lives. It is when they received the first hint that the gathering shadows would coalesce into the Nazi menace that followed.

November 9 is a time to reflect on the six million Jewish Holocaust victims, just as November 11 is the time we reserve to commemorate Canadian war dead, many of whom fought in the World War II and gave their lives to quash Naziism. It is also a time to remember other civilians who died at the hands of the Nazis.

We need to reflect on other state-sanctioned genocide and our role in ensuring that it will never happen again.

All three parties in this Legislature have endorsed Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day in Ontario. It is my ardent wish that it may become our united tribute to the memory of the victims of Kristallnacht and the European Holocaust, as well as people everywhere who have ever feared for their lives at the hands of their own government because of who they are or what they believe.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): As we approach Holocaust Education Week, I rise to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht, in the direct literal translation, in German means crystal night. The uninformed may think that crystal night refers to possibly a winter festival, a ballet, a symphony, anything but what it has gone down in infamy to actually mean, and that is the Night of Broken Glass.

On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year-old Polish Jew, who was living with his uncle in Paris, had heard that his mother, his father, his family had all of their possessions taken away from them and they had been expelled back to Poland. He was so despondent that he decided he would retaliate by trying to assassinate the German ambassador in Paris. He went to the embassy and found that the ambassador was not there, so instead he shot the third secretary, Ernst vom Rath. Rath died on November 9, 1938, two days after he was shot.

Using Rath's death as the provocation, Adolph Hitler ordered propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels to unleash a well-orchestrated spontaneous demonstration across Germany and Austria to incite Germans to "rise in bloody vengeance against the Jews."

On November 9, mob violence broke out as the regular German police stood by and crowds of spectators watched. All over Germany, Austria and other controlled areas, Jewish shops and department stores had their windows smashed and contents destroyed. The litter of broken glass that was left in the aftermath led to the ironic designation "Kristallnacht."

The toll of the night's violence included 91 Jews killed, hundreds seriously injured and thousands more humiliated and terrorized. About 7,500 Jewish businesses were destroyed and 267 synagogues burned, with 177 totally destroyed.

Police were ordered not to interfere. Moreover, on orders from Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Sicherheitspolizei, the secret police, the Gestapo arrested 30,000 wealthy Jews, who were to be released only on condition of emigration and surrender of their wealth.

The Nazis characterized Kristallnacht as the fault of the Jews and within a week interior minister Hermann Goring ordered several further repressive actions against Jews. Imagine: He fined the Jewish community one billion marks for inciting this activity, and he also provided a prohibition against Jewish use of public parks, public transportation, schools and even hospitals. Six million marks which were paid by the insurance companies to the owners of the wrecked businesses were confiscated by the Nazis as a penalty.

The reaction outside Germany to Kristallnacht was shock and outrage, creating a storm of negative publicity in newspapers and among radio commentators that served to isolate Hitler's Germany from the civilized nations and weaken any pro-Nazi sentiments in those countries. Shortly after Kristallnacht, the United States permanently recalled its ambassador.

Kristallnacht and its aftermath marked a major escalation in the Nazi pogrom of Jewish persecution.

Kristallnacht turned out to be a crucial point in German policy regarding the Jews and led directly to another interesting term: "Endloesung der Judenfrag," final solution of the Jewish question, which was the actual beginning of what is now called the Holocaust.

As we commemorate the events of 60 years ago, it is wise to note that only those who remember the past have a future.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): As we remember Kristallnacht and enter into Holocaust Education Week, we should be spurred to stand firmly against all violations of human rights around the world. As has been described, Kristallnacht was the beginning of the escalation of the Nazi campaign of intimidation, terror and overt racism against the Jewish people, which steadily escalated to the infamous final solution of the Nazi death camps.

Intimidation, racial discrimination, scapegoating, misappropriation of private property, incarceration, torture, slave labour and genocide are not part of acceptable government action in the civilized world, and as a sidebar, neither are they part of the normal duties of a head of state. This was recognized subsequent to the war at the Nuremberg court by the international community, despite the recent ruling of an English high court.

1420

Kristallnacht is a symbol of the folly of the universal human condition. It's important for us as Canadians to remember and to acknowledge that with Kristallnacht European Jewry cried out for assistance, support and sanctuary to assist them to escape the Nazi pogrom. Too often those cries for help went unheeded by western democracies, including Canada. Our efforts to provide sanctuary to Jewish refugees in retrospect were little more than perfunctory prior to the Second World War.

It's ironic that those few heroic efforts to save Jews from the Nazis, like those of Raoul Wallenberg, subsequently were rewarded apparently with disappearance, incarceration and perhaps death at the hands of another totalitarian regime which has only now recently collapsed as we approach the millennium.

I believe that Kristallnacht challenges all of us to provide sanctuary from oppression, to combat racism and violence wherever we find it, in our own communities and in countries around the world. Kristallnacht raises the question, are we bound to repeat our mistakes and the mistakes of the 1930s? The picture of the young man standing before the tank at Tiananmen Square challenges us in terms of our response to the violations of human rights, the violence, the torture, in the largest country in the world. I believe the world's muted and ineffectual response to racism, torture and genocide in central Africa in this very decade is at least discouraging evidence that we haven't learned a great deal from Kristallnacht.

War crimes tribunals like the one in Rwanda or the Hague in the Netherlands are, however, encouraging, if tentative, evidence that humankind will not allow violations of human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide to go unpunished in the 1990s. Criminal prosecution after the fact, however, is not a sufficient response to meet the challenge of Kristallnacht. The world community must learn to act in concert to prevent human rights violations, state terrorism, torture and genocide. The proof of our commitment to prevent such violations will be seen and demonstrated in the world community's efforts in Serbia, Bosnia and the Congo.

I suppose hope springs eternal, however. We can look at other examples. We can look at the example of South Africa. We can look at the example of Northern Ireland. That spurs all of us to hope that violence, hatred and terrorism can be overcome.

The memory of Kristallnacht challenges all of us to achieve peace in the Middle East for the Israelis and the Palestinian people and around the world. For us Canadians, that challenge begins at home, where we must combat violence, hatred and racism throughout our communities.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Bartolucci from the standing committee on estimates reports the following resolution:

Resolved, that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the following ministries and offices be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999:

Ministry of Health -

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la Loi sur les municipalités, la Loi sur la Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'impôt foncier.

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

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act, 1998, will protect small business owners, the backbone of Ontario's economy, from crippling and unnecessary property tax increases. If passed, it would guarantee that no commercial or industrial property owner would face a tax increase related to property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998, 5% in each of 1999 and 2000.

When this bill is at standing committee, we intend to introduce amendments that will protect multi-residential property owners and tenants under the same formula as commercial and industrial properties.

This bill also proposes to extend the deadline for filing assessment appeals for 1998 to December 31, 1998, and to extend to December 15, 1998, the deadline for landlords with eligible gross leases to notify tenants of the obligation to pay property taxes or business improvement area charges for 1998.

It will ensure that municipalities help create a positive environment where small business property owners can grow, prosper and create jobs.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

Mr Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80, An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in Norfolk and Haldimand, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à éliminer le niveau régional du gouvernement municipal à Norfolk et à Haldimand ainsi que le double emploi et à faire réaliser des économies aux contribuables.

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

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): This bill, if enacted, would eliminate the regional level of government imposed on the former counties of Norfolk and Haldimand in 1974. The Saving Local Government in Norfolk and Haldimand Act, 1998, if passed, will eliminate regional government and allow citizens, local councils and regional councils to propose a form of restructured local government that is in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the residents. Before submitting any restructuring proposal, a municipality must hold public meetings in each area municipality and allow any person attending the opportunity to speak. The goal is to reduce duplication and save taxpayers' money while at the same time creating a system that allows citizens themselves to help design and create the new form of local government.

1430

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am pleased to provide the Legislature and the people of Ontario with a report on the province's finances and the state of the Ontario economy.

Over the last three years, Ontarians have worked together to get this province back on track.

Our government has cut taxes, reduced the deficit, restored sound fiscal management practices, refocused core spending and reinvented the way government works.

The changes that the government has needed to make since 1995 have not always been easy. The actions we have taken have positioned Ontario to continue to grow and to create jobs.

Over the last three years, economic growth in Ontario has become both stronger and more broadly based.

Since the 1995 speech from the throne, the Ontario economy has added 408,000 net new jobs. This is over 48% of the jobs created in the country during this period, even though Ontario accounts for less than 38% of the population.

Ontario's unemployment rate is now 7.1%, down from 8.9% when we assumed office, and well below the national unemployment rate of 8.3%.

Consumer spending has increased by 3.6% a year over the last three years, triple the rate of growth in the first half of this decade. Business investment has increased by 7.3% per year.

Ontario's economic momentum and sound fundamentals have resulted in continued strong growth in 1998.

So far this year, Ontario's international exports are up 6.7%; consumer spending is up 5.6% and the second quarter alone saw a 2.3% increase, the strongest quarterly gain in 12 years; machinery and equipment investment is up 6.8%; commercial and industrial building permits are up 33%; auto sales have increased by 7.4% for the first eight months, and as a whole are expected to be the best in over a decade.

By the end of September this year, the Ontario economy had created 195,000 net new jobs. In that month alone over 62,000 net new jobs were created - over 85% of the national total.

In the 1998 budget, the province presented its fiscal plan based on a cautious assumption of real growth of 3.5% for 1998.

I am pleased to report that the government now estimates that the economy will achieve real growth of at least 3.7%. This is still a cautious and prudent estimate. On average, private sector forecasters are expecting real economic growth of 4% in Ontario this year.

The late spring and summer marked a period of volatility in international financial markets, stemming from problems in Asia, Russia and elsewhere. The impact of these events spilled over on to the North American stock markets, including the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The Bank of Canada raised interest rates by one percentage point, to stop a slide in the Canadian dollar resulting from declining commodity prices.

In response, private sector forecasters reduced their forecasts for many of the world's economies. The range of forecasts is wide, reflecting uncertainty about the world financial situation. For Ontario, the most recent private sector forecasts range from 3% to 2.2% real GDP growth for 1999.

More recently, the US Federal Reserve took unexpected, firm action to maintain the high level of performance of the US economy by lowering interest rates. Interest rates in Canada have since moved down as well, and stock markets have begun to recover.

International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the G7 have also demonstrated their capacity to ensure that problems in individual countries do not impair the operation of the global financial system.

These are all positive and encouraging signals.

The Ontario economy is well positioned to weather the impact of recent world economic events.

Raw material prices have fallen sharply, but the primary sector accounts for just 2% of Ontario's gross domestic product.

Ontario's exports to Asia represent 3% of total exports, which is the equivalent of only 1.3% of GDP.

The United States accounts for 90% of Ontario's international exports, equal to about 40% of Ontario's GDP.

Private sector forecasters expect continuing high levels of domestic demand in the US, and economic growth in excess of 2% for 1999. Ontario will also benefit from lower US interest rates.

Over the next few years, private sector forecasters expect Ontario to achieve greater economic growth than the rest of Canada or any of the G7 major industrial countries, even after world economic events are taken into account.

Governments can support economic expansion by cutting taxes.

All provinces have agreed with Ontario's call on the federal government to reduce EI premiums to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings and to totally eliminate EI premiums for youth. These actions would create up to 200,000 jobs across the country, and they would be of particular benefit to low-income workers, youth and small businesses.

There will be a cumulative surplus in excess of $19 billion in the EI account by the end of this year. Contributions from working people and employers in Ontario account for about two thirds of that amount.

Ontario expects that the federal government will fulfill its promise and take a balanced approach to the use of its fiscal surplus this year and next. Restoration of funding for health care and other social programs under the Canada health and social transfers, EI premium cuts and debt reduction are all achievable if the federal government adopts a phased-in approach.

One of the reasons that Ontario's growth has been strong is the tax cuts implemented by this government. Since our government was elected, we have announced 66 different tax reductions. Cutting income taxes helps to create jobs by leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working taxpayers to spend for the benefits of their families, spending that fuels business investment and job growth.

In July of this year, six months ahead of schedule, the government implemented the final phase of its 30% personal income tax cut. This means that more than 90% of Ontario taxpayers are receiving a cut in Ontario income tax of at least 30%. Almost $3 billion, or 64%, of the tax reduction remains in the hands of nearly three million middle-income taxpayers in Ontario earning between $25,000 and $75,000 a year. Ontarians with modest incomes get the largest percentage reductions.

This year, Ontario accelerated its three-year plan to exempt the first $400,000 of private sector payrolls from the employer health tax. Small businesses that no longer pay the EHT are better able to hire and expand, and that means more jobs for Ontarians.

In the 1998 budget, our government announced that it will stimulate job growth further by cutting the corporations tax on small businesses in half over the next eight years, to 4.75%, which will be the lowest rate in Canada.

In my budget, I also announced that the government will cut business education taxes in municipalities where these tax rates are above the provincial average, starting with a $64-million cut this calendar year. When fully implemented, in eight years, this will amount to a reduction in business education taxes of over $500 million from current levels.

Recently, the province stepped in to ensure that municipalities implement Ontario's new, up-to-date property tax system in a way that does not hit Ontario small businesses with unmanageable tax increases. No property taxpayer will face a tax increase as a result of property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998 or more than 5% in each of the years 1999 and 2000.

The economies that succeed in the future will be those with a culture of innovation, a skilled and flexible workforce and an infrastructure that supports growth and competitiveness. These attributes will reinforce a positive business climate, resulting in jobs and prosperity.

Ontario has made substantial progress towards meeting these objectives. Our government has promoted research and development and innovation and technology transfer through the R&D challenge fund and a broad range of tax measures. We have helped prepare people for tomorrow's work by investing in strategic skills training. We have created an infrastructure for growth and competitiveness by investing in Ontario's highways, including the province's northern highway network.

The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, composed of some of the best and brightest leaders in business and the community, will build on this progress to ensure that Ontario meets the challenge of the new economy. Early in 1999, the board will advise the government on an economic strategy for the new millennium, a road map to help us build a stronger economy.

In the budget last May, I announced the 1998-99 deficit target of $4.2 billion, which was $600 million lower than the balanced budget plan of $4.8 billion for the year. With more than half the year now gone, I am pleased to announce that based on the province's improved revenue performance this year, the $650-million reserve will not be needed. That reduces the deficit outlook to $3.6 billion, or $1.2 billion lower than the original balanced budget plan target for this year, and $7.7 billion lower than the $11.3-billion potential deficit we inherited in 1995-96.

1440

The government has already surpassed its deficit targets for three years in a row, and this year we'll make it four in a row. We have done so despite deep federal cuts of $2.8 billion to Ontario under the Canada health and social transfer since 1995-96. We have surpassed our deficit targets while ensuring that spending on health services for Ontarians is at least $1.3 billion higher in 1998-99 than it was in 1995-96.

With continued fiscal prudence, the government will eliminate the deficit by 2000-01, as planned. The Ontario balanced budget plan will ensure that this objective is achieved.

The government has made tremendous progress in restoring Ontario's fiscal health, but the job is not yet finished. The costs of running deficits and accumulating debt are real, and they have a human face. The legacy of lack of fiscal discipline still haunts this province, and Ontario is spending more than $17,000 a minute just to pay the interest on the public debt this year. At $9.2 billion, public debt interest is almost half of what the province will spend on important health care services such as hospitals, doctors and long-term care.

To ensure that the government is able to strengthen the programs and services that Ontarians value most while meeting the economic challenges of the future, the commitment to fiscal responsibility must continue.

Ontarians want to meet the needs of the province's growing and aging population. They want to build on the fiscal gains we've made in the past three years. They want to be protected from irresponsible deficits and tax increases in the future, and we will take the necessary steps to ensure that this happens very shortly.

With the province's finances back on track and a firm commitment to entrenching the gains, we will ensure that Ontario is one of the best places in which to live, work and raise a family.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to take the Minister of Finance and the members of the government down from the 35,000-foot level to the street level. I have spent a great deal of time talking to ordinary Ontarians about what their experience has been as a result of the Mike Harris regime, and they have all kinds of stories to tell me about their loss of public confidence both in public health care and in public education in our province. Those are the real fundamentals. Those -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order. I won't warn you again. Order. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: The fundamentals, in so far as I'm concerned, are connected with health care and with education. People out there are not talking about fiscal projections and signals from international markets. They're talking about the loss of their community hospital. They're talking about the loss of hospital beds. They're talking about Mike Harris's cuts to health care in Ontario. They're talking about the fact that people -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Look, you know, folks, I think Mr Eves got to make his presentation in reasonable calm, and the opposition was very reasonable when he did. I think it's fair to assume that the same can be given to the two opposition parties while they make their responses.

Mr McGuinty: They're talking about the fact that our patients are being stacked up in hospital corridors. They're talking about the fact that ambulances are being redirected from emergency department to emergency department because there's no room available. They're talking about the fact that we in Ontario now hold the distinction of having the fewest nurses per capita in the country. There is no place in Canada today where it is more difficult to find a nurse than inside an Ontario hospital.

This is the tragic aspect to all of this. More and more Ontarians are asking themselves: "What are they charging for MRIs in Michigan? How is it that I might jump the queue? How can I get my surgery ahead of other people?" And more and more who can afford to do so are asking, "Why can't we have a second tier of health care in Ontario?" I want to make it perfectly clear that I stand against that development. We are in favour of one-tier, quality, publicly funded, publicly delivered health care in Ontario.

When it comes to education, people are talking about school closures. They're wondering why this government doesn't understand the value of a community school to that community, both in terms of the education it delivers to community children and the role that the community school plays in the very life of the community itself. They're talking about the loss of valuable educational programs like junior kindergarten, like adult education, like special education. They're talking about the loss of a good working relationship between governments, trustees, teachers and parents, because people understand that according to the fundamentals, we will never be able to deliver the best possible public education in Ontario unless we have a government that stops taking sides and starts pulling sides together when it comes to delivering education in Ontario.

The other tragic aspect of all of this is that there is a loss of public confidence in public education. More and more young couples who can't afford to do so are asking themselves, "What does it cost to send my child," or their children, "to private education?" Mark my words. This government will soon be talking, after the time of the next election, about voucher programs and charter schools. That's the route we are on right now, and I want to make it perfectly clear that we stand against voucher programs, we stand against charter schools and we stand for top-quality, publicly funded, publicly delivered education in Ontario.

I can tell you what else people are asking out there, parents and young people alike: If this government really understands the global economy and the need to cultivate a knowledge-based sector here in Ontario, why are they jacking up university tuition by 60%? Why are they deregulating tuition fees?

When people ask themselves today about the meaning of this government's financial projections, I ask them to ask themselves: How do you feel, knowing we've got the fewest nurses per capita in the country? How do you feel, knowing we've got the highest tuition fees in the country? How do you feel, knowing that we pay less to our universities than any other province in the country? How do you feel, knowing we've got the most slot machines in Canada inside our province? How do you feel, knowing we've got the dirtiest air and the dirtiest gasoline in the country?

1450

The Speaker: Responses, third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Every day it becomes harder to reconcile what the Harris government is saying with what people see and experience in their everyday lives.

Today the finance minister boasts that Ontario's economy is doing very well, but when you talk to people out there on the street, they will tell you they feel an economy that is slowing down. The Deputy Premier and finance minister seems to somehow want to take credit for the American economic boom. He leaves out of his commentary the fact that most of Ontario's exports, 90% of Ontario's exports, are going to the United States and he tries to underpitch the fact that it is in fact those exports that are helping our economy along. Deputy Premier, don't try to take credit for the economic boom in the United States.

What's really intriguing about this statement is that the finance minister says that his income tax scheme is helping modest- and middle-income families. But he leaves out that it is modest- and middle-income families who are paying the $1,500-a-year increase in tuition fees; it is modest- and middle-income families that are being hit again and again and again by your property tax increases; it is modest- and middle-income families that are being hit by your health care user fees; and modest- and middle-income families that are watching their parents trying to deal with your prescription medicine copayment fees.

The truth of the matter is, Finance Minister, that the people who benefit from your income tax scheme are the 6% or 7% who are at the top of the income ladder. The rest of us are paying for that through cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to community services and a whole host of new and hidden taxes.

The reality is that people out there can't understand why the emergency rooms in the hospitals don't work. They can't understand why when you need home care you have to wait to get it and when you do get it is often rationed.

People across this province rally to save their neighbourhood school. You say you're spending more on education than ever before, but the parents and the students I saw this morning at Walkerville high school in Windsor know that their proposed school closure, a school closure that's driven by your education funding formula, is the way you intend to get the money to finance your income tax scheme. They know they don't benefit from what you're doing. They know they don't benefit from your cuts to education.

Then, as we saw here yesterday and the day before, you have your corporate friends, people like Andersen Consulting, who are going to make hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of the Ontario public, hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers while they attack the most vulnerable in our society. We understand that they're doing well, we understand that they're going to get rich as they go out and attack the most vulnerable, again your government's true agenda.

I want to save some comments here. As I said, people out there know what's happening. They see health care being rationed, they see health care being cut. They know that this government's so-called increases in health care funding don't even keep up with the aging population, the growing population, nor the rate of inflation. They see these things happening. They see the closure of community schools, they see the rising tuition fees, and they know that what is driving this is you've got to get the money out of health care, you've got to get the money out of education, you've got to get the money out of community services to finance your income tax scheme. They know that and they feel it, and they don't want you to cut education, they don't want you to cut health care to finance that income tax scheme. In fact, what they really want you to do is to start making those investments again in health care and education.

What I would say to you, though, Finance Minister, is that at least you're clear about your agenda. I listen to the Liberal Party day after day talk about how they would reinvest, yet we know that they endorse your tax scheme. They endorse the very tax scheme -

The Speaker: It's time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Finance. I spent a great deal of time visiting local schools, community schools, that you are about to close. I encountered somebody by the name of Amanda Dawson at Rosedale school. She doesn't want her school to close. She's 10 years of age. She's in grade 5. She tells me that's where all of her friends are going to school. She wants to be able to graduate from there next year, together with three siblings. But that's one of the schools in the city of Toronto that you are forcing to close.

She made a bracelet that I've got here. It says "SOS Rosedale" on it. I'm going to ask one of the pages to deliver it to you, in keeping with my promise to her.

She wants me to ask you if you're going to save her school. So tell me, please, tell Amanda, tell the 30,000 children who will be affected by your school closures, if you are going to save their schools.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the government is not closing a single school.

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Boards don't have any power any more and you know it.

Hon Mr Eves: It's true. Boards make these decisions. He will know that school closures have gone on in this province for many years and that they are decisions made by school boards. He will also know that when his government was in power 136 schools were closed in the province of Ontario. He'll also know that when the NDP were in power 105 schools were closed.

There will be 25 new schools opening between now and January and there will be 200 new schools built in the province between now and the year 2001.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you've got to remove yourself from this environment and get out there and go visit community schools.

Here are just some of the ones I visited in the past few days: Givins/Shaw, Ogden, Cottingham, St Paul, Park, St Mike's, John English, George Gauld, Palmerston, St Raymond, Courcelette. These are community schools. They are active, they are vibrant, they are dynamic, they are alive and doing well.

The people there are simply asking that you leave them alone. I'm going to ask you once more on their behalf. Will you save their schools?

Hon Mr Eves: As I understand it, the Minister of Education extended an invitation to the chair of the Toronto District School Board yesterday to sit down and discuss how she feels she is going to meet or the board is going to meet the pupil places funding formula in the province.

In addition to the 200 new schools that will open in this province between now and the year 2001, the Provincial Auditor's report, which your party and yourself on occasion love to quote - the auditor's review of school boards found that they don't always manage their school space properly. The Provincial Auditor stated that he feels that the government's new funding model for pupil accommodation will encourage boards to more prudently manage their facilities.

Do you disagree with the Provincial Auditor, I say to the leader of the official opposition? Maybe you could respond with a simple yes or no answer in your second supplementary.

Interjections.

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

Mr McGuinty: The minister's approach to this is all too revealing. He tells us that he relies on the Provincial Auditor and generally accepted accounting principles to dictate what's going to happen insofar as public education is concerned in Ontario. I happen to believe that there is much more to schooling in Ontario, much more to education, than generally accepted accounting principles. There is more to our community schools than square footage and the cost of heating and lighting. Community schools constitute the heart and soul of a community. If you shut down the school, you're cutting out the heart and soul of a community. Why don't you recognize that?

1500

Set aside the accounting principles for a moment. Set aside the bottom-line approach that you bring to life. Forget that this is not a business. It's public education. Is anybody over there going to stand up for public education in Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the leader of the official opposition, absolutely. The Toronto District School Board currently operates 80 schools for administration and other purposes, along with six additional administration offices that they don't need. They currently own space for 100,000 more students than they teach in their system. They pay 50% more per pupil for maintenance and operations than the Catholic board in the very same city. The Toronto District School Board can and must find efficiencies in its administrative offices - I agree with you - so they can spend the money where they're supposed to spend it: on the students in the classroom.

CHILD CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The second question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Earlier today I visited Pride in Heritage daycare. That's a daycare located at Gateway school. It's one of 287 daycares located at schools in Toronto. Those 287 daycares serve 14,000 Toronto children. Each and every one of those children faces eviction as a result of Mike Harris's funding formula.

Minister, what plans have you made to assure us that not a single one of those 14,000 children will lose their daycare space in Toronto?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would suggest that the school boards think very carefully about their priorities when they're considering what schools they're looking at. As we've heard before, there's a list out there that has caused a great deal of angst to parents. The board has choices. I don't think shutting down daycares is an appropriate choice for the board.

Mr McGuinty: These guys really like to have it both ways. This funding formula specifically provides that there is no coverage for heat, for light and for maintenance for any space offered to children who are in daycare in Toronto public schools. But this minister stands up and says it's up to school boards to get the priorities right.

I'm asking you on behalf of those 14,000 children: What are you going to do to assure them and their parents that those spaces won't be lost? There is every indication that they will be, based on the funding formula that you support.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the funding formula and the guidelines that have come out from the Ministry of Education very clearly tell the board that existing daycare spaces are exempt from the calculations, so they are able and have the flexibility to make the decisions that would allow them to protect that space.

Mr McGuinty: Daycare spaces are not funded. You're not going to pay for any of the heat, none of the light and none of the maintenance for any children who are in public schools accessing daycare. Any progressive, forward-thinking government now understands that daycare has to be seen as part of the continuum of the investment that we make in our children. Instead of moving away from daycare in our public schools, we ought to be thinking about how we could possibly integrate daycare inside every single public school in Ontario. That's the way we should be going.

I'm asking you again: What are you doing, as the minister responsible for daycare in Ontario, to ensure that we don't lose those 14,000 spaces?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls, you're out of order. You're not in your seat. Member for Durham East as well. Heckling is out of order, but it's particularly out of order if you're not in your seat.

I remind the opposition members as well, if you're going to heckle, it's out of order, but at least have the decency to go back to your own seat. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government has done a great deal to support daycare in this province. We've increased funding to support daycare. It is a mandatory service that municipalities offer as part of the social service network of services. We have increased the amount of money for those families in low-income working circumstances so they can help afford child care support. It's a very important support for working parents. That's why we have the child care supplement for working families. Over $140 million is going into that to help those families pay for daycare. We continue to subsidize 80% of those daycare subsidies out there. We have not changed that policy.

I would also like to tell the member opposite that there are more child care spaces and more licensed centres today in this province than there were when we came into government.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance boasted today about his income tax scheme in his economic statement. What you don't say is that you're financing your income tax scheme on the backs of the sick and the elderly in this province. You try to tell people that your health care budget is increasing, but it doesn't even keep pace with the aging of our population, the growth of our population or the inflation rate. You know you're creating health care chaos. That's why the Premier is running around the province trying to do damage control and handing out late cheques.

Minister, I've got a suggestion for you. If you were to roll back just the very top of your income tax scheme, the part that benefits the 6% who are at the top of the income and wealth ladder, it would give you $1.5 billion to put back into health care. Would you do that for health care and for the people of Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the leader of the third party is still operating on the fallacy that a provincial income tax cut has cost revenue to the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It has.

Hon Mr Eves: It has not. If you would kindly turn to page 49 in Ontario's Economic and Fiscal Review, you will see that the taxation revenue generated to the province of Ontario today in this fiscal year is $5.6 billion higher than it was the last year you were in office. How do you explain that?

1510

Mr Hampton: I think it is truly indicative when you ask the Minister of Finance if he will really put money back into health care and he replies with a bombastic answer about how much his income tax scheme is benefiting the most well-off.

Minister, let me give you an example of what your cuts to health care are doing. Riverdale Hospital found out yesterday that its worst nightmare had come true. Despite the fact that they have 35 years of experience, that they have the building, the land, the experienced staff and the money to do the job, despite the fact that the health care restructuring commission recommended them, their application for long-term care beds has been rejected.

This is what your cuts to health care, as much as you try to disguise them, are doing out there. My simple question to you is this: We know that everyone else in the province is paying user fees for this, hidden taxes for that. If you really care about health care, roll back even just part of that $1.5 billion and put it back where it'll do the most good.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, when the leader of the third party was sitting at the cabinet table, his government thought it was sufficient to spend $17.4 billion a year on health care. This year here in the province of Ontario we will be spending in excess of $18.9 billion on health care. How is it that we're spending $1.5 billion more than you spent? I don't understand where you have room to criticize. Why weren't you spending the $19 billion when you were there, if it was so damn important to you at the time?

Mr Hampton: Part of the charade: This minister wants to ignore the fact that the population has grown, the population is aging, and the inflation rate is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order. Minister, come to order as well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order.

I've cautioned the government members. Can you please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Durham East.

Mr Hampton: The fact is that on a per capita basis across this province you're investing $16 less per capita in people's health care now than was invested in 1992. This is what it's doing: For example, Elizabeth Innis, an 80-year-old woman, was released from Scarborough General Hospital last week. She went home and was told to get home care. It took six days for home care to call on her. By then she was so dehydrated that she had to go back in hospital. The home care deliverer in this case is Olsten home care, a private, for-profit American company that's under investigation for fraud, negligence and improper billing in Florida, New Mexico and Washington. These are the kinds of companies that you are now bringing into the health care system.

Minister, will you go back and look at the books again? Will you put health care back on the track it needs to be on in Ontario, stop underfunding health care, stop using corporations like Olsten, and give people like Elizabeth Innis the health care they need and they deserve in this province?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party apparently didn't hear the answer to his first supplementary. We are spending this year in Ontario $1.5 billion more than you thought it was appropriate to spend on health care in the fiscal year 1995-96. That's a fact. We're doing this in spite of the fact that their federal cousins in Ottawa have cut transfer payments for health care and post-secondary education by $2.8 billion over the same period of time. We are spending the most amount of money per capita on health care than any other province, with the one exception of British Columbia.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the finance minister again: The fact of the matter is you have cut funding for health care on a per capita basis by $16 per person in this province since 1992. The fact of the matter is that much of your so-called health care spending is one-time restructuring money for the purpose of laying off nurses and closing facilities.

You talk about wealth creation. We understand you're creating wealth for people like Andersen Consulting. You're paying Andersen Consulting $500 an hour to go out there and attack the poorest people in Ontario. We know, for example, that Andersen Consulting is heading up a project where they look in social assistance files, and if one thing is missing from the file in terms of information, they cut that person off. Minister, is that how you create wealth in Ontario, attack the poor and help your corporate friends?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'd like to refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member knows, Andersen Consulting has nothing to do with eligibility decisions as they pertain to people on welfare. This province believes in wealth creation and this government believes in generating wealth out there. We're doing that by getting 323,000 people off welfare into paid jobs. We know they want to be there; we know they're better off there; we know children are better off when they're in the workforce. That is the result of our welfare reform: fewer people on welfare, more people working.

Mr Hampton: The Centre for Social Justice issued a report three weeks ago that tells the real story of what this government's income tax scheme for the wealthy is doing to the people of Ontario. It tells the story that the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are not wealthy is growing. It tells us that the middle class in this province is very quickly being shredded by your government and is disappearing. This is another study, from church groups. It tells us what's happening to people out there who can't get health care, people out there who can't get the education they need.

Is this the true story of Mike Harris's Ontario, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears? Is this something you're proud of in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The record of this government is fewer people on welfare, more people in the job force working, fewer children on welfare, more health care spending, more spending in the classrooms and the education system, fewer low-income people paying taxes. That is the record of this government. The voters voted for this in 1995. We're taking the direction they wanted and we're very proud to defend that record.

Mr Hampton: It is an undeniable fact, and study after study confirms this, and they also confirm that this government's income tax scheme is contributing to it: Now in Ontario the 10% at the top have 314 times the income of the people at the bottom. That is what's happening in your province; that's what is happening under your government. It is an undisputed fact that the middle class in this province used to make up about 60% of the province. We're now down to 44% of the province. It is an undisputed fact that the wealthiest people in this province will get on average over $15,000 a year from your income tax scheme, and the poorest people in this province will get less than $150 per year out of your income tax scheme.

I say again to you, is this your definition of a good thing in this province -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Mr Hampton: - when people who are at the top are becoming that much wealthier, people at the bottom are falling behind, people in the middle are struggling and we are all losing the health care system we need -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: What the honourable member doesn't mention is that when many of those studies talk about the decline in family income, the cause of the decline in family income is not because they're earning less; it's because governments in this country have been taxing them more. They've been taking dollars out of the pockets of hard-working families. The government has been taking it and spending it itself.

The member is referring to our tax cut. The top 10% of taxpayers in this province now pay a greater proportion, a greater portion of Ontario's income tax revenues than they did before our cut. The top 1% of taxpayers pay a bigger share, 18.9% of income tax revenues, compared to 16% before the cut. Not only that, but there are fewer low-income taxpayers in this province paying any Ontario income tax than before this government came in. The honourable member says he worries about people in low-income working circumstances. Then why did he increase their taxes when his government was in power?

1520

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Two days ago the Provincial Auditor again slam-dunked you and your failings as minister in trying to protect the environment and the health of Ontarians. In his 1996 report, the auditor singled out 226 air pollution standards that were out of date and needed to be upgraded. Since that time we have learned that anywhere from 1,800 to 6,000 people a year die due to poor air quality in Ontario. Your response to this concern in 1996 was that you had developed "an aggressive three-year plan" for setting and updating these standards. They were your words, your response, in 1996. Two days ago the auditor said that you had not changed one of those 226 standards, you had not updated one of those 226 standards.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Agostino: In view of the fact that you know how many people die every year in Ontario as a result of poor air quality, it is another indication of your failure as minister, another indication of your incompetence as minister. Can you explain to the House why you failed to act on these recommendations on the 226 made two years ago and why you continue to -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Of course the auditor is pointing out where we can make improvements, and we support that process. The auditor referred to a 1992 report where the Ministry of Environment, long before we came into power, pointed out that the air quality standards hadn't been revamped for some 20 years. That goes back into the previous administration, the Liberal administration, and long before that.

We have put in process a revamping of those air quality standards. It's a disappointment to me that my ministry has not been able to deliver on that at this point, but we are now poised to put forward approximately 25 of these air quality standards. I've said to my deputy minister he has got to do better than he has done in the past.

Mr Agostino: That's an absolutely disgraceful answer. You are the minister. You are in charge. If it's not good enough, then you're not doing your job. Don't blame the bureaucrats once again. Don't blame the bureaucracy. You give the orders. You have the limo. You make the decisions. I think it is gutless of you to blame the bureaucrats for your failure to take care of the health and well-being of Ontarians. If you can't accept that responsibility, then you should step aside.

This is the second time, Minister, for you and your Premier blaming bureaucrats for your screw-ups and bumblings. You have done the same thing in hazardous waste: 11,000 companies were sent surveys in 1996, according to the auditor, and only 3,000 responded. You do not know about 8,000 companies in this province that produce hazardous waste and what they do with that waste, because you have failed to follow up. You have screwed up on air quality and you have screwed up when it comes down to hazardous waste.

Minister, you're incompetent. You are screwing up. I appreciate the idiot behind you who's doing the hand signals, the junior minister of health, but very clearly this is senior -

The Speaker: I think it's unparliamentary to make that comment, and I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Agostino: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Agostino: Minister, why have you failed to act on the 226 changes required and why have you failed to follow up on the 8,000 companies that did not report to you what they were doing with their hazardous waste?

Hon Mr Sterling: In fact we have followed up on the 8,000 companies that were pointed out in the auditor's report. We did go to a number of those former waste producers. We found that they are no longer shipping waste, some as a result of different kinds of processes that they are using, some having gone out of business etc. In fact the 8,000 former waste producers are no longer producing the waste. Everyone is in compliance with the law. There was no evidence that anyone was breaking the law and therefore there was no problem.

The auditor also congratulated us on our ambient air monitoring network, on the data management that we have within our ministry, and also on the utilization of our marine resources.

We take his advice seriously. That's what the auditor's report is about, and we will in fact improve again next year.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Deputy Premier: Yesterday your Premier told everyone that before he was elected he had no plan to close hospitals. But after he was elected Premier, he sat down and listened to the experts, and they convinced him that he was wrong and that he should close hospitals. He should pay the political price and he should close hospitals.

Right now out there, your school funding formula is causing all kinds of chaos and the experts - people who have worked in educational finance, school trustees, parents - are telling you that you've got it wrong. I have a question for you. If the Premier could listen to the experts and decide to close hospitals, why not listen to the experts now and decide to change your school funding formula so that you don't have to create chaos in our schools?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As I said in response to an earlier question by the leader of the official opposition, the Toronto Board of Education, for example, has space for 100,000 students more than it actually has. It has 80 schools that are not being used by the Toronto District School Board as schools. It has six extra administrative offices. I quite agree that the priority should be on money spent in the classroom on the pupils; not for seven administration offices as opposed to one, not for 80 schools that they're not using.

Mr Hampton: The Deputy Premier and the Minister of Education seem to want to ignore their own law, Bill 160, and the regulations under it which say that you can't take money out of the administrative pot and use it for operating classrooms. The school board could literally sell off all its administrative space and it wouldn't give them one penny for the operation of their schools or their classrooms, so quit trying to put that by people.

I was in Windsor today, and the Greater Essex school board is going to be forced to close six high schools there. You're telling them to rent out all their space. They already rent out a lot of space and they have come back to you and said, "It won't give us the money to make up for the $18.3 million cut that you're putting on our operational budget."

I say again to you, if the Premier could listen to the experts on health care and decide to close hospitals, why not listen to the experts on school funding and change the formula so you don't have to close 500 schools?

Hon Mr Eves: As I also said to the leader of the official opposition in response to an earlier question, 25 new schools will be opening in this province between now and the end of the year, and 200 will be opened between now and the year 2001.

How is it that the chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board said about the funding formula: "We are extremely pleased that the minister has recognized the need to move our students into permanent, high-quality facilities. Today's announcement" - that's the very funding formula you're talking about - "is a good start to addressing the capital needs of this board."

1530

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. Last week, along with the Premier and the Minister of Health, you toured through London and Ottawa areas, highlighting locations where the government has expanded long-term-care services. Can you tell me today, Minister, if you have a plan in place to ensure that those expansions will continue across Ontario and particularly in St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Niagara region?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question and to indicate that this government has made a very strong commitment that we, through restructuring, shift a greater emphasis to the changing demographics of this province. We have more seniors living longer and therefore, after waiting 10 years for long-term-care beds, we're implementing new beds. But we're also expanding community-based care, and in the Niagara area we have increased by $15.5 million the amount of home care. That's a 76% increase to undo some of the very discriminatory funding habits of the previous two governments. The citizens of Niagara finally now, under this government, are starting to get their fair share of health dollars through this expanded envelope of community-based care.

Mr Froese: Minister, two weeks ago you announced the locations of the first 707 of the 1,700 transitional long-term-care beds across the province. I was pleased to see that West Park Health Centre in St Catharines will accommodate 37 of those people with this new funding. Given that the Niagara region has the fastest-growing seniors population in Canada, could you tell me and my constituents if you plan to add more long-term-care beds in St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Niagara region?

Hon Mr Jackson: Clearly, there has been a need in the St Catharines and Niagara area for many years. This has been, as I said, a decade when they've been discriminated against in terms of their fair share of access to dollars. Ten days ago I announced the first 707 new transition beds that were implemented. I released some in the Niagara Peninsula. Today I'm releasing another 103 of those beds which I have secured in the last week, including expansions at Tabor Manor in St Catharines. The member for St Catharines will be pleased to hear that. Pleasant Manor in Virgil is also receiving expanded beds. This government, within a week or so, will be announcing the locations of 100 new permanent long-term-care beds in the Niagara region. Our policies of restructuring are working and we are expanding community-based care.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about Hotel Dieu Hospital?

Hon Mr Jackson: The member for St Catharines mentions Hotel Dieu Hospital, and I again ask him, as I did last night, are you prepared to stand up in the presence of your leader and indicate that you're going to fund every single one of these hospitals in Ontario? Are you prepared to say that he's going to stand by -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the official opposition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. A short while ago, you introduced your seventh property tax reform bill. I have one specific question for you in relation to its implications for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, 11 municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area and the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. You will know that this proposal you have put forward created a $110-million headache for taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton because of the implications for the federal government. It turns out that the biggest winner, it seems, would be the federal government as opposed to small business in Ottawa-Carleton. Can you provide your assurance right now that this bill - I have not had an opportunity to go through it in detail - addresses that problem and that you have secured the consent of the federal government to the solution, if any, contained in here?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Indeed, the bill he is talking about has a clause that says the federal and the provincial governments shall pay their full share of payments in lieu. They are not going to be capped at 10, 5 and 5 like other business taxpayers are. They are expected to pay their full 100% share.

Mr McGuinty: That, Minister, is all fine and dandy. Have you obtained the consent of the federal government to this legislation? All indications from the federal minister were that he was not going to comply with any such regulation or law passed by you. Have you secured their consent? Do we really in effect have a solution?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, this government will lead by example. It will pay its fair share. I was talking to the finance minister of Canada yesterday afternoon at about 5 pm. I encouraged him to do the same thing.

As a matter of fact, the federal government had already cut the cheques to pay to the city of Ottawa its full share, until Mr Gagliano decided that perhaps he could renege. He saw an opportunity. The amount of money is already budgeted for 100%, so it's not like we're going to ask the federal government to pay more money than it was expecting to pay. It was expecting to pay it. They had the cheques cut. You might want to phone Ottawa and ask them why your federal cousins would want to renege on the city of Ottawa.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Deputy Premier. On Monday I went to Contact school - it's an alternative school - and there were over 200 parents there, along with students and teachers. Monday night I went to Charles G. Fraser and yesterday it was Orde Street public school; at Charles G. Fraser and at Orde there were over 200 parents. Deputy Premier, they tell me that I should tell you that they hold you, your buddy the Minister of Education and the Premier directly responsible for the possible closure of their schools.

They are not blaming, as you do, the teachers federations; they're not blaming the bureaucrats whom you call fat-cat bureaucrats; they're not blaming the school board or the school trustees; and they're not blaming the janitors, as you do. They blame your flawed funding formula. Are you going to review that flawed funding formula or not?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the government is not blaming teachers for school closures. The provincial government is not blaming janitors for school closures. In fact, the provincial government is not blaming anybody for school closures. They are individual decisions by individual boards. Schools have been closing for different reasons in Ontario for many decades; 105 closed while your government was in power. These are decisions that are made by locally elected officials, as they should be.

Mr Marchese: Deputy Premier, the parents of these schools are saying they will not shut down. You are shutting them down with your funding formula. I know you're shaking your head in disbelief. It is hard for you to understand and/or possibly believe that this funding formula could be flawed; I appreciate that. These parents and the school board are reviewing your funding formula and, based on that, they're saying, "We've got to shut schools down because we're going to lose millions if we don't."

Parents, teachers and everyone else listening to this say, "We've got a problem." The problem is not with the school boards, which are obeying your rules based on the funding formula; the problem is with you and what you have devised. It is a mathematical system; it is a formula not based on child care needs, not based on children's needs, not based on community needs. They are demanding that you review that formula and that you change it, otherwise many of those schools will shut down. Are you going to review that funding formula? Are you going to consider it? If you do not, schools will shut down, and the parents are saying they will not shut down.

1540

Hon Mr Eves: As I said earlier during question period, there are other options that the Toronto District School Board has. They currently operate 80 schools for administration and other purposes other than the teaching of their own students. They have six too many administration offices. I would urge the Toronto District School Board to consider those options. The government is willing to work with them. Yesterday, it's my understanding, the Minister of Education phoned the chair of the Toronto District School Board and asked that they sit down and have a meeting. She was too busy yesterday. I can understand that. I would encourage her and members of her board to sit down with the Minister of Education and go over options that are available to them.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Labour. I understand there has been a marked improvement in client service and enforcement in the employment standards program. Could you outline the recent accomplishments of the program?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for the question. The setting and enforcing of employment standards in Ontario workplaces is a significant and very important part of the work of the Ministry of Labour. I'm extremely proud of my ministry's accomplishments in this area. The ministry has established new performance standards which are designed to improve client service, with much-improved results.

We've introduced a number of operational changes to improve the quality of client service and we've addressed the employment standards claims caseload, with significant results. That caseload had grown to 9,786 cases by March 1992. By September of this year that has been reduced to 3,822, which is a drop of about 6,000 cases over the course of that period. The provincial target turnaround time for claims decisions has been improved: 70% of claims decisions have been made and communicated within 80 days. The Ministry of Labour is committed to improve client service for all the people who work in Ontario's workplaces.

Mr Ford: Minister, could you tell us how your ministry has managed to reduce the backlog?

Hon Mr Flaherty: This addresses the caseload issue with respect to the enforcement of employment standards. The caseload issue with respect to employment standards is important because it relates to the service the ministry is able to provide to people who work in the province who have concerns about overtime and working conditions in their workplaces. It is a very important issue, and I'm very pleased that the ministry has accomplished its targets with respect to dramatically reducing that caseload, because that helps workers.

That has been done in part by a new program administration self-help kit, which is called Best Practices. We've also set performance targets, allowing the staff at the ministry to investigate cases and be responsive to workers much more quickly. There's also a complete review of the way we handle those claims processes underway, which again should help us to enhance client service for all the people who work in Ontario. Our goal is to ensure fair workplace practices for all Ontario workers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): At the start of the day I was remiss. Because of all the extra unanimous consents and so on, I forgot to mention that today is the last day for the pages. I want to just thank them very much. What a wonderful job they did.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the deputy leader. I want to talk about Flemington Public School. It's a school in my riding that recently received an award, the National Quality Institute's highest award, the award for excellence. The award was based on the private sector's highest standards. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Education and I both attended the ceremony. In fact, the minister presented the school with the award. But guess what, Minister? This school is one of the schools that's targeted to be closed. It's obvious that it's your funding formula that's causing this school to be closed, and many others like it. Don't you think it's about time you admit that quality is being sacrificed in our system? Also, don't you think it's about time you admit that your funding formula has to be changed in order to save schools like Flemington public school, which is excellent?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Actually, I would concur with the member to this extent: I can see no reason why a school that receives an award for excellence such as he described, and the Minister of Education obviously acknowledged, would be closed. I would ask the Toronto school board why they're planning on doing that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Our leader issued you a challenge to come face to face with students and teachers. I hope you're going to come tomorrow, Friday, to join us at Humewood school at 2 o'clock.

I have a question here that is directly related to the funding formula. Your formula to fund education here creates a disastrous result throughout Ontario, but especially in Toronto you're creating a city of the poor since you're cutting the heart out of some programs like skills development, for example, which provides students with skills to get jobs.

Let's look at Heydon Park especially. A school for inner-city girls, Heydon Park provides a last chance for education and productive careers to these girls. These girls come from all over Ontario and are at risk. If Heydon Park closes, where will they end up? On the street or maybe even on welfare, which you of course want to avoid.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Ruprecht: Minister, I want you to make us a promise today. Will you change your funding formula, which you refuse to answer, you refuse to change, you refuse to get up -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: In response to the honourable member, I would encourage the Toronto District School Board to sit down and look at administrative efficiencies it can find and also to accept yesterday's invitation from the Minister of Education for the chair to sit down with him and see what options the Toronto school board can pursue other than the one it seems to be bent on pursuing at the current moment.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding his Lands for Life process. Minister, from the beginning of this process you have consistently refused to give the round tables the time they need to properly do their work. You have also consistently refused to give the public the information and the time the public needed to respond to what was happening.

In the consolidated report that was released last week, the round table chairs admitted that they were unable to complete their work because of your arbitrary deadlines. They also said that because of your deadlines, the public did not get a chance to see any of the 242 draft recommendations that were submitted to you in July, despite a public commitment that would happen. Minister, in light of this, can you explain why your government is giving the public only 30 days to respond to the 242 Lands for Life recommendations?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm glad the member opposite asked the question today so that we can dispel any misinformation or illusions she might be under. In fact, what we have done with Lands for Life is extend the deadline for this public consultation twice. So the process itself has taken some 16 months to come to this point, where we've received these recommendations and are now making those recommendations public so that the public can have a chance to comment on them.

Included in those extensions was work by the chairs of the round tables to consolidate the three draft recommendations so that these recommendations could be put to the public in a way that was very user-friendly, so the public would have a better chance to understand about the deliberations and the recommendations of the round tables. I think that work speaks well about the public consultation process, it speaks about the passion the round table members and the people who presented to them have about the future of our land use planning in Ontario and it speaks well for that process.

Ms Martel: I say to the minister that British Columbia undertook a similar land use exercise. It took them four years to complete this exercise. Your government has tried to ram this process through, first in a year; after the round table chairs appealed to you for more time, you extended it for another couple of months. But the round table chairs made it clear that none of the public saw any of the draft recommendations that were submitted to you. The public has not seen any of those recommendations and now they have only 30 days to reply.

1550

The other problem is you have consistently refused to provide the public with the social and economic impact analysis that will show how these land use designations will impact on our communities. Recommendation 159 in the report encourages you to do that. The round table chair for Boreal West also encouraged you to do that last week, yet you are asking people to comment on land use designations without them having any idea of how these will impact on their communities. Why have you consistently refused to do the economic studies that were needed so people would know how this would affect their communities?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the member opposite needs to take into consideration that this is probably the most extensive public consultation on public land use ever undertaken in the history of Ontario, certainly not a public consultation that was undertaken by your government when it was faced by these same kinds of issues. Rather than hide this in some backroom, we chose to go out and ask people across Ontario what they saw for the future of these lands and the resources that are so important to so many communities in Ontario.

We have released the recommendations that are made to me by the round tables. We've released those. We have provided 30 days for the public to comment on those recommendations. We'll take their comments very seriously on all 242 recommendations, including recommendation 159.

The ministry has been providing backup support to these round tables for the course of 16 months, providing them with scientific information, providing them with the best estimates we have of the impact of some of the recommendations. I think that information has been used to good advantage by the round tables and by the public at large, and I appreciate their participation in this process.

ICE STORM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The ice storm this past winter caused unprecedented amounts of damage. We know that many homeowners, businesses and farmers were affected. No government can begin to anticipate how to go about providing relief to so many people, but the government has a crucial role to play in responding to disasters. Can you tell us what efforts your ministry has made to help the people of eastern Ontario in the aftermath of the ice storm, and can you also provide us with an update on the efforts being made to settle relief claims to those affected by the storm?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think all members of this House recognize that the ice storm that affected eastern Ontario and most of eastern Canada was the largest single disaster ever to hit this country. So far, six times as many claims have been submitted on the ice storm than there were for the Red River flooding in Manitoba. As everyone in the House knows, this government acted immediately and quickly to get emergency disaster funding to those who required it. As a policy of this government, and recognizing the extent of the storm, we also agreed to match locally collected charitable contributions by a rate of four to one, which was another precedent-setting number, recognizing the extent of the damage.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Leach: I would also like to extend my congratulations to all the members of the community groups that took part in collecting that money. Some members of the opposition have been very critical of that process, but I would like to extend my -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Galt: In order to deal with a disaster of this magnitude, it is crucial that all governments work together. We know that the federal participation in the ice storm relief was indeed very important. I understand that you recently attended a conference of provincial ministers responsible for disaster relief to discuss federal-provincial co-operation in responding to disasters. Could you share with the members of this House the outcome of that meeting?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I did have an opportunity to travel to Winnipeg and meet with my counterparts from across the country to review a position that was unanimously agreed to by all the provinces. All the provincial ministers in attendance at that meeting agreed on the following points: The existing funding formula and commitment to the disaster financial assistance arrangement should be continued by the federal government. Any changes to the disaster financial assistance arrangement must be subject to a careful study, and we all agreed to take part in that study. We also agreed that a senior officials committee representing the federal government, the provincial governments and the territorial governments should be established to improve guidelines for the delivery of that financial assistance program.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Leach: The ministers agreed that the federal program is of immense importance to Canadians in every corner of the country and its future role is very important and must be -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday, Minister, you told us that Andersen Consulting had been thoroughly checked out. To use your words, "We checked with many other jurisdictions that had...good things to say about this particular company...."

The auditor informs us, however, that "the ministry informed us," when he asked about reference checks, "that it was unable to locate documentation prepared at the time of its reference checks for the short-listed vendors. Such reference checks are normally an integral part of the selection process and ought to be retained." In other words, they were destroyed. Whatever reference checks you had on Andersen Consulting were destroyed. Therefore, we now have no evidence of what was said in those reference letters. My question to you, Minister, is this: How could it possibly be, on a $180-million contract, that the key, essential reference letters have been destroyed?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, the documentation was not destroyed. It was misplaced. It was reproduced for the auditor's verification. Also it confirms what I've said clearly in this House and what the auditor flagged: The management of this process was not acceptable. That's why we've taken the steps to fix it and to prevent such problems from happening in the future.

However, I'd also like to say that the decision to do this reform is a decision that was necessary to take. That computer system, that technology that over a million people depend on to get their benefit cheques quite literally is in danger of crashing. This reform, the expertise that we have from Andersen, is going to enable us to reform that, to change it, to fix it, so it will be there so those individuals can depend on it.

Mr Phillips: Somebody is in error here, is the most charitable thing I can say. The auditor checked the references. They weren't there. This is extremely important. Minister, you say they were there. The auditor says they weren't there. The auditor sent a letter to the ministry saying, "What happened?" The ministry said, "We're sorry, we can't find them."

You now say that these reference letters that the auditor wanted were all the time somewhere in the ministry. Will you now today commit to table here in the Legislature those reference letters that were provided by Andersen Consulting so we can see that what you're saying here today is backed up by the facts?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member well knows, there are very specific rules around what documentation for public open tendering processes are allowed to be released. If this information is something the rules allow to be available on the public record, I'd be very pleased to table it.

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. I think he stepped out.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't think he's here.

Mr Silipo: I told him I had a question, so he may be coming back in.

The Speaker: You know what, you can't even stand it down. There's 30 seconds left. We're going to close it down at 4, so I suggest you redirect.

Mr Silipo: I'll ask whoever the acting Premier is then, and I'll ask the minister to come back and explain to us.

Earlier in the day, in answering a question, the Minister of Finance made a big deal -

The Speaker: I need to know who it's to.

Mr Silipo: To the acting Premier. I don't know who that is, Speaker. Maybe you could help me.

The Speaker: Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: The reason I wanted to ask the question directly of the finance minister is because earlier in question period the Minister of Finance made a big deal about the fact that from his perspective his income tax cuts are leading to more revenue coming into the coffers of the province. In fact, when you look at his own numbers, the opposite is true. If you look at page 49 of this document that he released today, if you look at the very first line, the personal income tax is actually down, under his own outlook, this year from last year and down even from the previous year.

I simply want to have the minister either correct the record or explain to me how these numbers mesh with the opposite statement he made earlier today and, more substantially, how it is that revenue is going down if, as the minister claims, his economic policy is working.

The Speaker: You've got 10 seconds. Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): What I said during question period was that total revenues from all forms of taxation are up $5.6 billion. When you allow Ontarians to keep more of their own -

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30(b), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and call orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This was a time-allocated motion. Pursuant to the time allocation motion, I put the question.

Mr Sampson has moved second reading of Bill 70. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1603 to 1608.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order.

Mr Sampson has moved second reading of Bill 70, a bill regarding the sale of Highway 407.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Kwinter, Monte

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Phillips, Gerry

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 16.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 2, 1998, this bill is referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Those who are leaving, I encourage you to continue your private conversations outside the chamber.

The Chair recognizes the minister from Durham West.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am very pleased today to open debate on second reading of Bill 73, the Child and Family Services Amendment Act. The purpose of these -

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you please move it first.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

Mrs Ecker moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and well being of children / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille afin de mieux promouvoir l'intérêt véritable de l'enfant, sa protection et son bien-être.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I said, I'm very pleased to open the debate on this legislation. The purpose of the amendments that I've tabled and moved second reading on today is to provide new rules to ensure better protection of children at risk of neglect and abuse. These amendments will create new and stronger tools to enable front-line workers, the professionals and the courts to do their jobs more effectively.

I would like to begin today by describing the process that led to these amendments and explain where they fit in our ongoing reform of Ontario's child protection system.

The child protection system that our government inherited in 1995 had some significant strengths, but it also had some very troubling weaknesses. When I had the privilege of attending a meeting of social services ministers in 1996 in British Columbia, I saw other provinces were facing some similar challenges and were struggling to reform their child protection systems. It flagged for me the need to examine our own system here in Ontario. The subsequent inquest into the deaths of children involved with children's aid societies and the report of the child mortality task force confirmed that children were tragically falling through the cracks.

While there was clear recognition of the problems, there was very little consensus among the child protection experts on what was required to fix the system. Some believed that the answers lay in more resources; some blamed it on a lack of proper training for front-line workers. Others focused on the legislation, but there were conflicts over whether the problem was with how the Child and Family Services Act was written or how it was being applied.

Our first conclusion was that simply throwing money at child protection without a plan, without priorities, did not make sense. Second, we recognized that there was little to be gained from tearing everything down and starting over. Instead, we agreed that we needed to build on the existing strengths to create a stronger child protection system.

The more we looked at the challenges we faced and the experiences of the other provinces, the more we recognized the need to focus on the foundations of child protection and on the right mix of tools and resources necessary to protect children.

The steps that we recognized, the steps that we are taking were to have proven risk assessment and tracking systems, well-trained front-line workers, necessary resources that match actual needs, all backed by a clear and balanced legal framework.

Over the past two years, we have been putting these tools and resources in place through a step-by-step reform of Ontario's child protection system. Last year, we mandated the use of a common risk assessment system by children's aid societies.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps we may not have a quorum in the House. Can you check?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you check and see if there is a quorum present, please?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the minister from Durham West.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, and I would like the record to show that the member for Cochrane South is indeed here and is indeed paying attention to this debate.

As I was mentioning earlier, over the past two years we have been putting in place those tools and resources to help guide us through a step-by-step reform of Ontario's child protection system. Last year, we mandated the use of a common risk assessment system to be used by children's aid societies. It is now in effect across the province, and it is helping protection workers make more informed judgments about children at risk.

Standards are being developed to govern the way that societies handle cases of neglect and abuse, and we will be monitoring the implementation of those standards.

We are on track to implement a new information database that will link all CASs together next March. The database will enable front-line workers to track high-risk families wherever they move, and it will also alert the workers to any past involvement with a child protection agency that a family may well have.

Applause.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you. I think this will indeed be very much of assistance to those workers to prevent families and children falling through the cracks.

In last year's budget, we allocated an extra $15 million to assist children's aid societies. That money has now been invested in hiring 220 additional new, permanent front-line workers. That money is also being used to improve other front-line supports such as the new database and better staff training.

Effective January 1 this year, the ministry assumed 100% funding of children's aid societies. We are now developing a new funding system for those societies that will provide equitable funding based on service needs and workload. This again is an extremely important reform.

Over 4,600 staff received intensive training on risk assessment this year, and we have introduced four new pilot projects to ensure that recent graduates have the skills and the knowledge they need to investigate child abuse and to better protect children.

Finally, in our recent provincial budget we announced additional funding of $170 million over three years for child welfare. This money will be spent for even more front-line workers, and also to revitalize a very important support, the foster care system, and for even more staff training to help those front-line workers make those very crucial decisions.

Child protection always involves very difficult questions for everyone involved, from front-line workers to health professionals to the courts to those of us in government. And the stakes are always very high, because when child protection fails, hindsight asks no easy questions. That's why we have proceeded carefully but steadily, why we have consulted with all sectors of the child protection system.

1620

We have received excellent advice that has guided us through this reform, guided us on all the steps that I've mentioned, especially with the question: Is the problem with our child protection legislation or with the way that legislation has been applied; has the pendulum swung too far between preserving and supporting families versus protecting the best interests of the child? And, frankly, is that even the right question at all?

To help us in this rethinking, last November I appointed a panel of distinguished experts, led by Judge Mary Jane Hatton, to consider the recommendations we had received from the various inquests into child deaths and from the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force. We also asked the members of this panel to give us their advice on the adequacy of the current child protection rules in the Child and Family Services Act.

Following consultations with parents, with young people and with professionals in the fields of child welfare, health, justice, law enforcement and education, the expert panel delivered its report earlier this year.

The principal recommendation of the panel was that the Child and Family Services Act needed to strike a better balance between concerns for the family and the best interests of the child. They told us that it must be made clear that the paramount purpose of the act is to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children. In plain language, when there are doubts about the safety of a child, they must always be resolved in the best interests of that child.

We listened to their advice and to the advice from the task force and the inquest, and that advice has been very helpful to us in developing a package of amendments that focuses on those areas most critical to better protecting children. The amendments we are considering today are the first significant changes to child protection legislation in Ontario in 10 years. Their purpose is to make clear that the legal framework for child protection puts the best interests of children first.

Bill 73 focuses on those rules critical to improving the protection of vulnerable children in several very important areas.

First, the amendments make it clear that promoting the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children is the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act.

Second, Bill 73 expands the grounds for finding a child in need of protection in three ways.

The threshold for triggering the protection of a child would be reduced from the current wording, "substantial risk," to wording that says "risk that the child is likely to be harmed." This should result in earlier reporting and earlier action taken to protect children.

To remove the uncertainty that exists in the current legislation concerning neglect, about whether or not the legislation actually covers neglect, we propose to add the words "pattern of neglect" in the grounds for protection.

The amendments would also improve protection of children in cases of emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm.

The third key objective of this bill is to end the current uncertainty over the responsibilities of the public and professionals to report that a child is or may be in need of protection. A single duty to report for the public and for professionals is created by this bill. The penalty for professionals who fail to report would be extended to include all the reasons for protection, not just suspected abuse, as is the case now.

The fourth priority is the need to improve what is called permanency planning for children in the care of a children's aid society. The proposed amendments would reduce the length of time that a child under six years of age could be in a society's temporary care. This will encourage an earlier achievement of the stability and the permanency so necessary for young children.

The fifth broad objective of the amendments is to improve the access of children's aid societies to the information they need to fulfill their protection mandate. Court processes would be streamlined and the grounds for obtaining the information would be expanded. CASs would be allowed to apply for a warrant or telewarrant to obtain information during the 21 days allowed for a protection investigation. In addition, CASs would be allowed to make an application where the information may be relevant to monitoring certain court orders.

The sixth point is that the Child and Family Services Act currently does not address conduct towards a child who has not been under a parent's or caregiver's direct care in the past. In future, under these amendments, evidence of past conduct towards any child, and not just the child in the person's care, would be admissible in any child protection proceeding. In addition, this evidence could be admitted at any stage in a child protection proceeding - another very important change we are proposing in this legislation.

Finally, Bill 73 provides for a mandatory review of the Child and Family Services Act at least every five years and for that report, the results of that review, to be made public. This reflects the government's view that the legal framework for child protection must be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it is responding sensitively and effectively to the changing needs in the child protection sector. Not only are we changing those rules that will have the most positive impact on child protection now, but we are also laying the groundwork for future necessary improvements to this very important legislation.

As important as these amendments are in strengthening the protection of children in Ontario, they are only one part of the solution to the challenges that face our child protection system.

Effective child protection requires a careful mix of tools and resources for front-line workers, professionals and the courts. The step-by-step approach we have taken to reforming the child protection system is addressing each of these needs in a systemic and comprehensive fashion.

The ongoing investments and improvements I have described today, combined with the amendments we are proposing, which we are discussing this afternoon, will strengthen the foundations of child protection in Ontario. They will ensure regular review of the legislative framework for protection and they will ensure the consideration of future improvements. They reflect the broad consultations we have conducted and the helpful advice we have been given.

I would like to thank all of those individuals in the children's aid societies on the front line, and those other individuals who are involved in the sector, for the advice and the support they have given us as we have moved forward with these important reforms.

In closing - and I was remiss at the beginning in not telling you that I am indeed sharing my time this afternoon - the final point I would like to make is that all of these changes provide children's aid societies and their workers with the tools and resources they need to better protect children. They make clear that the best interests, the protection and the well-being of children are always paramount, and that protecting vulnerable children must always come first.

Thank you very much. I look forward to the input from the opposition on this very important legislation.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute some thoughts of mine on this bill that has been introduced by the minister.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need legislation to protect our young people; they would be protected by loving parents. But unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world, so change is necessary. As the minister stated, it's been over 10 years since the act was changed, and it is desperately in need of a lot of change.

One thing we've heard as we've discussed the issues of child welfare around the province is how important it is that we intervene early in the life of children. Just as an aside, I think we can't talk about our changes to our child welfare act without mentioning programs like our Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program, which is certainly one of the best programs I've seen come forward from any government. I know the members opposite feel very strongly about it also. For those children who are identified at birth to be at risk because of various issues, it allows for more involvement by those who would help them, so that hopefully in the future life would be a little better for them and they wouldn't face all kinds of extra problems as they go down the road. That's a program that has been introduced, funding has been increased dramatically for that program and I know that all in the House join in welcoming that program.

1630

The other program we have introduced is the Learning, Earning and Parenting program. This involves a program to help young mothers with young children to get some of the assistance they require so they can improve their own personal situation, so that in the future they can provide a better life for their child. That's another program that has been introduced and will lead to better results in the future.

Having said those things, we're still faced with the fact that a lot of the most vulnerable people in our society, our young people, are at risk day after day because of situations they find themselves in that they have no control over. I compliment the minister for the consultation that has taken place and for the act she has brought forward that I think addresses many of the issues she heard and many of the recommendations she heard.

It's interesting that a piece of legislation on something as emotional as child welfare would receive such province-wide endorsement as we have seen as a result of this act. Here I look at an article from the Financial Post: "Children's Rights Put Ahead of Family in Changes to Law"; a headline from the Toronto Sun: "Tories Move to Protect Children"; a headline from the Toronto Star, a paper that doesn't necessarily endorse all the policies of our particular government: "New Law Helps Abused Children"; a headline from the North Bay Nugget: "Child Welfare Top Priority in New Bill"; a headline from the Globe and Mail: "Ontario to Beef Up Child Protection: Act de-emphasizes preserving family unit"; the Kingston Whig-Standard: "Ontario Institutes Tough New Laws on Child Welfare"; the Hamilton Spectator: "New Bill Puts Children First" - is that not where they appropriately should be? - and "Public are encouraged to report suspected mistreatment" is the sub-heading; from the Sault Ste Marie Star: "New Laws Put Safety of Children Above Importance of the Family Unit: Legislation will broaden grounds for removing children from the home"; from the Sudbury Star: "Law Puts the Child Ahead of the Family in Abuse Cases: The rights of parents to see children who have been taken from them will be restricted"; the Cambridge Reporter: "Fewer Kids Will Fall Through the Cracks: The FCS director welcomes the overhaul"; the clipping from the Port Hope Evening Guide: "Bill Aimed at Keeping Kids Safe from Abuse"; and finally, from the Woodstock Daily Sentinel: "Child Welfare Reform Wins Praise from the Children's Aid Society Chief."

It would appear, from the newspaper clippings at least, that the reforms that are laid out in Bill 73 by the minister are right on the mark and respond to input we've received from various providers of services and are what the public has been asking for.

I would like to briefly elaborate a little on the different positions that the bill deals with. The minister made reference to all of them but, given the opportunity, I'd like to elaborate on them just a little bit.

The number one proposed change is that the paramount purpose of the bill very emphatically says now that it's for the protection and well-being of children. If you compare that with the current act, the current act certainly does make reference to the protection and well-being of children, but it also talks about five other purposes. Oftentimes in interpretation of the bills, the paramount purpose didn't always come through as being for the well-being and protection of the child, so there tended to be some confusion there. In the new act it very specifically says the paramount purpose of the bill is for the protection and well-being of our children.

One of the other purposes in the current act states that the least restrictive or disruptive course of action should be followed. The term "least restrictive" has sometimes unintentionally resulted in children being kept in dangerous situations. So amendments proposed in Bill 73 remove the words "least restrictive" to ensure that the clause on the best interests of the child is clearly paramount.

The second issue that's dealt with in the proposed bill is grounds for finding a child in need of protection, and here, of course, we introduce the subject of neglect. We have lowered the threshold somewhat for determining that a child is in fact in need of protection. The threshold of risk of harm is reduced quite dramatically by replacing the words "substantial risk," which exists in the current act, with the phrase "risk that the child is likely to be harmed." We effectively have introduced the subject of neglect as grounds for a child needing protection, and we have also lowered the threshold.

We also talk in terms of the terminology "pattern of neglect," so that when dealing with physical harm or risk of physical harm, emotional harm or risk of emotional harm, the phraseology or the idea of "pattern of neglect" comes into play.

We also talk in the bill about evidence of past parenting, because there is certainly something that can be learned from adults' treatment of children. The current act talks about the fact that adults' treatment of children who have been under their care must be considered, so if we have a situation involving a child, if the adult involved with that child has a pattern of neglect of a child who has been under their care, that has to be considered. The new act expands on that and talks about the fact that the treatment of any child by that adult, not necessarily just one who has been under their care, must be considered in any court proceeding.

On the fourth issue we get into the whole area of duty to report, and the purpose of the act there is to clarify the duty of professionals and the public to report that a child is or may be in need of protection. The proposed change we're talking about there involves professionals in the public being required to report if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection. We have strengthened the reporting requirements there, not because people didn't understand their obligation to report, but the act wasn't particularly clear on what circumstances they should report.

The act also makes reference to the fact that a professional or other person is obligated to report on an incident even if they have already reported on that situation prior, so their obligation doesn't end with just one report.

Also an issue that has been of some concern that the proposed legislation addresses is the whole area of access to information. The purpose of the changes or the amendments is to make it easier for children's aid societies to get the information they need to protect children. Under the new act, should it pass this House, children's aid societies would be allowed to ask the court for access to information without notice in emergency situations, and for the first time the act would also set out a process for getting information through the courts where the information is necessary to investigate allegations that a child is or may be in need of protection. Again, this goes back to the whole idea of protection of the child being the paramount purpose of the child protection legislation.

A big area of change comes under the heading of what we would call maximum time for society wardship. Under the old act it was very possible for a revolving-door type of set-up to occur. I'm talking now about children who are six and under. Under the current system, before they can be declared a ward of the state, they have to be in care for 24 months. Unfortunately, every time the child would be returned to their family, the clock would stop, and should that child then come back into care, a new clock would start, so it was very difficult to get to the 24 months of care under the children's aid society with a new clock starting every time.

1640

What we're proposing in the new act is that the 24 months be reduced to 12 months and that in actual fact the 12 months include any period of time the child was in the care of the children's aid society. Should a child come into care for five months, be returned to its parents and then for some reason unfortunately have to come back into care, that five months that had already taken place would be counted in the total accumulation of the 12 months required.

The idea here is that we will put children's aid societies in a position to be able to make a determination much more quickly, or get to the final round of where they're able to put a child into some permanent situation, because all the experts tell us that the sooner the child can get out of the revolving door syndrome and be put into permanent care, the better it is for the child. Hopefully, that will improve that whole situation.

Another area that is addressed in the proposed legislation is access by people to crown wards. The court is in a position to grant access to young children who have been made crown wards. The problem with a ward of the state or a crown ward is that court-ordered access by other people precludes adoption. If we consider that the ideal disposition of a young child who has come into care and been made a ward of the state is to be adopted, if we have many people having strings attached to that child through court-ordered access orders, the poor child is in a position where they cannot find loving parents to adopt them and give them a permanent, loving family.

What the new act addresses is that there has to be a higher burden for that person seeking a court-ordered access so that there's a benefit for the child from that court access being awarded. It's not just awarded because this distant relative said, "I'm that child's grandfather," - well, not a distant relative - "therefore I need to have access." There now has to be the burden of proof that to grant the person access benefits the child. If that is not there, then the court will not grant the access.

The other issue is that access orders, once granted, can be cancelled if it's proven that they're not in the best interests of the child. We come back to this all the time: What is in the best interests of the child we're dealing with, because we're talking about child protection, not parent protection.

The last thing the minister made reference to is the fact that there is a provision in the proposed new legislation that every five years the act has to be reviewed so that it can be kept up to date. We know that currently it's been 10 years since the act was reviewed. We know that all people who are concerned with child welfare understand that some changes have been necessary. It's been 10 years. They're tough to do. Now the act says specifically that every five years the act has to be reviewed, with an eye towards making any required changes.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that, should the House see fit to pass it, looks like it's been universally acclaimed by those who are in this area. I know the members of the opposition have been quoted as saying it's a welcome piece of legislation. I think we have addressed many of the concerns of the people who deal with young persons. We haven't addressed all of them. Time will see a requirement for more and more issues to be addressed in the future. But I think we've set the framework for a different philosophy of child care protection that means that what's best for the child is the golden rule by which every action will be judged.

In summing up, I want to compliment the minister and staff of the ministry for the consultation process they've gone through. I think they have captured what was said. They have responded with a good piece of legislation and hopefully we will finish the debate, have a little time in committee and in fact enact a new piece of legislation to protect vulnerable children of our society.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

That is a priority of this government. I think it's very evident by the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act that the step-by-step approach to ensuring child welfare in this province is being implemented. Obviously the intention of the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act is to better protect children. If it's passed, it sets out a number of objectives in terms of accomplishing this goal.

One of them is to make clear that the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act is to promote the best interests, the protection and the well-being of children. Being a father of four children, I can tell you that it's obviously very important to me personally, being involved in the daily lives of my own children and also being involved with other children in the community through their friendships and being involved in doing works within the community. It's fundamental to make sure our children are developed properly and that they are also protected.

One of the other aspects of the amendments is to expand the reasons for finding a child in need of protection. For instance, the word "neglect" would be specifically included and the threshold for risk of harm and emotional harm to children would be lower. We're talking about the risk of physical harm and also emotional harm. They are very fundamental components of how a child is put at risk and how their development is in fact not only put at risk but also handicapped. This will encourage earlier action to protect children at risk.

Another change would allow evidence of a parent's past conduct towards children to be used in child protection court proceedings. I think that's a very fundamental change. Obviously that's relevant to the protection of the child in terms of the parent's past conduct. I certainly feel that this change, which obviously fundamentally changes the Evidence Act, is necessary in terms of making sure that the judge and the decider of the case has all the information in front of him or her to make the best decision possible in the best interests of the child.

I can only say that that's what we should be trying to find. We should obviously be trying to find out all the facts and making sure that -

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like me to check and see?

Mr Bisson: Could you, please?

The Deputy Speaker: Would you check and see if there's a quorum present.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Simcoe Centre.

1650

Mr Tascona: I was dealing with the parent's past conduct towards the child being used in court proceedings. As I said, it's very fundamental to make sure we get all the facts out so the trier of the situation can make a decision with respect to protecting the child's interests.

The other aspect is clarifying the duty of professionals and the public to report that a child is or may be in need of protection, to encourage more reporting of suspected abuse and neglect. That's certainly fundamental in terms of child protection, to make sure that the system not only is in place but in fact is working. You have to make sure that the checks and balances are there.

We're also going to be making it easier for children's aid societies to get the information they need to protect children, and also to promote earlier and more decisive planning for children's futures so that permanent arrangements for children can be achieved as soon as possible. That is certainly fundamental for any child in terms of their development and also their protection. I laud the minister for those changes.

We're going to ensure that access by relatives and other individuals to children who have been made crown wards is granted only if it is beneficial to the child. That is also fundamental with the paramount purpose of this legislation, which is to protect the child.

We'll be providing for a mandatory review of the Child and Family Services Act at least every five years. That is important because we need to make sure that the system and the statutory protections which are in place are reviewed in a consistent and timely manner so that we can make the changes that are necessary to better protect the child and make the system more responsive to the protection of the child.

Those are some of the steps that are being taken with respect to the reform of the child welfare system.

There have also been other steps taken to improve Ontario's child welfare system. Those other steps include a common risk assessment system mandated for all children's aid societies, which is now in effect across the province, helping workers to make better judgments about when a child is at risk. That certainly is important because we need those professionals to be able to make the assessments that are necessary to do their job, and to make sure that the children are protected within the mandate of the statutory framework so that we can ensure that the system is not only responsive but is in fact working. That is important because we have to make sure that the workers are protected so they can make better judgments about when a child is at risk. There isn't one child we want to risk going through the system who isn't protected.

It's a failure of the system if one child is not protected, if there aren't sufficient safeguards put in place. It's a tragedy on society. It's a measure of society in terms of how we protect our most frail and our most needy and the most vulnerable in our society. I think that is a very strong measure of this government in terms of where it puts its priorities: putting children first and protecting their interests.

Another step that has been taken is a new information database to link all children's aid societies, which is on track for implementation, I understand, next March. The database will help front-line workers track high-risk families wherever they move and alert the system to past children's aid society involvement in these cases. That is fundamental in terms of bringing accountability to the system, to make sure we're not operating in a vacuum. We also know that we have a tracking system out there to make sure that high-risk families are tracked in terms of protecting the children. That's what we're here for; that's what the system was set up for. In this day of modern technology and the communications network that we have set up, there is no excuse for not being able to monitor and track children who are in high-risk situations so that we can protect them.

Another step that has been taken is that an additional $50 million was invested last year to hire 220 additional front-line workers to support the new database and to improve staff training at children's aid societies. I think that's money well spent. Obviously, it's necessary. You have to make sure the database we've been talking about is there so that you have an effective communications system. You also have to make sure that staff training is there and that there's front-line staff available that is well trained and can do the job to protect the child.

Another step that has been taken is that additional funding of $170 million is being invested over the next three years for more new staff, revitalizing foster care and training front-line workers. That's another investment in front-line staff to make sure that children's needs are not only understood but that they're also protected from those who would put children at risk. You have to have those front-line workers out there not only to make sure they can do their job effectively but that they can be responsive to the needs of the child. You do not want to allow one child to fall through the cracks in the system, because that is a tragedy.

Another step that has been taken is Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, an early intervention program for high-risk children under the age of 6, which is being expanded.

A new approach to funding children's aid societies that is equitable and better reflects workload and service needs will be introduced. Training and orientation for professionals, including doctors and teachers, is being developed to assist them in their duty to report cases where a child is or may be in need of protection. That is fundamental. You do not want a situation at a school where a child is not regularly attending or it's obvious that the child has some difficulties or the child is missing from school.

The teachers have to know that they have a fundamental duty not only in a moral sense but a statutory obligation of understanding where they should be involved and where they should be protecting the child's interests. After all, if you're dealing with children and they're at school and the teacher and the school system have them for at least eight hours a day, who are in a better position to judge the character and development of those children other than the professionals working with them at the school? That's something we have to make sure of, and I think it's a fundamental need, the coordination of the child protection system with our educational system, because obviously they're interrelated. There has to be integration and it has to respond and be effective in terms of protecting the child's interests.

1700

I welcome that type of change, the training and orientation for not only doctors, who obviously would care for the family, but also for teachers to help them in their duty - and I stress, the statutory duty - of professionals such as doctors and also teachers to report cases where a child is or may be in need of protection.

I can't overemphasize that point in terms of the role the system must play. You can put all the statutory protections you want out there, but the fact of the matter is that it has to work. You have to create a database, a communications system, to make sure that when a child who is in risk, the situation is not only tracked but it's monitored and it's kept up to date. You also have to have the system integrated with respect to the children's aid societies, with respect to the school system, with respect to the medical system, so that whatever system that child is put into, there are people who are trained to make sure that they can identify when a child is or may be in need of protection. That is very fundamental to what we're trying to accomplish here.

I'd also like to comment on some of the proposed changes, certainly the change in the purpose of the child protection act, to make it clear that the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act "is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children."

The introductory section of the Child and Family Services Act states that a paramount purpose of the act is "to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children." However, it also sets out five other purposes. As a result, the paramount purpose is not always given primary importance in practice and is balanced against the other purposes by the trier of the situation. Obviously a judge who is confronted with a situation is trying to balance the factors and make sure that he obtains and accomplishes the objectives of the statute. But I think the changes that we're putting in place now make it very clear, and the focus is very clear, in terms of what the paramount purpose is, and the paramount purpose is to put the child's protection, the best interests of the child, up front. That's obviously what the raison d'être of that statute is, to make sure that the child who is in need of protection is in fact protected.

There are other changes in the bill that cover that in terms of grounds for finding a child in need of protection. As I said earlier, evidence of past parenting has to be considered by the court when used in a child protection proceeding.

There is also the duty to report, and that's something I want to focus on right now and emphasized a little bit earlier. The purpose is to clarify the duty of professionals and the public to report that a child is or may be in need of protection. Currently, everyone has a duty to report when they believe on reasonable grounds that a child is or may be in need of protection. Professionals such as doctors, health care workers and teachers are subject to penalty if they fail to report that they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be abused. However, the current requirements are somewhat confusing.

The proposed change is this: Professionals and the public would be required to report if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection. The penalty for professionals who fail to report would be extended to all the grounds for protection, not just abuse. The act would also clarify that professionals cannot delegate the duty to report to another individual and that the duty to report is an ongoing obligation. What we're talking about here is a statutory duty, mandated in law, that I think has to be taken very seriously. In other words, any individual, I would say public or professional, who suspects that a child is or may be in need of protection, must report it directly to a children's aid society. They must report additional suspicions even if they have already reported a previous incident. I think that's very fundamental in terms of ensuring that they focus not only on their duty to report, but also that they understand and take some interest in terms of the situation they're involved in. They may have reported an incident, but that's not enough. They have to be aware of what's ongoing with that child. I think that would be fundamental with respect to a doctor or, for that matter, a health care worker or a teacher if they have daily contact with that child and they suspect something and it's based on, as we say, reasonable grounds.

This duty to report is fundamental and it has to be emphasized that people have to take this seriously. Who is going to protect that child? Do not expect that language in a statute is going to protect that child, because it's not. The only way to protect the child is to set up a structure based on information exchanged but also that the people who work in the systems, be it medical, educational, be it in the health care system or with the children's aid societies, fundamentally know their role. That's why training and public education in this area is fundamental, not only to being able to carry out the task to protect the child but giving a level of comfort to the people who really care about the child and family services so that the system has an opportunity to work. That's what we're trying to ensure here through this piece of legislation, the amendments to this act.

I mentioned earlier improved access to information. The purpose is to make it easier for children's aid societies to get the information they need to protect children. That is a very common-sense and laudatory goal. It's so fundamental that it shouldn't even have to be said, but the bottom line is that's the role they put in place. They need that information. There shouldn't be any barriers to that information.

Currently, the act sets out a process by which children's aid societies can apply to the court when they need information that will help them to protect children. However, there are several concerns with this process. For one, it only covers information relevant to whether a child is, or is likely to be, abused and none of the other grounds for protection. For another, it requires the children's aid society to give notice to the person who has the information even in emergency situations, which takes time, and time is something that we don't have when a child is in need of protection. We have to act immediately.

Also, it's not clear whether the process can be used to get information needed at the investigation stage. We don't need a statute that's not clear. We don't need a statute that takes time. We need a statute that gets the job done.

So the proposed changes are: The act would be extended to include all the grounds for protection, not just abuse; children's aid societies would be allowed to ask the court for access to information without notice in emergency situations; for the first time the act would also set out a process for getting information through the courts where the information is necessary to investigate allegations that a child is or may be in need of protection.

I'm very pleased to have been able to speak on this bill. I support the changes to the Child and Family Services Act. I believe firmly that it's going to better promote the best interests and protect the well-being of children and I support it.

1710

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It's a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act. I can tell you that this is an area of law that requires a lot of balance. Often people who are not familiar with the child welfare provisions and the way the system works wonder what's happening when you have inquests into baby deaths, children dying, and the inquests make certain recommendations. But it's an area so important that it's important that we put it in a certain perspective.

I rise today to speak on it principally because I have had experience on both sides of this area. As a young law student, I was an emergency social worker during the evening. From 4 pm to 8 am, I would cover for social workers in the region of Peel, to deal with social work issues that came up during the evening.

I can recall being on a farm in Caledon where there was a family problem and there was some violence in the family. Having to go to a farm setting without having any information as to the prior history of this family and, as a peace officer under the act, having to attend at a home and apprehend children into the care of children's aid to protect them from family violence without any information is a position that very few people would like to be in. This new, expanded information database to track family history is very welcome and will assist social workers in that kind of situation when they have to deal with a family. At least they'll have some information as to what kind of problem they can expect.

I have also had experience, for 10 years as a member of the official guardian's panel on child representation, of being on the other side of the situation. I represented children who were being apprehended by the children's aid society. That's why I indicate to you that there has to be a balance. Even though some recommendations come up and we act on them, I can tell you and tell the social workers out there from the different agencies that they should exercise a great deal of discretion, a great deal of care when they come into a family and apprehend a child and go through the proceedings, because the family unit is still a very important unit and should be dismantled only when there are good grounds for doing so.

But this bill provides sufficient guidelines, and the fact that it has a provision that requires its review every five years is something that I welcome because there are a lot of changes in the family, changes in society, that require an adjustment every once in a while. I stand today in support of these improvements and I am glad to see that most members of this House also support these amendments.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question to the speakers would be whether they are supportive of the dire need in St Catharines for a new building for family and children's services to go along with this bill. I know that when you have new legislation and there is perhaps an expansion of activity that might take place, it puts even more pressure locally on the need for an appropriate building to handle these matters. Everybody likes to think of it as bricks and mortar, but certainly it is important.

We have a highly substandard building in St Catharines housing the family and children's services. I've had a chance to tour it on a number of occasions. One of the problems is that it's very hard to work in terms of confidentiality when people are virtually working side by side in that building. It tends to increase the morale substantially when you have an atmosphere which is far better than you can have in cramped quarters, which will require some considerable retrofitting and other work over a period of time.

The family and children's services of the Niagara region has met with ministry officials, has made a couple of ministers aware of the need for this new building, and the very dedicated employees of the family and children's services and the board of directors and the volunteers who are involved would very much appreciate the green light which would be forthcoming from the Ontario government in this regard.

I certainly wouldn't at all say, I can guarantee you I will not say that it's just because there's an election coming that you've provided that money. I promise you today I won't say that if you announce that there's going to be an investment in that building which is needed so very much. I'll be interested to see whether the members on the government side are prepared to make that commitment today and I'll bring the good news back to family and children's services.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to thank the speakers who have outlined the content of the bill. I'd like to address my response particularly to the member for Mississauga East, because I found your comments very important and I think they form a base on which much of the debate around this bill should revolve.

I believe very strongly that all members of this Legislature will support the overriding intent of the legislation, to ensure that child protection is child-focused and that the best interests of the child are always at the centre of decision-making.

One of the questions that we'll have to engage ourselves in as legislators, as we review this - I understand there is a commitment that we will be holding hearings on this bill - is how to strike that balance. The last review of the legislation was very much about that question. You can tell, in swings of society, there was a pendulum swing in a direction that said taking children from the home and putting them in foster care and institutional care has its costs for child development as well. There are very strong feelings at those times and many horror stories of abuse and neglect in institutional care of children that are equally as disturbing as what we are dealing with now.

I think the pendulum is swinging back and the question for us is to get the right balance in where it stops. I hope that as we approach this process we will have a very open mind to listening to people. I think many of the directions in here are supportable. Some of them might require a balanced amendment, a test as to whether we've got it right and whether we are in fact putting in place a regime which will be in the best interests of the child, and to ensure that the supports and services that will be in the best interests of the child and the family are in place too.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to congratulate the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Mississauga East on their very thoughtful comments on this bill. I think it is vital that in this legislation the protection and well-being of children does become clearly the paramount purpose of the act. Both members spoke to that, and spoke to it very well.

We know there are parts of the current act which have sometimes perhaps unintentionally resulted in children being kept in dangerous situations, and a lot of times when we read about these tragedies of children who are abused and sometimes killed in these dangerous situations, the family and children's services from that area have been restricted, in their view, by parts of the current act. What's absolutely vital about this act is that we're changing that to make sure the kids and their safety is the most important thing. I don't think there's anyone in the Legislature who's going to disagree with that.

1720

To the member for St Catharines, he should be happy to know that when he was a cabinet minister from 1987 to 1990, and when the member for Welland-Thorold was a cabinet minister in the government from 1990 to 1995, they were both unable to achieve equitable funding for long-term and home care in the Niagara region. Four Conservative backbenchers in the last three years have in fact been able to achieve that from this government, getting over a 50% increase in the funding.

On the same note, he should know that we've spent a lot of time with the family and children's services also, with their request for a new building and the problems that they have in the location they are in now. He will be happy to know that we believe we're making quite a bit of headway, and hopefully we'll be able to announce some kind of funding in the very near future for that.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We are indeed pleased that this bill has been brought forward. It has been a long time in coming and will be welcomed, we know, by the many people who are involved in providing child protection services across Ontario.

As the member for Beaches-Woodbine has said, most of the tenets are supportable. We will be raising concerns about what's missing from the bill. We're also going to be wanting this bill examined in full committee hearings, both because of what's missing and also because it does introduce a very major change in the way in which we approach the issue of child protection.

I agree that the member for Mississauga East has very clearly defined what we think is a discussion that has to take place. If the pendulum swung too far in one direction in terms of the interest of keeping the child in the family being paramount, how do we ensure that the pendulum won't swing too far in the other direction because of the introduction of the changes in this bill? What kind of supports need to be put in place to ensure that our primary concern is to provide some assurance that the child can stay in a family that is supportive and nurturing, and where that child is not at risk?

We're also going to be wanting to raise concerns, both in the course of debate on the bill and I suspect in committee, about the funding support, which is absolutely essential if this bill is to provide protection for even one additional child. I noted that there was considerable mention - in fact, every government member who spoke, spoke about the $15 million that has been put into the budgets of children's aid societies this year to hire 220 additional front-line workers. I would remind the government members that that does not yet compensate for the $17 million that was removed from children's aid societies' budgets as one of the first actions of this government.

We will certainly be raising the concern about where the commitment is to actually put in place the dollars that were announced, the $170 million over three years that was supposed to be in place in order to provide the support for meeting the needs that are already unmet by children's aid societies that are too financially strapped.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Mississauga East, would you like to sum up? Oh, you spoke to this as well.

Member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the comments of the member for St Catharines, the member for Fort William, the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Niagara Falls.

Certainly the idea of a balance is something that we need to look at. It's tough really to cover all those things in legislation, because they're all subject to interpretation. We must somehow set a framework that can be interpreted with that balance in mind. It certainly is an issue. We don't want to break up families if they don't have to be broken up, and yet we do want to be sure that we're protecting the child. That is a big issue. Many parts of that issue will be left to a decision-making body, be it the courts or whomever, at some point in the future. The legislation can only provide the framework.

To the member for St Catharines, we didn't really find out what he thought about the bill. He was only interested in a building. I'm not sure exactly what the building has to do with child protection, but that was seemingly his only interest.

To the member for Fort William, of course, that's a typical Liberal overture; we always need more money. Everything relates to more money, more money, more money. In actual fact, we tried that more-money solution on most things. We tried it for about 10 years in this province: "Let's just throw more money at everything."

All that throwing more money at things did was get us into a whole mess and mortgage our children's future. More money is not the solution. We need to change how we do things. But as we can always expect from the Liberals, the first rally cry is, "Spend more money, and that will lead us to the promised land." It won't, and we will not see that as an alternative.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs McLeod: Madam Speaker, may I have consent to defer the hour leadoff speech for our caucus until our critic, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, is able to be present?

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you. I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate because this is a subject which I feel is of extreme importance. I think we would all be in agreement on that. Because it is so important and because the bill has been so long in coming, we all welcome its introduction.

I am a little bit frustrated, and my House leader will appreciate this fact, that a bill of such importance, that has been awaited for so long, has been actually introduced for debate with so little notice. I want to indicate my frustration as a legislator. It's not solely because I regret the fact that our critic is not able to be here today on such little notice and because of some serious family concerns. Obviously I regret that she is not here to lead off this speech. But I raise this concern about the very little notice for participating in the debate because I think that has become more and more typical of the way in which important legislative measures are introduced into this House. I think all of us as legislators should express our concern, as this doesn't lead to the kind of full consideration of important issues that should take place here.

Having said that, let me turn to the bill and begin by acknowledging the title of the bill, Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and well being of children, to which we would all say amen. I know this government puts a considerable amount of public relations energy into conceiving titles for bills, trying to convince the public that it is doing something which it actually is not doing. I think, of course, of Bill 160, which was intended to improve the quality of education, according to the title, and most would recognize it was indeed intended to take control of the funding of education. This issue of funding, on the part of a government that has taken 100% control of the funding of children's aid societies, is one which I am going to refer to during the course of this debate.

This bill, according to its title, is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children. It amends the Child and Family Services Act. The Child and Family Services Act is a bill about the protection of children. This bill, amending that act, is about protection. The best interests and the well-being of children go far beyond the changes in this act. It is absolutely, fundamentally important that every one of us acknowledge that fact. Unless the government acts in a host of ways to meet the needs of children in Ontario, the pressures on the children's aid societies to fill their legal mandate of protection, which is now to be expanded, are going to get greater and greater.

I look at the government record when it comes to acting in the best interests to promote the well-being of children, and I think we have to acknowledge that has not been a hallmark of this government's record to date. We know they cut children's aid societies' budgets by $17 million. The $15 million which has been trumpeted today - each of the speeches of the government members talked about the $15 million which has been put in place in the last year - still doesn't make up for the $17 million that has been cut.

We also know there have been cuts to children's mental health budgets. We know the kinds of waiting lists that are faced by every children's mental health agency across this province. We know that has also meant restricted assessment, restricted opportunities for early intervention in the kinds of problems that children and families are experiencing.

We also know that there is very restricted assessment going on of children who have problems in school, which is often where the troubled child, sometimes in a troubled family, first manifests their problems. We know that in the funding formula, which is the subject of great debate in many forums today, we see the provision for something called "professional and para-professional supports" being one for 800 elementary school children and one for every 476 secondary school children. In case you think that sounds like a reasonable amount to provide assessment and support for troubled children, let me tell you that figure has to include attendance counsellor funding, psychologists, psychometrists, social workers, child and youth workers, community workers, library technicians and computer technicians. I suggest that with that kind of very restricted funding, there is going to be very little support to children in difficulty in a school situation, where those problems are first manifest.

1730

I think we should be intensifying our support for children both in community agency settings and in school settings. I think we should be intensifying that support because we know that there is more tension creating more problem situations with children and with families. We know that this government's record when it comes to providing comprehensive support to children in their family settings is not a strong one.

We think about the cuts to social assistance, which have primarily affected children. We think about the fact that this is a government that wasn't even prepared to provide a milk supplement for pregnant mothers. We think of the fact that under this government we have 71,000 children who are having to use food banks. That's a 65% increase over 1995 and that's the record of the Mike Harris government in being concerned for the well-being and the best interests of children. We know that there are 500,000 children who are living at or below the poverty line in this richest of all provinces. We know that food bank use is the second-highest in the country. That's the record under the Harris government.

We know that child care has been cut some $65 million. The minister earlier today talked about the increase in child care funding. My understanding is that this is the first Ontario government in history to have cut child care funding.

We know that with the impact of school closures being dictated by other areas in which the government controls 100% of the funding, there are going to be literally thousands of children receiving child care in a school setting who are evicted and looking for child care elsewhere. That lack of accessibility to child care adds to the pressures on families who are already struggling to cope with the fact that they must work in order to survive and they also want to be able to provide care for their children.

I look at homelessness and the fact that this government pulled out of any kind of housing program. They say they're not in the housing building any longer. Maybe we don't think about that as having an effect on the well-being and the interests of children, but there are some 600 families in Ontario who are living in emergency shelters. That affects the well-being of children. That is not in the best interests of children.

You can't talk about bringing in a bill that is not only to promote the protection of children but to be in their best interests and promote their well-being when you're taking actions on so many fronts that have a negative effect on the well-being of children. There are some 7,000 to 10,000 homeless youth in the city of Toronto alone. Is this government prepared to act in the best interests of those 7,000 to 10,000 youth?

I think it would be remiss of us to focus our attention, as the government might hope, solely on the steps that are taken here to provide for greater protection of children at risk through a legal mandate to children's aid societies if we're not also prepared to acknowledge the reality that many children and families face in our communities and how little protection - in fact how much reduced support and protection - those children and families are receiving.

The member for Chatham-Kent was most indignant that I would mention the fact that $15 million was not yet a replacement for the $17 million that had been cut from children's aid societies' budgets.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's true.

Mrs McLeod: It happens to be true.

I also raised it in the context of an expectation that has been created by this government that they were going to at least meet the needs of children's aid societies, the ones who are being given an expanded mandate under this bill. This government said, "We hear the concerns that you have, as agencies providing protection for children, that you don't have the resources you need to even meet the legal mandate for protection that is in the current Child and Family Services Act."

We thought we heard the government saying: "We understand that. We'll put back the $15 million, or at least we'll put back $15 million of the $17 million that we cut, but we're going to go beyond that and we're going to provide $170 million over the next three years in order to hire front-line workers and train workers." And yet we have not seen the $90 million of that commitment that was supposed to have been put in place this year.

We've also not seen the $100 million in contingency funds that children's aid societies have essentially already had to expend in order to meet the needs for protection of children under the current legal mandate that they are required to act on.

You can't bring in legislation, I say to the member for Chatham-Kent and to the minister, that expands the legal mandate for protection, as important as that is, to protect children at risk if you are not even providing enough financial support to children's aid societies today to carry out their existing legal mandate. We want to know where the $100 million in contingency funds is. We want to know whether the $90 million in new dollars that was supposed to be put in place this year is going to be part of the contingency fund. We want to make sure that children's aid societies have the resources they need to carry out what the government, and we agree, believes should be the ability of children's aid societies to act in the protection of children at risk.

We do not argue the need for the measures that are put forward in this particular legislation. Our concern will be with the resources to carry out the measures, not with the measures themselves. We have called for this kind of legislation to come forward for the last three years, and I give credit to my critic in this area, who is not able to be with us today, for the ceaseless work she has been doing in order to advocate for this legislation to provide greater protection for children at risk. We do have a concern if the government sees this as being all that is needed, because there is absolutely no question at all that the measures that are contained in this legislation, which will indeed provide better protection for children at risk, will mean more demand on agencies that are providing that protection.

I think the bottom line, whether the member for Chatham-Kent gets indignant or not, is that you cannot talk about providing better protection for children, you cannot have a bill that in its title speaks about providing better protection for children, you cannot make speeches about providing better protection for children, unless you're prepared to come up with the dollars. I'm not talking about dollars that we're trying to pull out of the air. I'm talking about the financial resources which this government claims to have committed and which those children's aid societies have not yet seen.

The minister acknowledged when she introduced the bill that there are children falling through the cracks and indicated that this legislation would put the best interests of the child first. My argument is that Mike Harris and his government have not put the best interests of the child first at any other point, but I am pleased that they are now going to respond at least to the 400 recommendations from six inquests into deaths of children involved with children's aid societies in Ontario. I think it is not exactly accurate to say children are falling through the cracks in Ontario. We have had children dying in Ontario, and that demands a response from government and demands support for measures that will provide that greater protection from the opposition parties.

This legislation, as we understand it, responds to proposals from the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force and from the expert panel that was led by Judge Hatton. We will be supportive of the measures that indeed respond to those recommendations that have come from experts who have looked at the current situation and clearly defined what more is needed. Our leader, Dalton McGuinty, has put forward a document called First Steps in which he sets out comprehensive recommendations for providing support for children in the family setting, but he as well in that document called for the implementation of all the recommendations of the child mortality task force.

We will be concerned about some of the recommendations which are not here, as I indicated, and with a limit of 20 minutes of time I'm not going to speak in any detail to each of the recommendations. I do want to recognize that we would certainly agree that including neglect as grounds for protection is an important measure to put in place. I would also argue that it might be good to have legislation that requires governments to stop creating the conditions of poverty and homelessness that too often result in neglect.

I want to share the concern that if we simply bring in measures that allow for earlier intervention - and I support the measures which call for earlier reporting so that there can be earlier intervention - and don't provide the resources for that early intervention, we're not actually going to be able to achieve what I hope is a goal of providing support for the child not to be taken out of the family but to stay in the family. Every children's aid society worker will tell you that one of their greatest frustrations is that they are only able to act on their legal mandate for protection and withdrawal of the child from the home because they have never had the resources they need to provide for the early intervention that would prevent the abuse or the neglect which would lead to the child having to be taken out of the home.

1740

I think we would all agree that the safety of the child must be the first consideration, but we're going to be very concerned for children and for families if workers are forced by this legislation to remove a child at risk when other kinds of intervention could have supported the family and removed the risk at the same time. We are going to insist that the tools and resources be given to the agencies to ensure that they can provide that support and hopefully avoid having to remove the child.

I hope this legislation doesn't put us in a position where many actions become necessary because agencies simply have no options, because if that ever becomes the case, then we will not be acting in the best interests of the child. I hope we haven't reached a point in this richest province of this most privileged country of actually having to decide between the need of a child for safety and the need of a child to be with his family. If we have to make those kinds of decisions, then surely we agree that the decision must be on the side of keeping the child safe. But God forbid that we should be satisfied that a child's needs are being fully met if that child is safe.

On a hierarchy of need, food and safety are certainly basic essentials; love is a higher order need. But I don't believe that any child's needs can be met if they're denied the love and security of a supportive family. The reality is, in too many situations in our society, a child doesn't have that opportunity to have the love and support of a nurturing family. I believe that the reality in Mike Harris's Ontario is that fewer and fewer children have that opportunity.

But surely we have an obligation, if we want to truly act in the best interests and for the well-being of children, to do more than simply keep them safe, as important as that is. I don't believe that parents choose to neglect or to abuse their children. I think we have to take more immediate action to protect children from neglect and abuse, and so we will support the legislation, but we can't forget that parents and families too are at risk and need some intervention. This legislation doesn't address that and, in my view, neither does this government.

I am not going to be able to speak in detail about what has been left out of the bill. I trust we'll have an opportunity to do that at committee.

I do want to particularly note that this bill does not extend protection to 16- and 17-year-olds. That was called for. I am anxious to have the government explain why they have chosen not to act on the recommendation to have protection rights extended to 16- and 17-year-olds. I hope it's not because they would then be called upon to deal with the 7,000 to 10,000 youths who are homeless in the city of Toronto alone, because surely those are children at risk.

I do want to raise a very real concern that the failure to include 16- and 17-year-olds in this legislation means that the bill of my colleague the member for Sudbury which calls upon a legal responsibility to act to protect children who are involved in prostitution will now, I assume, die. That bill has gone through committee hearings. It has received strong support across this province. It has received two amendments and on the basis of those amendments has been referred back for third reading to this House. The fact that the Child and Family Services Act is not to be amended to include 16- and 17-year-olds appears to mean that this government is not prepared to act on that bill and is not prepared to extend their commitment to protect children at risk to those children who are involved in prostitution and who are very seriously at risk.

I hope perhaps that as this bill goes to committee that's a decision that can be revisited by the government, because I think there would be considerable concern about this legislation from all those who made representations and expressed their support for the measures that the member for Sudbury introduced. There will be considerable concern that this legislation fails to take the necessary steps to provide support for that initiative.

In the last moment I have, I'm again going to have to not spend time commenting on the reorganization efforts that are taking place in Ontario in community and social services. The concern that I would like to have spent a little bit of time on is this government's penchant for believing that you can deal with more clients with the same amount of money or even less money simply by carrying out a reorganization. We've seen that in so many areas, and we're seeing it again, I believe, in community and social services and indeed in the whole area of children's aid societies, where some efforts are being made to amalgamate with mental health agencies in order to bring about efficiencies.

Let me say to the government that you can't deal with more clients, you can't deal with the kind of waiting lists that are being faced by children's mental health agencies, you can't deal with the unmet needs that children's aid societies are recognizing if you attempt to deal with it through reorganization. I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, it needs resources. This government's commitment must be backed with the resources to make it work.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Ms Lankin: I appreciate the contribution the speaker has made to the debate on this bill. One of the things I hope the official opposition will review is some of the issues that are being raised with respect to concerns of balance, and whether we've got the balance right. The expert review that has been done is very important. It's a critical contribution to the work that comes before us as legislators in the drafting of the bill. But just as the government and ministry have determined in some areas not to proceed - I have heard some of the reasons for that from members of the ministry department that worked on this, and I'm sure we'll have further discussion with members of the government - there may be some other areas where we as a Legislature determine that slight changes must be made. I hope that's something all members will join in as we go through the hearings.

I support the member's comments with respect to adequate resources. I was a bit concerned when I heard the member for Chatham-Kent essentially go on the attack last time, because the panel itself has said very clearly that it recognizes legislative change is only one aspect of the solution. Of critical importance to the panel's recommendations is the availability of adequate resources. They say it's important to emphasize that legislative amendments are only one aspect of the solution to current problems in the delivery of child protection services. Critical to the success of implementation of any legislative change is the provision of adequate resources. Throughout the review the panel was continually reminded that adequacy of resources affects the ability of service providers to intervene, assess and treat.

So it is a critical issue and it is part of the package that we will need to discuss. It's not a question of throwing money; it's a question of providing adequate money for the job to be done.

Mr Carroll: I always appreciate the opportunity to comment. Adequate resources: no problem with adequate resources, but when the member for Fort William says you can't provide better care without providing more money, the whole world has been in the process for years of providing better care with less money. The only people who haven't been doing that have been governments. That's why we got into a situation in this province and quite frankly in this country of running up unconscionable debts.

We're talking about child protection here in this legislation. In what better way can we protect our children than to hand on to them a future that has some promise in it? We've mortgaged our future by the same thinking of, "You can't provide better service without spending more money." The real world doesn't operate like that and it's about time government understood they can't operate like that. Quite frankly, there isn't any more money to continue to spend on doing things the old way. I really struggle when I hear - the Liberals especially always equate anything better requiring more money. We tried doing it their way. Quite frankly, that didn't work.

The other thing I really struggle with is the whole idea of the government creating poverty and homelessness, fewer and fewer children having the support of loving families because of Mike Harris. Whatever happened to personal accountability? Whatever happened to the fact that when children are born in this province, the primary responsibility lies with their parents? It doesn't lie with government; it lies with their parents. I think somewhere in the argument we have to address the fact that personal accountability is still the most important ingredient we can provide. The government's role is to set some rules and some regulations and to be there with safety nets, but probably in the case of children the primary responsibility lies with their parents.

Mr Bradley: I want to commend my colleague from Fort William for a very balanced approach, outlining general support for many of the provisions of this legislation, but also pointing out where it can be improved.

1750

I find the approach the parliamentary assistant has taken interesting because it reminded me of a circumstance that I was thinking of myself, where I was watching two little kids coming along with their parents. The kids weren't well dressed and didn't look as though they had been particularly well looked after by the mother. The mother was going in to make a purchase of something I wouldn't have said was a necessity at the time - it was cigarettes - and I was thinking, "Couldn't that money be spent better?" The answer is yes, it could. But I also had to think, should we really penalize the children for that?

That's the problem with the philosophy that the member for Chatham-Kent espouses. It's not that we wouldn't like to see, in the best of all worlds, parents taking the responsibility they should for their children, but there are circumstances where that simply doesn't happen and it seems to me we cannot punish the children because the parents are not carrying out their responsibilities as they should, as much as we should try to persuade and encourage those parents to do so.

Also, I wanted to say that when we're talking about resources, when you invest resources at the beginning, when we're talking with children, very often you find you're not making those expenditures down the line. That is particularly true when the children are very young, but also there's some truth to that for the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are not provided for in this bill. I think that investment which is made early is an investment which saves us money so we don't have to build super-jails to throw everybody in jail who happens to be on the wrong side of the law, because we steer more of those people away from the path that would lead them to those jails.

Mr Wildman: I want to concur with my friend from St Catharines in response to the comments of the member for Fort William and the comments on them from the member for Chatham-Kent. Obviously parents have responsibilities and parents must live up to their responsibilities. In the best of all possible worlds that happens and children are cared for, they are loved, they are nurtured and they grow up to be responsible adults. Unfortunately, this is not the best of all possible worlds and I am not Candide.

The fact is that on occasion parents fail, for whatever circumstances, for whatever reasons. On occasion parents are not able to provide the love and nurturing experience for their children that they should and that it is their responsibility to do. We cannot then visit the sins of the parent upon the child. It is our responsibility as a society to intervene in those situations to protect the child and, unfortunately, when those situations are serious, to remove the child and find a better place for that child, to protect that child from psychological and physical harm. That is our responsibility.

The African saying that it takes a village to raise a child is completely apt. It isn't just the individual parents, the individual family. We all have responsibility for one another and for our children. That means that if we're going to provide legislative change that protects children, we must provide the resources to ensure that it is implemented.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort William.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I would say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, by all means in committee we want to look at some of the specifics of the legislation to know whether some amendment is desirable to further the goals that are here, but I would add that any changes to the legislation are still legislative changes. It only prescribes what is required to be done under a legal mandate.

If we are serious about providing support for a child in a family, to have that balance, rather than always moving to remove the child from the family, and making sure that child is not at risk, it means resources. I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, I'm really sorry if it bothers you that the philosophy that you can just blame the family as an excuse for any failures so you don't have to put any money in just doesn't work when it comes to providing support for children at risk. I'm sorry if the fact is you can't provide better care with less money. You've said you don't have any problem with having adequate resources, so let me tell you why resources are going to be a major issue if you're serious about this legislation: because there has been a 46% to 50% increase in referrals to children's aid societies under the conditions you have created while you have been government. That's a 46% to 50% increase in referrals from troubled families. I happen to believe, and I think there would be a lot of support for this belief, that it's in large measure because of the conditions your government has created for families. That is an unmet need under today's legislation that has got to be addressed. And no, you can't solve it by combining children's aid societies with children's mental health agencies. Children's mental health agencies that have had a 10% cut in their budgets have a waiting list of 7,000 children who are waiting more than six months in order to be seen. That is also an unmet need. I reiterate that you can't solve this problem of trying to do more with less through a simple administrative organization.

If I can quote the London Free Press, who think that by and large this is good legislation - "but the cheque better be in the mail."

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

The House adjourned at 1756.

November 5, 1998

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

TAXATION

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

TAXATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

SPECIAL TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

JACK ROSEN

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WORKERS

WAR MEDALS DONATION

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

REMEMBRANCE DAY JOUR DU SOUVENIR

KRISTALLNACHT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LAND USE PLANNING

ICE STORM

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)