L003B - Tue 27 Apr 1999 / Mar 27 Avr 1999
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Member for Prescott-Russell, you have some time remaining.
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Pour faire suite à mon allocution de hier soir, je dois dire que ma position n'est pas pour maîtriser les travailleurs québécois. Je veux simplement dire que nous avons un gouvernement qui n'a pas pris la position qu'il aurait dû prendre il y a maintenant au-delà de trois ans et demi.
Lorsque le projet de loi 60 est approuvé à l'unanimité dans cette Chambre, le gouvernement Harris a décidé de mettre le projet de loi de côté, et nous voilà rendus à la veille d'une élection provinciale et puis le gouvernement Harris décide de revenir avec ce projet de loi, qu'on va appeler un autre projet de loi, mais juste pour dire qu'on ne l'appelle pas «projet de loi 60».
Le gouvernement Mike Harris est au courant du problème depuis plus de 30 ans, puisqu'il l'a déjà mentionné dans son discours du trône de jeudi dernier. Je pourrais même dire que M. le premier ministre a été mis au courant et le ministre du Travail a bel et bien été mis au courant après que nous avons eu des audiences publiques qui ont eu lieu à Ottawa le 1er juin 1998. Ils étaient présents à l'audience publique. Nous avions du gouvernement conservateur le député de Niagara Falls, Bart Maves, qui était là ; nous avions même Wayne Lessard, le député de Windsor-Riverside ; Bernard Grandmaître, le député d'Ottawa-Est ; et Richard Patten d'Ottawa-Centre. Il était aussi représenté par deux représentants du gouvernement du Québec de l'Assemblée nationale, dont Mme Claire Vaive, la députée libérale de Gatineau, ainsi que François Beaulne, le vice-président de la Chambre de l'Assemblée nationale.
Même si nous étions au courant qu'on avait un problème, je crois que le premier ministre devrait reconnaître qu'il y a eu une erreur lors des négociations en 1996. Je me rappelle lors de la rencontre à Ottawa avec la ministre du temps, Mme Witmer, elle avait crié victoire avec plusieurs entrepreneurs en construction d'Ottawa. Elle avait dit que nous étions finalement parvenus à une entente, une entente qui ne voulait rien dire parce qu'elle avait été finalisée par téléphone, dont le premier ministre a fait l'annonce officielle le 6 décembre 1996. Mais encore là aujourd'hui, le premier ministre lui-même a dit que nous avons failli - nous ne nous sommes pas tenus à cette entente.
Quelle était l'entente du temps ? Je ne le sais pas parce que, si on regarde dans le fond de tout ça, il est impossible. Mais il faut dire que, actuellement, les problèmes persistent au Québec. Aussi récemment que la semaine dernière, Hydro-Québec a demandé des soumissions à des entrepreneurs, mais c'était bel et bien écrit : «Admissibilité : les soumissionnaires doivent avoir leur principal établissement au Québec.»
Encore là, est-ce que le Québec veut négocier de bonne foi ? Je ne le crois pas. J'ai aussi demandé au gouvernement de penser à une zone tampon. Le tout aurait l'air d'être acceptable, mais nous avons décidé de le mettre de côté. J'ai fait parvenir une lettre au ministre des Finances, l'honorable M. Ernie Eves, le 26 juin 1996, qui a mentionné que nous perdions au-delà de 200 $ millions de revenu par année. Il a dit à ce temps-là qu'il était pour voir le tout. Le gouvernement dialogue avec la province de Québec à ce sujet. Qu'est-il devenu depuis le 26 juin 1996 ? Je ne peux pas voir ce qu'on a fait jusqu'à la dernière minute du mois de décembre.
J'ai aussi fait circuler un pamphlet où on mentionnait au public d'avertir le gouvernement ou le bureau de la taxation de l'Ontario. Voici le pamphlet qui a été distribué de ma part au mois de décembre 1998.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to commend the member for some of his commentary on the track record of the Harris government, particularly where it concerns their involvement in some of the difficulties that present and have presented over the last few years.
At the end of his speech he was talking about the negotiations with Quebec. It seems to me that this government is very good when it comes to using the big hammer, when it comes to targetting somebody who is not playing the game according to the rules they set and then taking an axe to a situation that requires some very sensitive and intelligent negotiations and using that beating up of some group or some individual to some political advantage for themselves.
We've had example after example in this province over the last four years of this government using that tactic over and over again. The very first one of that, of course, was the attack this government made almost immediately on being elected on those most vulnerable and most marginalized and the poorest among us, the 21.6% that they announced in June 1995 they were going to take away from those who have had the least income coming in, those who were working hardest and finding it most difficult to put food on the table for their children. That set the tone; that set the pattern. That was the beginning of a program by this government to take a baseball bat to anybody who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and challenge them, and I think the member who just spoke shared with us a perfect example of that.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would just like to make a few comments and congratulate the member for Prescott-Russell on getting the bill in order and getting it passed in this House when he did. I know he had spoken on it.
I think it is known as your bill. Everyone in the House supported it, and I congratulate you for that. I'm sorry that it took the government so long to bring the bill forward, a copy of your bill. I know it has been a big issue in my riding and yours and in many parts of Ontario for a long period of time. We had talked a bit earlier, back a few years ago, and I congratulate you. I just hope that this bill continues on and is passed before we go to the polls, because it's a big issue and I think all the residents of my community and your community want is a level playing field, what's good for both provinces. We ask no more.
It may not be as big an issue sometimes as it is right now that many are coming into the area, and back a number of years ago that happened. I think it's great that it is brought before the House, and I hope it is brought back to the House and that it gets all the readings, hopefully, one day. I'm sure everyone will support it just the same as they did your bill.
Once again, congratulations to the member for Prescott-Russell. You've got the whole ball rolling, and it's known in our area as your bill.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to make a few comments with respect to the member for Prescott-Russell's remarks regarding the throne speech.
I too live in a border area, but the border is with the state of Michigan. We don't have the same problems that the member for Prescott-Russell has with respect to the cross-border movement of construction workers primarily between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. I understand that that is a problem in the member's riding, one on which I had the opportunity of attending a meeting in Ottawa to discuss matters to try to resolve that issue. There were representatives of the Quebec government there, and there were representatives of the construction industry in Ontario and in Quebec. But instead of addressing some of the concerns that were raised and some of the solutions that were offered at that meeting, we have the Premier coming in with the heavy-hammer, heavy-hitting approach that is described in the throne speech.
Today I received a letter from the building and construction trades department of the AFL-CIO which I think is relevant to this issue as well. It's a letter to the Premier, and it says, "Instead of catering to non-union contractors and right-to-work groups by precipitous retaliatory actions and proposed legislation announced by your government to deal with interprovincial mobility for construction workers, we would urge you to look carefully at existing proposals originating from all the major stakeholders in the construction industry."
This seems to be a reasonable approach. Rather than demanding that the Quebec government lower their standards and water down the regulatory environment, we should be trying to raise those standards.
1840
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise to congratulate my colleague Jean-Marc Lalonde on his fine presentation, particularly his comments in regard to the situation of labour mobility along the Quebec-Ontario border.
This is a problem that has been plaguing Ontario-Quebec relations for some time. Mr Lalonde brought this to the attention of the House back in 1995. He managed to have all parties agree to take action back in 1995, and we on this side are a little perplexed at the government's inaction over that period.
This is about making sure that we break down barriers between provinces for labour mobility. That means Ontario workers should have the same access into Quebec as Quebec workers have into Ontario. I think that's totally reasonable. Along the border in northeastern Ontario and in eastern Ontario this has been a problem, which Mr Lalonde deserves full credit for bringing to the attention of this House most forcefully.
With that, I just want to congratulate my colleague for showing great leadership on this issue.
The Acting Speaker: Response?
Mr Lalonde: First of all, I'd like to say thank you to all my colleagues who recognize the points I have brought to their attention.
I was just referring to some of the cuts that this government has made since their election in 1995. We wouldn't be in the position we are in right now if the government had not fired the inspectors we have in eastern Ontario, especially in northern Ontario, because there is a tax guide that exists that the government could have put in place and followed. It's tax guide 804. It's really clear that any construction company coming in from Quebec or from outside the province should, first of all, register with the Ontario registration office or the tax office. If not registered, they have to deposit 4% of the total value of the contract, which hasn't been done. They had to pay taxes on all the equipment they brought in from outside the province. That hasn't been done.
Ever since I published this little pamphlet on December 12, 1998, the tax office in Oshawa has been getting a lot of calls. Nothing can be done even at that, because we are reporting the people from outside the province who are coming in. It doesn't give any chance to our local contractors, because we cannot compete with them since they're not adding up the 8% taxes.
It just shows you that this government has not done their job. We lost over $200 million in tax revenue, for which this government is responsible, because they fired the inspectors who were doing the job on construction sites.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Martin: Yesterday I had the pleasure and good fortune of being in the wonderful community of Elliot Lake. I was there for the funeral of long-time New Democrat Wilma Sanderson, who served that community well over a long period of time, both from a political sense and also from a recreational-cultural sense, a woman who saw the value in community and building community and being part of that and the contribution that community, when it's well run and well done, can make to the quality of life of everybody who calls that particular place home.
It was interesting being in Elliot Lake because it's a community that has gone through some very difficult times over the last five to 10 years because of the change in the way they make a living there, the change in the economy, the closing down primarily of the mines that used to support Elliot Lake and actually a good chunk of the township of the North Shore. They went through some really difficult times, yet you go there today - and back when they were going through those difficult times, there were lots of naysayers around who suggested that Elliot Lake's days were numbered, that there wasn't much of a future there. The prices of houses went down, and all of the things that happen to a community that's in decline were evident in that town.
We happened to be the government of the day when all that was happening. When I speak of "we," I mean the New Democratic Party under the leadership of Bob Rae. Shelley Martel was the Minister of Northern Development and Mines at the time.
I remember, because I was a northern member at that time - part of a northern caucus - the conversations, discussions and meetings that happened in Elliot Lake, in Sudbury and in other places of northern Ontario, and down here with the leadership group of that community, to try to figure out what we could do to put that community in a position where it could take advantage of other opportunities to create a new economy and change in a way that would see everybody who chose to stay in that town - because it's a very wonderful little town. Anybody who has had the privilege of visiting there will know that there's a lot of energy, a lot of excitement, a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of really wonderful people who live in the town of Elliot Lake.
Mike Brown will know of what I speak because he's the member who represents that community right now. It's a wonderful little community with a lot of really fine people and a lot of really good things happening there.
As a government we sat down and looked at all the possibilities, all the pluses and all the negatives. We looked at various scenarios and eventually came to a point where it was decided that what was probably needed most was for Elliot Lake to be able to access a fund that was properly managed, responsible and accountable to explore the possibility of new industry.
One of the biggest industries, of course, that they decided to go ahead with was the development of a seniors' retirement centre. They would take some of the very excellent stock of good housing and put it on the market to senior citizens, retired people, who would come to northern Ontario to experience the quality of life that one experiences in northern Ontario if you live in the outdoors with fresh air and clean water at your doorstep etc. They accessed money from that fund to market that, to put in place some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support that kind of effort. That's taking off. They're not there yet. I suggest they'll probably always be sort of turning the next corner, trying to figure out, "OK, what do we do next and how do we take care of this particular challenge that presents itself?" But it's exciting to hear them talk of the process and the program.
I know, from having participated myself in some discussions in my own community about how we might diversify the economy of Sault Ste Marie, some of the stories that are beginning to emanate out of that little town of Elliot Lake. Some of the people there have come up with some very exciting ideas, using their own talent, using talent that they've been able to attract or learn about and start some new industry that has the potential to really take off.
There's a new company there now that specializes in glass, in taking glass and making sort of plaques and different fancy windows and that kind of thing. They are getting some very lucrative contracts with some big corporations to provide goods and are doing quite well and have the potential to do even better. I was surprised as I drove in yesterday to Elliot Lake to see how much work is being done actually on the highway.
The government of the day will take some credit for the work that's going on to make that highway finally, after, I don't know, 20 or 30 years, straight in places where it should perhaps have been straightened out long ago, but the reason you're able to justify doing the very expensive work on that highway is because this community has found a way to breathe new life into its economy. It's been able to breathe new life into its economy because there was some really important and good work done five or eight years ago, when the economy of that community was in big trouble, where the community came together with the workers and with government to set out a plan and put in place a fund that they could access so they could actually diversify and find some new ways to create work and have some money flow.
1850
I present that story this evening in this place for a couple of reasons; First of all, because I was so enthralled and taken aback by the energy that still is there in Elliot Lake, but more importantly, to juxtapose what happened there under the tutelage and guidance and leadership of a government that believes in itself, of a government that believes it has a role to play, of a government that believes it should intervene and be a major partner at the table when a particular group of people or community or area of the province is experiencing difficulty and lend some leadership and bring some resources and give some help and believe in the potential that's there and actually have the courage to invest in that.
I dare say, and Mr Brown will probably agree with me when I say this, that if the present Harris government had been in place in the early 1990s when Elliot Lake was experiencing the difficulties they experienced back then and if they took the laissez-faire approach that they've taken to almost everything else that's happened in this province over the last four years, Elliot Lake would today be another example of a mining ghost town, with shafts sticking up into the air, with empty homes, with a few people left wandering around trying to figure out how to make the payment at the end of the month. Most of those people would probably have moved to the bigger centres, to create the kind of difficult problems we're beginning to see happen around the Toronto area with transportation and environmental problems etc, but they didn't.
Because the government of the day in the early 1990s saw potential in Elliot Lake even though it was experiencing some difficulties, believed in the people of that community, brought to the table the leadership of the community, came to the table themselves with some resources and some ideas and were willing to invest in that community in a major way, we have a community today that's taking off again.
The Acting Speaker: Order. May I ask those who are having conversations in the room to remember that the member has the floor and that it's very difficult for me, as Speaker, to hear him and I'm sure it's difficult for all of you to hear him. Member for Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Martin: We had presented in this House last week, on Thursday, a speech from the throne that many of us came to hear with some anticipation that perhaps it was going to be a blueprint for the next five or 10 or 15 years of further development for the province. But, alas, we were disappointed.
It was, as some have said to me, a bit of a snoozer. There was nothing in it that grabbed the imagination of anybody. There was nothing in it to spur one on to say: "OK, I want to be part of that. That's the province I want to be active in and participate in and invest in." It didn't do any of that and in fact it should have. But then, again, it shouldn't surprise us because this government has shown itself over the last four years to be bereft of any real, creative, exciting or innovative ideas where regenerating the economy is concerned.
It's laissez-faire. It's "Let the market decide." If business doesn't believe in it, if business isn't willing to invest in it, if business doesn't see something of potential in places like Elliot Lake and Sault Ste Marie and Chapleau and Wawa and Terrace Bay and all those vital, viable communities across this province, then who cares? That's evolution. That's Darwinism at its best. Just let it happen. Government has no role to play. Government should not interfere because when government interferes, it just messes things up.
Well, we have for you, if you're interested, example after example of governments in this province, of all stripes, I should say - Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat - who have shown some leadership, who have had the courage of their convictions and moved into communities where difficulty was being experienced and gave some ideas, brought some resources to the table, showed some faith and hope in their future by investing some real money so they could diversify their economy, change direction somewhat and get the train back on the rails again. But this government I think indicated very clearly by the speech from the throne we saw last week that it doesn't believe in that. It believes solely and completely in the forces of the marketplace. That's going to do it.
And they'll paint a picture. We'll hear a picture presented here, probably on May 4 when you present your budget, of how wonderful everything is, of how you've changed so many things to the better for people in this province.
I have to tell you, and I suggest that those of you who have actually gone back home and begun to knock on some doors and do some canvassing, you'll hear the same story too. A lot of people across this province, no matter how you paint the picture, no matter how many times you look at the financial section of whatever newspaper it is that you read and you hear about the historically record-high profits that the corporations are making today, the ordinary men and women in the streets of communities across Ontario, are feeling more uneasy today than they felt four years ago.
Interjection.
Mr Martin: Yes, four years ago when Bob Rae and the New Democrats were running this province. The people of Ontario today whom I talk to, whom I'm sure you talk to, will tell you that they're not sure about their future any more. They used to think they had a job that they really liked, that they worked hard to prepare themselves for, that they trained for, that they were going to be able to give all of their energy and effort to for 15 or 20 or 40 or 50 years, retire from it -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Martin: - use the income that they generate from that to have a family, invest in the community, buy a home, maybe even start up a small business. They're not feeling confident that they can do that any more because they don't know. There isn't a big corporation in Ontario today that isn't making those historically record profits except on the backs of the workers. They're shedding workers by the hundreds, whether it's the financial institutions, whether it's industry, whether it's the telecommunications industry, whatever. You look at it. You look at the corporations that are announcing every time you pick up the financial pages of whatever newspaper you read that they're making historically record-high profits. You'll find that probably somewhere in the year preceding they've laid off literally hundreds of people in order to do that. Every one of those people lives in each of our communities, every one of those people contributes in some significant way to the quality of life that we all enjoy in the communities we call home and they're not feeling good about it any more.
Give yourself a gut check. Ask them to share with you the gut check that they probably give themselves every night before they go to bed. They walk around their house and they look at their wonderful house that they've invested in, that they probably have a big mortgage on. If they're like me, they walk into the kids' bedroom and they kiss their kids goodnight and they thank God they have a nice place to have them sleep in, that there's still heat there in the wintertime and that when they wake up in the morning they can feed them breakfast.
But they probably leave that bedroom and go back to their living room and they worry. They worry about whether they are going to have their job tomorrow or next week or the month after or the next year because, I'll guarantee you, they know somebody in their club, in their recreation program, at the school their kids go to, who has lost their job. When they lose their job, they lose their livelihood and with their livelihood they lose their sense of confidence and they lose their sense of being easy with life and being able to participate in a positive and constructive and creative way with their children, with their spouses, with their partners and in the community in which they live.
I have to tell you that in the Ontario that you've created that we live in today there are more and more people every night doing that really serious and scary gut check that's not feeling really too good.
1900
No matter what you say, no matter how you paint it, no matter how many spin doctors you hire to write your speeches from the throne, to write the spin you put out on every issue that comes up whenever it happens, to put together your budget paper, no matter how many of those people you hire, no matter how many hours you spend on the golf course with your friends and benefactors, who are really excited about the program you've imposed on this province because they are making more money than they ever made before - and as a matter of fact, because of the tax break you've given they think they've died and gone to heaven - what you have to do is what I'm doing. You've got to go back to the people you represent, the Joe and Jane Public out there who really are the people who keep this province on track, who really are the people who contribute in significant and important ways to the economy we all depend on, and ask them how they feel about what you've done, about the program you've imposed and how they feel about their future.
Even better still, ask their adult children, the ones who don't have a job yet, or the ones who do have a job, in fact probably two or three jobs because that's what it takes today, in many instances, to put enough money on the table to pay the bills. Ask them.
Ask the adult children of some of your constituents when it is that they think they can actually consider moving into a long-term relationship with somebody, having a family, investing in a home, maybe thinking about setting up a small business. See how they feel about it. Ask them how they're feeling right now and I suggest you'll get a very alarming and disturbing story that will speak volumes to you if you're listening, although sometimes I wonder what it is you listen to. Most times I know who it is that you're listening to. But I'll tell you, they will tell you some things that should turn most of your hair grey. They will tell you some things that will cause you to sit up and take notice if you have a heart at all, if you have a conscience at all, if you're working out of any moral framework at all, the stories these people will tell you about how they're feeling, about their uneasiness, about the fact that they're not sure about the future. If you listen to the questions they ask, if you listen to the stories they tell and their concerns, you will change your course.
I suggest to you that we're not far from a provincial election in this province. I'd guess that probably the next two or three weeks will see us all gone from here and out there on the hustings. I'll tell you, the conversation and the discussion and the debate will be interesting.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): You shouldn't be too happy about that.
Mr Martin: It will be interesting, Wayne. It will be very interesting. If I were you, I'd be trying to figure out where I've gone wrong and what I've done that is causing the unease out there, because if you don't, you'll be one of those people, Wayne, looking for that new job in a month or two.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few things to the member for Sault Ste Marie. A nice story he told us about Elliot Lake. I've heard a lot of good things about Elliot Lake, and obviously he has a new-found interest in that area. However, after 10 minutes of talking about Elliot Lake, he did start off his comments on the throne speech by saying, and I'm going to quote, "This government has shown itself to be bereft of any new or creative ideas to stimulate the economy."
I have to talk about the results. I'm not sure where he came up with that wonderful statement of his, but I would think that the 69 tax cuts, the 540,000 new jobs, the 374,000 fewer people on welfare, and of course not to mention the $11-billion deficit handed to us by the members of his party, that we will eliminate - I would have to say, contrary to what the member for Sault Ste Marie said, that this government has shown itself with some absolutely, incredibly exciting ways to stimulate the economy and to create new jobs.
I will give the member for Sault Ste Marie some credit. It's interesting to make a comparison between the New Democratic Party and the Liberals. The New Democratic Party has told us very point-blank that they are going to raise taxes. That is their way of creating new jobs, stimulating the economy: to raise taxes. We tried that in the period 1991-95; it didn't work then and probably won't work now. The Liberals, on the other hand, have promised a whole plethora of wonderful things, and the best we can make out is that they will pay for it with Monopoly money, because the leader of the official opposition hasn't told us where he's going to raise all the money. So to give the member for Sault Ste Marie and his party their credit, they've been up front that they're going to raise taxes.
On the other hand, the Mike-Harris-led government reduced taxes, created jobs, stimulated the economy. It has worked for the last five years; it will work in the future.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm not going to take the bait.
But I do want to pick up on some of the comments from the member for Sault Ste Marie, in particular his comments about my friend Wilma Sanderson, who passed away on Friday, I think. I was not aware of that until first thing this morning. Wilma was a great contributor to the Elliot Lake area and along the North Shore. She was a person who was respected in the community, who in a variety of fashions helped virtually everyone. I remember some few years ago presenting Wilma with a certificate that named her citizen of the year in Elliot Lake. Elliot Lake will certainly miss Wilma Sanderson.
Some of the other comments the member made about Elliot Lake are true. It has shown a remarkable resilience. It has come back from tremendous adversity. First, in 1990 there were 1,600 people laid off from Rio and Denison, mostly Rio at that time, because they lost private contracts. Then, I think in 1992, the government of Ontario chose to cancel the remaining uranium contracts, contrary, of course, to their election promise not to do that. Nevertheless, the community has rebounded, and it is an exciting place to live. It still faces challenges, as does most of northern Ontario, particularly the North Shore area. But, having represented the area for 12 years, I have great confidence in their future.
Mr Lessard: I want to commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for his remarks about the throne speech. For a while there when I was listening to him, I thought he was the member from Elliot Lake as well as the member for Sault Ste Marie, because he is as concerned about the constituents from Elliot Lake as he is about those from Sault Ste Marie, as he is about the hundreds of thousands of people who live in northern Ontario.
One of the changes the Mike Harris government is making is reducing representation for those people in the north. For those people in the south who may not know where Elliot Lake is in relation to Sault Ste Marie, I know the member for Sault Ste Marie can say something about how huge some of those ridings are up in northern Ontario. Some of them are the size of France. That really reduces the effectiveness of representation for those in the north.
He talked about the government's involvement in the revitalization of Elliot Lake. In fact, they've been involved in the revitalization of Sault Ste Marie as well, as they were in the revitalization of Windsor, which was hard hit by a recession in the early 1990s. Without that government involvement, without that government intervention, cities like Sault Ste Marie and Elliot Lake, and Windsor for that matter, would not have been able to rebound in the way they have. Now they are strong, vibrant communities with jobs available in them and the people to pay taxes. They are thriving communities.
This government would have you believe that people shouldn't have to pay any taxes, that somehow it's going to make strong, vibrant communities if you just reduce taxes to zero. The member for Sault Ste Marie doesn't buy that, because he sees what effective government can do to revitalize communities.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I too listened with interest to the comments from the member for Sault Ste Marie. When he got around to addressing the subject of the throne speech, he commented on the large number of employment layoffs in the financial industry, particularly the banks, the number of people the banks have laid off over the past few years, and he's quite right: There has been a large number of layoffs among the banks. I wonder how the member for Sault Ste Marie accounts for the vast increase in net employment in this province over the same period despite the large number of layoffs by the banks. Either he doesn't understand how the economic system in this country works, or maybe we should be even more impressed with the economic record of the Harris government and the job creation record of this government against the difficulties that the member opposite pointed out.
1910
In the face of layoffs such as the reduction in employment in the banks, this government has presided over the largest expansion in net employment in this province that any of us has seen in our lifetime: over 500,000 net new jobs since June 1995. So I'm even more impressed than I was before with the record of this government after the comments from my friend opposite.
His comments on Elliot Lake: I certainly endorse them and I know who else endorses them. That's my friend Keith Currie, who took me to Elliot Lake, showed me around, introduced me to all the leading citizens of Elliot Lake and throughout the area of the North Shore, from Wawa to Thessalon to Gore Bay and Little Current, to name but four communities in addition to Elliot Lake, a fine community indeed.
The Acting Speaker: Response?
Mr Martin: It's interesting to see the Conservative members finally rising this evening to participate in the debate. I noted that none of you participated in comments to the previous speaker. I have to say that I probably pushed a few buttons, touched a few nerves, and that's good, eh, Bart? That's good for this place. It keeps it healthy, keeps it moving, and I appreciate that. I want to thank the member for Chatham-Kent for getting up and participating - great stuff; Algoma-Manitoulin; my colleague and friend from Windsor-Riverside; and the member for York East.
But obviously the members across the way still don't get it, still don't understand what we are so concerned about in the communities we live in re the impact of your agenda, what it is all about. I guess if you spend as much time as you do with your friends and benefactors on the golf course, in the private clubs and jet-setting around the world to check out the global economy and so on, you would not hear or feel or get any real sense of the anxiety, the angst and the disease that's out there among ordinary people. I suggest to you that if you'd sit down and talk to the ordinary people, the men and women of this province who go to work every day and put bread on the table for their families, you'd get a completely different story and you'd understand why I was so completely dismayed with the speech from the throne on Thursday last.
The member for York East talked about an expansion, the largest expansion in the history of Ontario. I suggest to you that it's the largest expansion of part-time work that we've seen in this province in a long, long time. That's where, if any economy is growing, it is happening.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to the throne speech. I'd like to focus my remarks on three aspects of that throne speech: health care, the economy and the school system.
With respect to health care, I think one thing that is fundamental about this government is that they have not only increased spending, and they've been able to do that to a very strong economy, but they're also fighting for Ontarians with respect to quality health care where the federal government, and the federal Liberals in particular, have cut health care spending to the provinces in significant amounts, in the billions. We went to bat for Ontarians with respect to the federal Liberals. They did nothing but carve out huge amounts of money and put the health care system at risk.
Every cent of the money that we've been able to get out of them, to the tune of $1 billion earlier this year, has gone back into the health care system. That's our promise.
I can say that the health care initiatives that we have taken throughout the mandate since I've been the MPP for Simcoe Centre have been very significant. I'd just like to mention that we have a brand new hospital, Royal Victoria Hospital. This is basically one of the landmark health care facilities across the province. New facilities and new services have gone into that hospital. For example, we have a breast screening clinic. We have MRI machinery. We also have increased funding for the child speech program. That's for children who are not at the school level, in terms of helping them with speaking difficulties. Also, we have already been given funding for a new kidney dialysis satellite operation, which is a much-needed service for my riding so people don't have to travel to Toronto and other areas and they can get that service in the city of Barrie, for example.
My riding extends down to Innisfil and also into Bradford-West Gwillimbury, where York County Hospital, which is located in Newmarket, has received significant funding, new services; for example, MRI technology and cardiac care. I happened to be at the hospital on Saturday. They had an open house with seminars throughout the hospital.
I visited the new birthing unit, which is an up-to-date, very modern facility, a true credit to the health care system initiatives of this government. There were tours going on with respect to this new birthing unit. The people were just ecstatic because it's basically a one-stop for the people who are going to be using this facility. I have four children myself and I can tell you that if everything can be done in one hospital room, it's much easier on everybody. That's what they have set up there. It's set up for the parents to work with the doctor, and basically their stay in the hospital can be as long as they wish. The service is truly monumental.
Also, I was there with respect to the new cardiac care unit. That was just a tremendous investment by this government in the health care facility not only for York County but for all of the Simcoe-York district health council, stretching from all of Simcoe county down into Markham and Richmond Hill. That facility, the cardiac care, is going to service that entire area. That is just tremendous news, because we need that facility. We don't want to have to go down to Toronto. People want to be able to get that service within their community.
On attending York County Hospital on Saturday, not only was it about showing the public the new birthing unit and the new cardiac care facility, it was also an exercise in educating the public with respect to preventive medicine, educating them about the different services that are offered not only by the hospital but also by the medical staff at that hospital. I think that's a tremendous initiative.
So I'm very pleased with respect to not only our health care record, but certainly within my riding there have been tremendous investments at the local level, which we've been asking for for many years. Quite frankly, we have to reinvest the money, which is devoted towards new technology and also servicing the areas that need these services so they don't have to go down to Toronto all the time.
We are also looking at the community care access facilities. They have been a tremendous success in terms of dealing with non-hospital-based care. We've invested in the community care access centres in excess of $32 million in terms of providing that type of home care, which is much needed in our population.
What is also of fundamental importance is long-term care. There hadn't been a new long-term-care bed in this province for over 11 years. The province is investing billions of dollars to make sure that long-term care is once again put forth and is a priority for this government. There have been allocated to Simcoe county 546 long-term-care beds. The first phase has already gone through: 150 long-term-care beds awarded in Simcoe county, 82 of those to the city of Barrie and 68 to the city of Orillia. With the tremendous growth that has occurred in my riding, and particularly the city of Barrie, we need those long-term-care beds and there's a tremendous demand for them.
1920
We've also been very fortunate with respect to the province's investments in health care, and in particular the nursing home. We have a new nursing home facility which will provide up to 120 beds. That's going to be opening in the near future.
So I'm very pleased not only with respect to our health care record in terms of the reinvestments in my community, but also that we have spent $1.5 billion more on health care since we were elected.
Not only is it being reinvested, but we also went to bat to make sure the federal Liberals coughed up the money they took away from Ontarians and that we had that money back in terms of, at least partially, the $1 billion, because they cut out far in excess of that from the health care system. The federal Liberals are to blame for a lot of the problems this government had to put up with in terms of adjusting to and dealing with not only the debt that it was left by the previous NDP government but also the downloading of the health care services by the federal Liberals. They should be ashamed for the way they've treated the province and Ontarians with respect to the way they've handled health care at the federal level.
Mr Wettlaufer: Where were the provincial Liberals at that time?
Mr Tascona: I'd like to also comment with respect to just where the provincial Liberals were at that time. They were nowhere. They are essentially puppets of the federal government, and that's all they ever will be. We need a true opposition to the federal Liberals in Ottawa, and this government is exactly that.
Another area I'd like to comment on is the economy. The economy, under the leadership of Mike Harris, has done phenomenally. We got rid of anti-company legislation with Bill 40, which was a very bad piece of legislation: very pro-union, a very negative deterrent with respect to investment from the outside in terms of coming into the province of Ontario. When we enacted Bill 7 it was a major step forward, a major statement across this province and across North America and into Europe that this province was not going to be catering to the trade unions in terms of their whims. We were basically going to make sure this economy was strong and we were going to make sure we had balanced legislation that served the needs of employees, served the needs of the companies and employers, and also was fair to the trade unions. That was a major step.
Where has that taken us? Where it has taken us is that we have 544,000 net new jobs and a booming economy. I can say for my riding and the city of Barrie there has been tremendous growth. It's the fastest-growing community in all of Canada. We have had investment from all over in terms of new types of technology, new types of small business. We're seeing tremendous growth at the new Honda plant, with an added shift, which benefits all of the community.
I can tell you that the investments that have taken place with respect to this province are surely a sign of confidence, but another part of that is the tax cuts, where we have basically given consumers back the money that the government was spending improperly. They should be spending the money. That has led to renewed consumer confidence, renewed consumer spending, and basically what we have is an economy that is on a roll.
What we have to see also, and what we have seen, is the welfare rolls significantly decrease, to the extent, I would add, that 374,000 people who have been taken off the welfare rolls are able-bodied people who can work, which is a distinct contrast from what happened in the late 1980s when the provincial Liberal government was in power. We had a booming economy. They not only spent all our money and put us into debt, they made welfare so attractive that during that economic boom more people were going on welfare than at any other time in our history.
It took the measures of the Mike Harris government to make sure that welfare wasn't a more attractive alternative than working for a living. Basically, what we've set up is a system of work for welfare, getting people back into the community, giving them a job, because quite frankly the best social policy that anyone can have is for someone not only to have a job but to also be a homeowner.
That's been the focus of this government: to put money back into the consumers' pockets - it's their money; there's only one taxpayer - and to make sure not only that they have an opportunity in terms of having secure employment but also the fiscal management of this government. It inherited an $11.2-billion deficit. It's on schedule to be reduced to zero based on our fiscal planning. I can tell you, it all came based on policies with respect to tax cuts, which have increased the amount of money into the revenue side by over $5 billion, and prudent fiscal management.
Let's face it, those are the choices this government has had to make. We've not only focused on good, strong fiscal management in the governing of this province, but we also have reinvested in the health care system, notwithstanding the federal Liberals taking money out of the health care system and not putting one cent back without a major confrontation from the Mike Harris government. We were successful in doing that with no help from the provincial Liberals.
Also, one other fundamental area that I want to comment on, being a parent with schoolchildren in the system, is our education policy. We have set up a funding formula that treats the citizens of my riding fairly. Every student receives the same amount of funding for their education across the province, which I think is a fair policy.
We're also seeing an increase in construction of schools. In my riding there is in excess of 12 new schools being built. I can give you an example: In Alcona Beach there are two brand-new high schools that are going to be built in that area. They've never had any high schools in the town of Innisfil. They're finally getting their due measure with these two new high schools. It's going to alleviate the pressure in the south end of Barrie from students who had been coming into the Barrie schools from the town of Innisfil. That's going to be good news and reduce the pressures with respect to school enrolment in my area.
Also, we've had tremendous investment in Georgian College during the term of this government. We have seen investment in terms of the computer system that we've put in, in the disability program for students who are developmentally challenged. We've also seen tremendous investment, in excess of $4 million, in the Canadian Automotive Institute, which is going to create tremendous opportunities by the increased enrolment in their automotive design and tool-and-die-making courses.
We've also seen investment in Georgian College in other areas. Next week we're going to have a tremendous investment by IBM in the computer technology of Georgian College. I'm very proud to see that type of investment, which has been matched by the provincial government, in Georgian College. It means a lot not only to my riding but throughout Simcoe county and also Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
One of the fundamental pretexts of our education policy, definitely at the elementary and the high school levels, is standards. We have instituted provincial standards with respect to student testing. We have instituted standardized report cards which parents can now understand. We have instituted standards with respect to class sizes and with respect to teaching time.
But one of the fundamental comments and statements that was made in the throne speech was with respect to the Charter of Education Rights. I just want to comment on that in the final part of my participation in this debate tonight. I firmly believe in teacher testing. I think what you have to look at is the protection of a child to ensure that they receive a quality education.
1930
We have to remember we're in a very special relationship -
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Ask the teachers. Test Mike Harris.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North.
Mr Tascona: - between an adult, the teacher, and a child, the student. Parents, we must remember, have no choice in who teaches their child. Everybody knows that we in general have very good teachers, but everyone knows or has had the experience of a bad teacher who causes that student harm in their educational pursuit. Everyone has that common experience.
We know there's resistance to teacher testing from the teachers' unions. They not only resisted the standards that we wanted to put with respect to student testing, they also resisted the standardized report cards. They have resisted every type of standard we've tried to put into the education system. Resistance from the teachers' unions has not been succumbed to by this government. We have shown leadership in the way we have handled that. Leadership requires you to do what is in the public's interest and not in the special-interest groups' interest. If there was no leadership in this province, we wouldn't have the reduction in the deficit that we're having, also the increase in the jobs in the economy.
We haven't made any private deals with the teachers' unions, unlike the provincial Liberals. We have come out and said where we stand. We have promised what we were going to do and we basically are doing that. There are no secret deals. They're not coming out and saying what they're going to do with respect to the education system. They're saying they're going to scrap all the standards under Bill 160. But what are they going to do? What's the deal they made with the teachers' unions?
What about Bill 7? They're going to repeal Bill 7, the balanced legislation with respect to labour law. What's the deal they made with the unions to take that stance? You can bet it's not going to be in the public interest, it's going to be in the special interests. Because we all know the provincial Liberals will do whatever it takes to get a vote.
I'll tell you this: The teachers' unions have also been against the College of Teachers. I can say thank God for the College of Teachers because they have done an excellent job with respect to removing teachers who have exhibited improper conduct towards children.
It's impossible under the current collective bargaining regime, as we all know, to remove a teacher for not being qualified. You will never hear about an unqualified teacher being removed from the classroom. Testing not only is a necessity, but I will say this: We test drivers. We test public health nurses. People say, "Well, you don't test lawyers, you don't test doctors, you don't test dentists." You don't need to test lawyers, you don't need to test doctors and you don't need to test dentists, because they're in the marketplace. They get tested every day. If nobody wants to use their services because they're no good, they'll be bankrupt and they'll be out of business.
I believe in a universal public education system, but there must be education safeguards, especially in an adult-child relationship where the harm is that the child is not properly educated. So I say that teacher testing will show that teachers will get recognition because they have basically passed those tests, and that's a positive review.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Cleary: I wasn't going to comment but I can't sit here and listen to all that. He doesn't tell us that the debt will be $22 billion higher when you go to the polls this time than when you were there the last time. You don't tell that to the residents of Ontario. You don't tell them about your some $100 million in government advertising. You don't tell about all these pamphlets that go out to the ridings. My mailbox is chock full of blue and white pamphlets every day. I've got enough to circulate them, but I wouldn't do that.
They don't tell about all the money that was taken from the municipalities and the infrastructure, municipal roads and bridges, and that is now given back at election time. Anyway, the municipalities are pretty disgusted over what's happened.
They tell about all the great things in dialysis. Well, we have a new dialysis machine in my riding and we still have people travelling to Ottawa three times a week to get the service they need to keep alive. I know those are things they're not telling.
They're not telling about all the money they're spending on consultants either, but the taxpayers know. They ask me about that because I get that information from time to time about what's going on.
Interjections.
Mr Cleary: You can heckle all you like but it's a fact and we're going to talk more about that.
I can't sit here and listen to the garbage that I heard down at the other end. Everything may be rosy in his riding but it sure is not - you split our community right down the centre.
Mike Harris said in his last campaign that it was not his intention to close hospitals. He came and closed hospitals in many communities and our area is one of those. We're going to lose our volunteers if somebody doesn't put their heads together and get this thing solved. It's not healthy. It's not good. The staff, the doctors, the nurses are all upset.
Mr Lessard: What I heard from the member for Simcoe Centre was just a lot of schizophrenic claptrap. First he started out by talking about all the big investment that has been made in health care in his community - long-term-care beds, a new hospital, a new MRI machine - and then talks about how much more money this government has been spending in health care since they've been elected. Then in the other breath he's talking about how much they've been cutting taxes and how much that's going to benefit Ontario. He just doesn't get it. You can't reduce taxes and continue to invest in health care in his community.
He complained about the deficit they got from the previous government, but the fact is that if they didn't have that crazy tax scheme that benefits the most wealthy in our community, we wouldn't have any deficit whatsoever right now. But we're still continuing to borrow money so they can fund that tax scheme and buy those public health care goodies for their communities.
I think what is clear from this throne speech is that this government's agenda is going to be, "Attack labour, attack teachers, attack workers from Quebec." They say they should be the alternative, a strong Ontario government to deal with the federal Liberals in Ottawa. Well, I agree that we need a strong Ontario government to deal with the federal Liberals; I don't agree that it should be a Conservative government. I believe it should be an NDP government.
I am anticipating the members across saying, "The test for MPPs is coming up in a few weeks," but I know in my own riding it was NDP 45% of the popular vote in the by-election and Progressive Conservatives 5%. So we know where they're heading in the Windsor area when it comes to the test for MPPs.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd just like to make a few comments with regard to the statement made today by the member for Simcoe Centre. I just hope the opposition parties will take the opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow, read what he said in that speech, and I'm sure your comments here will not be nearly as negative as what I've just heard in the House on that speech. I firmly believe that what he has said here is really what's happened in Ontario.
I want to relate to you that when this government took office in 1995 the transfer payment from the federal Liberals was $7.88 billion. Today that transfer payment from the federal government is $4.3 billion. Tell me how much they have cut us for our health care and our social programs in Ontario. It's almost $4 billion. They gave us back $1.5 billion and everybody thinks that was great. Well, I say to the federal Liberal government and to the Liberal caucus here, you should be working with your federal cousins to try and get us back what they took from us.
1940
I want to also mention, with regard to education and school closures, that if you look at the statistics and find out how many schools were closed in the 1985-90 Liberal regime and look at it from 1990 to 1995, both those parties closed twice as many schools as this party has in the last four years. Just look at the statistics and you'll find out.
Workfare has been one of the major thrusts of this government. It has worked. I know people in my riding who never had a job, they were on welfare, and now those people are working. It has been one of the keynotes in our whole Common Sense Revolution. It was great.
The other aspect is the Ontario-Quebec situation. That should be equal on both sides. It has not been, and it should be. I thank Mike Harris for taking the leadership to make it happen.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'd like to add to the comments of the member for Simcoe Centre. I certainly give him credit for being well scripted. I know that's the same speech that every other Tory member will repeat. We just heard that it was scripted from the Premier's office, and that comes through loud and clear.
What the member forgot to mention to us is how this government has systematically polarized every aspect of life in this province. He forgot to mention to us how this government has gone after nurses, has gone after teachers and also has gone after working men and women in this province. When we talk about the health care system, they forget to tell us why there are people in waiting rooms dying across this province. They don't tell us why people have to wait months and months for surgery. They don't tell us why ambulances are on redirect, not only in Toronto but across this province. Are people making this up?
If you're doing such a great job, as you claim you are with the health care system, if you claim that the system is in better shape than it has ever been, then I presume people are imagining that they're waiting in hospital hallways across this province and can't get a hospital bed. I guess they're just making that up. I guess people who are sitting in ambulances, who can't get into a hospital, are probably just imagining; it's not happening in their Ontario under Mike Harris. People who are waiting months and months for essential surgery, again, are just imagining that's happening in this province, because you Tory members have told us it's not.
You guys have your heads in the clouds. You have lost touch with reality. Too much time at the Albany Club and not enough time on Main Street across this province. Very clearly, I can tell you: This election is going to come down to a debate about health care in this province and the vision for health care of Mike Harris in the last four years. Whatever vision may come forward in the next week or two for health care, we understand it's more of the same. Ontarians understand clearly that if Mike Harris gets re-elected, it's more of the same: another four years of misery in health care, in education and in the environment. I'm looking forward to the debate in this campaign, because you will pay a price for what you've done.
The Acting Speaker: Response, member for Simcoe Centre.
Mr Tascona: I'm very pleased to respond to the members. I'd like to be able to respond to the MPP for Cornwall, but quite frankly I don't know what he's getting at. He seems to be upset; everybody seems to be upset in his riding. Maybe they're just upset with the member because he has done nothing. Quite frankly, I would say to the member, maybe you should be focusing more on the needs of your constituents. If you're concerned about health care, as a provincial Liberal you should have gone to the federal Liberals a long time ago and said, "Don't cut," as the member for Simcoe East has said, "$7.8 billion from our health care system." But he did nothing.
MPP for Windsor-Riverside, you ought to be ashamed, referring to schizophrenia in the improper way you've done in this forum today. You ought to apologize right now. With respect to his remarks on the merits, all I can say is I'm not ashamed of the investment of this province in health care and education in the riding of Simcoe Centre. Quite frankly, every investment that has gone into the riding of Simcoe Centre has been needed. With respect to the funding of tax schemes, I would like to say that there is only one taxpayer. It's the taxpayers' money that is being returned to them. I don't think we have ownership of that money, like the NDP believes. That's why they ran up a $100-billion debt and almost ruined this province under the leadership of Bob Rae.
The member for Simcoe East understands the situation with respect to the school system, in terms of the cuts that were made from 1985 to 1995 with respect to closures and the health care cuts by the federal Liberals.
The MPP for Hamilton East quite frankly needs a reality check, because he hasn't stood up once - I guess he's afraid of Sheila Copps. He can't stand up to her to make sure we get the money from the federal Liberals for health care.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Hamilton East.
Mr Agostino: Madam Speaker, I consent to share my time with the member from Renfrew, Mr Conway.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Is there consent that the member for Hamilton East share his time with the member for Renfrew North? Agreed.
Mr Agostino: When one reads the throne speech and looks at what is really in there, what we see is a document that shows a government clearly trying to run away from its record. It shows a government with no vision. It shows a government with no agenda for the future in this province.
I'm going to focus in on three areas: health care, education and the environment. When you look at those three key areas and you look at what Mike Harris promised during the campaign and what Mike Harris has done, and how it has hurt our community and average, hard-working people in Ontario, I think we truly understand that this is not an agenda for the average Ontarian. This is an agenda for the rich Ontarians, for the well-to-do, for the well-connected, for Mike Harris's friends, and the rest of us are left out in the cold. We have seen $800 million cut from our hospitals. We have seen a broken promise, a sacred trust that Mike Harris made with the people of Ontario. Mike Harris said it was not his plan to close hospitals. As of today we have 45 hospitals that have been closed or are slated to be closed across Ontario. That was a promise that Harris made, a promise that he was not going to close any hospitals across this province - another broken promise.
He promised not to bring in user fees - we have over $300 million worth of user fees. He is now taking sick patients from chronic care beds and putting them into discount-rate, bargain-basement health care through long-term care. It has had a real impact on real people. In my own community, a community that sent four Tories to Queen's Park, here's what we get back from Mike Harris as a result of that. In our hospitals, between 1995 and 1998, the number of nurses declined by 146 - 146 fewer nurses in those three years. Between 1995 and 1998, 227 fewer beds in Hamilton hospitals, a direct result of the Mike Harris cuts. The Hamilton Health Sciences Corp has had to run a massive debt just to try to maintain its central services in health care. You have cut over $108 million from hospitals in the Hamilton area, $108 million from front-line hospital services.
In 1998, in this province, in the city of Hamilton, for an average 4.2 hours per day, one or more of the Hamilton hospitals was on critical care bypass, not taking patients - every single day in 1998. Ambulances, on average, for over four hours a day were driving around the city of Hamilton looking for a hospital where they could bring a patient to an emergency department. That is the real story of the Mike Harris health care agenda and the Mike Harris health care cuts.
But there's something more to this. It impacts real people. I had the opportunity two weeks ago, as a result of frantic calls by a number of staff people at the Hamilton General Hospital, to drop in and see the situation myself. What I saw was disgusting, disgraceful and horrendous to believe it's happening in Ontario today. The nurses and doctors are doing their darnedest to keep up. Eight patients were lined up in the hallways. In the same room where we had people with trauma, we had people with heart attacks - a violent individual who had to be restrained by two police officers in a bed next to someone who has had a heart attack. The reason they were there was because there was no other room. We had nurses and doctors cleaning out a room, chairs and tables being moved out of a meeting room so they could put a bed in there to look after a patient in the emergency department.
Then, the next day, an 87-year-old man who had been sitting for two and a half days in that hallway without a bed died in that hallway, without a bed - an 87-year-old man. All he was asking for was to have his final few moments in dignity, in a setting that most of us would believe is appropriate. A hallway in an emergency department was not appropriate. That is a result of what you have done, a result of your government's cuts to health care. That's the real story, with real people. All the spinning and the rhetoric from the Premier's office that the members will continue to talk about doesn't make it any better, doesn't make the family of this 87-year-old man feel any better about how their father died in Ontario in 1999. It isn't going to cut it. That is the reality of what you've done.
1950
Our government has made it clear they're going to bring in enforceable health standards in Ontario. We're going to be the first jurisdiction in Canada under a Liberal government to bring in standards that will be the law of the province which must be kept by every hospital right across this province. We're going to ensure that patients who need a hospital bed will get one, and if they need a room they will be in a room. No cancer patient will wait more than four weeks for radiation treatment. We're going to guarantee 48-hour hospital care for new moms.
We're going to ensure that there's a system in place that looks after people first, because we believe the front-line emergency and front-line health care services are not negotiable. They're not political games and tools to be played with, with phony announcements by this government the way they have. It is a disgrace what you have done with health care in Ontario. It is a disgrace the lives you've put in jeopardy and the lives you've disrupted as a result of your blind, chainsaw approach to health care cuts across this province.
You've performed no better in education. In Hamilton, 30 schools are on the cutting block as a result of your actions. You've cut over $1 billion from our classrooms. You have attacked in a manner that no government ever, in the history of this province, has attacked a group of individuals, and that is our teachers. You have gone out of your way to discredit teachers, to beat up teachers across Ontario. I find it tough to understand how you believe that you can improve our health care system by attacking the real individuals who are most responsible for ensuring that that education system is delivered across Ontario.
How do you improve the education system by beating up the teachers, by demoralizing teachers, by punishing teachers? It is simply a cheap, sleazy political stunt to try to score some cheap points, and you don't understand whom you're hurting. You're hurting the students by attacking the teachers, but you fail to understand that. We've got to put an end to that polarization and we've got to put an end to that approach. We have to work together with teachers and parents and educators across the province and not simply continue to beat them up and try to step on them as your government has. We're going to change that.
The Liberal government will make it very clear that we're going to change that. We've outlined a plan that is going to bring Ontario back to the level it was at in education and bring it back to a province where we can proud of our education system.
I understand your hidden agenda. I understand you want charter schools, voucher schools and private schools. I understand that and Ontarians understand that, but Ontarians and Liberals understand clearly that we are going to support and fund and ensure that there's a universally accessible, properly funded public education system across this province. That is not your agenda. We understand that. The Americanization of our schools is your agenda. Ontarians understand that. This election will fix that and we'll change that with a Liberal government.
When it comes to the environment, it has been a disgrace. You have clearly the worst environmental record of any government in any jurisdiction in the history of this country. You are second to none. You've cut the budget more than anyone else. You've laid off more staff than anyone else. Today in Ontario, environmental standards are not being enforced, fines are down, charges are down. Mike Harris has become a polluter's best friend in this province. Environmental policies are no longer made in the cabinet rooms; they're now made in the boardrooms of this province. Unfortunately, 1,800 Ontarians a year are dying prematurely as a result of poor air quality, and this government has done absolutely nothing except slash the budgets, reduce the regulations and fire the inspectors who are to enforce this law.
In the short time I've had, I've tried to outline clearly some of the difficulties under this government. Very clearly there is a better alternative here; there is a better way. Ontarians are sick and tired of fighting, sick and tired of polarization, sick and tired of division. They want to be sure that when they go to a hospital, there's a bed for them; they want to sure that their child in school has a top-quality education; and they want to make sure they have an environment they can be proud of and that the air they breathe does not kill them.
Every single action of this government in those areas has been detrimental to Ontarians. Every single step you have taken has been to hurt the people who need help in this province. You are trying to simply look after and cater to your rich friends, your connected friends and the Premier's friends. Very clearly, I can tell you that is a small, small part of Ontario, and come election time the rest of Ontario will speak out, and speak out very clearly, and you'll be back on the opposition side where you belong.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, I would be pleased to share my time this evening with my colleague from Hamilton East.
I want to direct my attention to that part of the governor's speech which concerned itself with health care. Looking at the governor's speech, I'm looking at that heading on page 11, "Health Care We Can Depend On."
I'd like to take the opportunity tonight afforded me by the throne speech debate to report on my travels throughout the Ottawa Valley over the past three months, since we last met just before Christmas 1998. I've had the opportunity, as have many members, of visiting my constituents, and over the course of the January-February-March period I had public meetings in communities in the Deep River, Barry's Bay, Pembroke and Eganville areas to talk to my constituents and to hear from them about their concerns.
There is no question that the number one concern on behalf of my constituents is the state of the health care system. In fact, I have brought with me tonight a letter with an attached petition given to me just a short time ago by Mrs Donna Reimer of Barry's Bay, a letter decrying the situation with home care in Renfrew county and the fact that more and more seniors who need home care are being told by the Harris government that they should expect less, not more.
Mrs Reimer attaches to her letter 352 signatures collected in the Barry's Bay-Killaloe-Combermere area of West Renfrew county, all of which signatures point to the widespread concern in the upper Ottawa Valley about government-of-Ontario-imposed cuts on home care.
It's not just home care. It is now quite clear to people in the Pembroke area what the impacts have been as a result of the Harris government ordering closed the century-old Pembroke Civic Hospital. I believe that as I stand here today, the Pembroke Civic Hospital is the only hospital that has been officially closed and the building sold in the last while.
I think it is very clear as we head into this electoral mandate that the people of Ontario are going to want an opportunity to discuss and pass judgment on the way in which the Harris government went about restructuring the hospital sector in this province. The people of the Ottawa Valley remember that it was Mike Harris who said categorically that he did not intend to close hospitals. Well, the Pembroke Civic Hospital was ordered closed by the Harris government and the community got precious little opportunity to debate that closure.
It's not just that a good building has been closed and lost to hospital service, but more importantly, over $9 million of health budget has been taken out of the Pembroke area on an annual basis forever.
The people of my community - and I live in Pembroke; it's the largest community in the county of Renfrew - were well served for many years by two hospitals: the Pembroke General and the Pembroke Civic. Did there need to be restructuring? Yes. But did it need to be done this way? Absolutely not. There is a deep wound and there is very real anger about the loss of service by virtue of the very cruel and arbitrary closure of the Pembroke Civic Hospital.
I'll be saying in the upcoming campaign that when I, as a member of this Legislature, had an opportunity to debate the legislation that created that monster commission, the Health Services Restructuring Commission, I stood in my place three years ago and fought against that legislation because it contained such sweeping, draconian and arbitrary powers that I don't believe any commission should ever have. I not only spoke against Bill 26 but I voted against that bill. People like Leo Jordan stood in this place and voted for Bill 26, the legislation that created the mechanism that slammed the door shut on the Pembroke Civic Hospital. Now we are told the count is up to some 43 or 44 other hospitals that are either going to be ordered closed, have been ordered closed or ordered merged, like the Grace Hospital in Ottawa and the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, to name but two other examples.
Let me repeat: The Harris government, after saying it would not close hospitals, passed draconian legislation that caused the Pembroke Civic Hospital to be closed. We not only lost a century-old tradition of excellent hospital service provided by the Pembroke Civic Hospital, but let me state again, the people of the upper Ottawa Valley have lost, as a result of the closure of the Pembroke Civic Hospital, over $9 million of annual health and hospital budget. That's been taken from us on an annual basis forever.
2000
My colleagues in the government must understand you cannot come into a community like Pembroke and take away $9 million or $10 million of annual hospital and health budget and not expect that it is going to have an impact. It has had a real and negative impact. The hospitals in Renfrew and Barry's Bay and Deep River are feeling a very real pressure on their emergency departments.
I believe I read in the Renfrew Mercury just a couple of weeks ago that since the Pembroke Civic Hospital closed, the visits to the Renfrew Victoria emergency department have shot up by something like 30% to 40% to 50%. And of course the reinvestments that have been promised are some considerable time off. Yes, there have been some monies provided, but the bulk of the reinvestments are going to have to await the reconfiguration and the renovation of the Pembroke General Hospital, which we were told a few years ago was only going to be $5 million or $6 million, and now we're told that the cost of that renovation might be anywhere between $12 million and $18 million.
Hospital care. Home care. Cancer care. A year ago I visited the cancer clinics in Ottawa, in Sudbury and in Kingston to hear from the excellent people at Cancer Care Ontario and those facilities, including my own cancer societies and other caregivers in eastern Ontario, about the good things that were happening in cancer care and the additional pressures that needed to be met. I want to say fairly that good things are being done in cancer care, but do you know what I was told by a number of key people in Cancer Care Ontario serving eastern and my part of midnorthern Ontario a year ago? They said: "We have already submitted a supplementary budgetary request for an additional $16.4 million. Will you please do what you can to pressure the minister and the government to give us that money, because the cancer pressures are building everywhere in the system."
I raised questions in the House. I wrote letters. I did what I thought I could. And we waited and we waited. There was a long delay before there was any response. People across my county and my region looked, and what did they see? A delay on the additional resources that Cancer Care had asked for, but they saw and felt and heard a literal avalanche of government advertising. There was television advertising. There was print advertising. There was radio advertising. Premier Harris and his colleagues had no trouble finding tens of millions of dollars in the last little while to spend on advertising, much of it on health care, which deeply offended a lot of people in this province, many of them supporters of the current government. They rightly felt that the money should have been given to cancer care. That money should have been given to front-line services in hospitals and home care. We did not need $100 million to be spent on self-promotional advertising, and people to this day continue to be deeply offended not only by the wrong-headed priorities that this kind of advertising budget bespeaks, but the incredible attitude that it also reflects.
If I have met one person I have met scores of people over the last few months who have said to me: "How is it possible that politicians, particularly our Premier, can spend my hard-earned tax money on that kind of advertising telling me about what's going on in the health system when my experience and the experience of my family insofar as health care is concerned is very, very different? I consider the advertisements, particularly on health care, propaganda of the most disgusting kind." And it goes on and on and on.
Yes, Mr Speaker, the campaign has begun, and let me tell you that in the Ottawa Valley it is going to be a campaign where people are going to focus their attention on what has happened to health care and particularly on who it was that -
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired. Comments and questions?
Mr Lessard: It was interesting to listen to the member for Renfrew North talk about how the campaign has already begun. It's true. The campaign has begun and people are looking for a real alternative to the Mike Harris government not only in the Ottawa Valley but in other parts of Ontario, like Windsor, as well.
The member talked about the cuts that have been made to health care and the hospitals that have closed in areas of the province, including his own riding.
I anticipate the arguments from the Progressive Conservative members about how much health care spending has increased, but they fail to recognize the increase in population, the inflationary pressures on spending, the increased age of the population and the increased demand for health care services. When you take those into consideration, spending hasn't increased in health care in our communities. That's something that communities are noticing, hospitals are noticing.
Even though many of those cuts have been the result of the reduction in federal Liberal transfer payments, the member for Renfrew North didn't allude to those. We've seen some of those cuts restored, but only a small part of those cuts has been restored for health care. We wonder whether that is what the Liberal vision for health care is in our communities.
The member talked about increased cancer care, hospital care and home care. Those health care services are the things that people are going to be considering when the election comes about. People will be asking: "How is it that we're going to be able to pay for those increased health care services and still maintain the Tory tax cut? Where is the money for those services going to come from?"
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I was quite interested in the comments my colleague from Renfrew North has been making relative to the health care system, and more particularly to the closing of the Civic Hospital in the city of Pembroke. The first question that comes to my mind is, what did the member do? I don't recall him taking any action. I don't recall him even presenting a petition from the city of Pembroke about this closing. I spoke to him about it and he said, "No, no, no, that's a difficult issue. I'm hands off on that," and that was right out in the hall of this building. I recall it like yesterday.
When difficult decisions have to be made, the Mike Harris team has the courage to make them.
I'm going to tell my friend from Renfrew North that I've travelled the riding also and I've talked to the people, and they told me that they were very well aware that two hospitals were not required. The question was not whether we needed two hospitals. It was which one would be closed and how the administration would work following the closing. That is what is causing the difficulty in the city of Pembroke, from the people I've talked to to date. I'm not finished talking to them and I'll be investigating further on that subject. But to stand there and make the statements that my colleague has made tonight relative to this government and its actions in closing one of the hospitals in Pembroke, I cannot accept that he really means what he says.
Mr Cleary: I just want to congratulate the member from Renfrew for his fine speech. I know that I had talked about the hospital situation too on many occasions because we had something similar that was going to happen in my riding, and it did.
The other thing that I want to put on the record is the community and the fundraisers, especially when the restructuring commission was in Cornwall and they were questioned about the hospital situation and that one would probably be closing. One of the members of the commission said, "You're probably going to have to build another new hospital in four or five years' time anyway." I was right in the room, I heard it very clearly, and I can't believe that I heard such garbage come out of his mouth.
2010
I know that we fundraised out in our area. We just went through fundraisers to add to the General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Now they're going to renovate and I don't know where we're going to get all the money from in the community, to raise the part of the money that the municipality and the residents of my community will have to raise. It's not there. There's lots of room in those two hospitals under one administration, and you don't need to listen to a restructuring commission that did not even look the situation over properly.
Right now, they're stumbling on things in my community that the restructuring commission never saw at the hospitals: moving one department to the other hospital. I had doctors in my office in the past few weeks and they're disgusted and fed up with what has happened with the restructuring commission. They're going to be a lot more coming out and it's not over yet, because in our 20/20 Plan we will look at the situation again.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'd like to congratulate both the member for Hamilton East and the member for Renfrew North. I would say to the government members that you need to listen to the passion in these members' voices, because they truly represent the passion that exists in our communities around hospitals and what you've done to our hospital system.
The member for Renfrew North is quite right when he talks about the deep wounds in his community. Those wounds are caused by a number of things: (1) They are caused by the lack of consultation that has happened; (2) they are caused by the very strong belief among about half the population that the wrong hospital was chosen, both because of the physical plant at that hospital and because of the services that now are not available in that community, particularly the reproductive services that are no longer available in that community. Those are very serious wounds in that community.
The member for Lanark-Renfrew is right that it was a community that was prepared to agree that only one hospital was needed, given the change in care. But the way this government set up the restructuring commission that came into town, made announcements, never talked to anybody, never visited the buildings, never took account of the fact that it is going to cost about twice as much as they estimated it would to put an emergency department in place at the Pembroke General Hospital that's going to serve that population, that's where the problem came in: the way you do things, the way you bull things through, the way you do not listen to the community, and that's what is going to cause you problems when you get on the hustings.
I would say very clearly that there has been a huge underestimation of the damage you continue to cause by not flowing the needed funds to allow hospitals like the Pembroke General Hospital to serve the population it has been ordered to serve.
Mr Conway: As I indicated, the campaign has begun, and I can tell you that in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke we are going to debate this health care issue. I regret that my colleague the member from Lanark, Mr Jordan, has said what he said because quite frankly - and I've got to stay within the parliamentary rules here - his representation of my involvement is absolutely untrue. I can understand -
Interjections.
Mr Conway: - because he lives in Smiths Falls. The member from Lanark has now come north to Pembroke. But I can tell you I was there, as were a number of good Conservatives in my community. It was a very serious effort that was made by a number of them.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you stop the clock, please. The Chair recognises the member on a point of order.
Mr Wettlaufer: The member from Renfrew referred to one of our members as having made a statement which is untrue. Mr Speaker, you know and he knows, with the number of years that he has been in this place, that to make a statement like that is totally unparliamentary, totally out of order, and should be withdrawn immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I would ask the member for Renfrew North to withdraw that comment.
Mr Conway: It was certainly an inaccurate statement.
The Deputy Speaker: I'd ask you to withdraw.
Mr Conway: All right. We'll debate this, because I've got to tell you I have seen and heard -
The Deputy Speaker: I'd ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr Conway: I withdraw, Mr Speaker, because I have to. I want to say -
Mr Wettlaufer: Come on, Sean.
Mr Conway: No, I am telling you, you have cut the guts out of our community, and this party in government is going to have to bear its responsibility. Three years ago we had an opportunity to stand in our places and vote yes or no to that commission, and I proudly argued against that bill and the enormously draconian powers that were being given to it.
Let me say, those of us who live in Pembroke and serve the area went to the commission several times. We went to senior people in the government. We made every effort to talk some sense into people and we were not able to do so. Now we are left with a deeply divided, deeply wounded community, the results of which are affecting in a negative way the quality of hospital and health care.
I repeat, you've not only closed the Pembroke Civic Hospital and given the community the back of your hand, but you've taken out of Pembroke and area forever $9 million or $10 million worth of health and hospital budget. That is coming home to roost and to hurt people.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: You can tell by the intensity and the tone of the debate that it's not only from last week's throne speech that we know the campaign is on. It's clear whenever you turn on the television, whenever you listen to the radio, whenever you look in the mailbox, whenever you look in the newspaper that the campaign is on.
Just last week I got this brochure, "Important Health Information You Requested From the Government of Ontario." You open that up on the first page, "Dear Ontario Resident," and there's a letter signed by Mike Harris in there talking about health care.
This morning when I was on my way to my community office in Windsor I listened to the radio, CIMX-FM, 89X, in Windsor. I heard an advertisement for a summer jobs program for youth. Who does the voice-over on that advertisement but Mike Harris?
I got to my office and I opened up a newspaper that serves the French-language community in my area, Le Rempart. There is an ad from the Premier of Ontario in that newspaper.
When I was watching television last night with my wife I saw an ad from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario attacking the Liberal leader for not being an effective leader who should receive the votes of the people in the province, questioning his leadership abilities. Imagine that.
I also got this booklet last week, "Ontario Education: Opening the Door to Success." You open the booklet up and you see there's a picture of Mike Harris on the back page of this booklet.
There's no doubt in my mind that the campaign has begun. I'm sure those campaign buses are gassed up and parked in a garage someplace and are ready to go. The NDP is not wasting any time to get out on the campaign trail. Our bus is out there already.
Mr Wettlaufer: Yours is parked in front of Queen's Park.
Mr Lessard: That's right.
I'm pleased to say that our leader, Howard Hampton, has been out there campaigning. In fact, after the throne speech, on Friday he came down to Windsor-St Clair and assisted me to open up my campaign office. So we're ready for the campaign. In fact, we were the first to introduce our election platform and I'm going to talk about some of the things that are in that election platform.
One of the things that's clear, and it's been demonstrated in the response to the throne speech and the response that I've heard from constituents since my re-election in a by-election in September 1997, is that the voters in Ontario are more polarized than they have ever been in my recollection.
It's clear that the choices that have been made by the Mike Harris government have not been in the best interests of working families in Ontario. Working families, when they hear this government talk about their big tax scheme, their tax-cutting agenda, look at their paycheque at the end of the week and say: "Where is that benefit that I was supposed to receive? Where is that big bonus that I was going to receive in my pay packet?" Where is all that money that the members across the way in the government are talking about returning to consumers, to taxpayers? They're saying, "This isn't the government's money, it's taxpayers' money," but we know there are some taxpayers in Ontario who are getting that benefit and there are some who are not getting the benefit.
2020
Working families in Ontario are not seeing the benefit of that tax scheme. That's why only the NDP are going to provide the real alternative to the Mike Harris agenda. It's only the NDP who are going to reverse that tax scheme for the most wealthy in the province, that top 6% who are benefiting the most from the tax cut. We know this government is really just catering to the big guys, their big corporate friends, their Bay Street buddies. Those are the people who are benefiting big time. Those are the people who are going to benefit from this government's privatization agenda in the event that they do get re-elected for a second term. What we are going to see is the privatization of health care in Ontario. That is what the NDP is going to be campaigning against in the upcoming election.
One of the things that really struck me in the throne speech was the mention of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act committee, and that act generally. I guess if there was one positive element of that mention, that was the fact that it got mentioned at all. When I speak to people in my community like Dean Labute, who is the chair of the Windsor-Essex Ontarians with Disabilities Act committee, he expresses to me his complete disappointment that this government, when they had an opportunity to introduce legislation that had some real teeth, some real protection for the most vulnerable in our community, an opportunity to provide benefit for those persons with disabilities, protection for those persons, completely abandoned that responsibility, and when they had the chance in the throne speech to say that they were going to introduce a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act, they abandoned that responsibility and instead said only that they were going to consult further. But at least they recognized that the legislation they had introduced last November, Bill 83, was fundamentally flawed. It wasn't going to provide the protection that persons with disabilities were looking for, it wasn't going to assist the most vulnerable in our community, and it wasn't going to provide them with the opportunities they were looking for in transportation, in education and in health care. The government had an opportunity to say clearly that they were going to introduce legislation, but they didn't do that.
The throne speech also mentioned that the Mike Harris government is going to run on its environmental record in the campaign - an environmental record that they can be nothing but ashamed of. That's according to the Environmental Commissioner, who I am proud to say was brought in by the previous NDP government. I was part of the committee that was involved in the hiring of the Environmental Commissioner. I was also the parliamentary assistant to Minister Bud Wildman, who brought in the Environmental Bill of Rights, legislation that was so progressive, so beneficial to the environment in the province of Ontario that even though I know the Mike Harris government would like to get rid of it, they would not do it. They couldn't do it.
Each year, the Environmental Commissioner issues a report to this Legislature that is incredibly critical of the Mike Harris government's record on the environment. We've seen from the time the NDP was in government that fines for polluters have gone down. After years of increased fines to big corporate polluters, now the trend is in the other direction, and we know why it's going in that direction. One is because they have been gutting the enforcement capabilities of the Ministry of the Environment. We've seen the ministry itself cut by over 40%. We've seen the Windsor regional office reduced by half from its former self. It used to be an important office in southwestern Ontario. It no longer has that important distinction. It has seen the enforcement officers reduced; their capabilities to monitor and enforce environmental laws have been reduced. We need to see that Ministry of the Environment office in Windsor restored to its previous staffing levels so we can deal with the issue of water pollution into the Detroit River and into Lake St Clair and we can deal with air pollution sources in our community.
We've heard a lot from this government about their Drive Clean program. For years they've been talking about this as their big environmental plank, but it is only now getting underway and it's only going to apply to automobiles. It isn't going to apply to people with big trucks, delivery trucks or buses or other types of construction vehicles, not right now. Why is that?
Yesterday I was with the Boy Scouts in my community planting trees in Malden Park, a former landfill that is now being restored into a beautiful park area. I enjoyed being out there planting trees. I think it's important, as we are celebrating Arbor Week here in Ontario. Friday is Arbor Day and I'm going to be out there planting some more trees. We should all be planting trees in our communities and I encourage members to do that. But we've seen what is happening to reforestation programs, for example, as a result of the cuts this government has made. Those tree plantings aren't taking place the way they should be. We need to reverse those cuts to the Ministry of Natural Resources and to the Ministry of the Environment as well.
We know that many of those cuts have been brought about in order to satisfy the Mike Harris agenda, their tax scheme agenda. The government likes to brag about how they've cut taxes 69 times, 69 tax cuts. Our research shows that 55 of those tax cuts have been for businesses and only 14 of them have been for ordinary working people in our communities.
It's pretty hard to object to tax cuts, but let's be fair for people. Why is it that some people are getting the biggest benefit from those tax breaks and ordinary working families are not getting it? In fact, those people are having to pay the price for that tax scheme through cuts to health care and through cuts to education.
I have a son who is attending public school. He's in grade 1, just beginning his educational career, so to speak. I am concerned about the direction this government is taking us with respect to education. A lot of the things that have been lifted from the NDP's Royal Commission on Learning and adopted by this government are good, progressive reforms. However, we've seen the cuts from the education budget, which have not been to the benefit of students like my son.
2030
I'm also concerned about children's mental health services in our community. During the long break we had, when I think we should have been here debating the cuts to health care - but we weren't here doing that, debating and talking about those important issues. No, the government didn't want to recall the members of the Legislature. However, it did give me an opportunity to meet with people in our community, people from the Children's Achievement Centre. Our leader, Howard Hampton, was able to attend at the Children's Achievement Centre as well, and we heard from the people in our community who wonder what the benefit of the Mike Harris tax scheme is for kids in need in our community. The Children's Achievement Centre deals with children who have difficulty in a school setting, kids who can't really go to school because they're having difficulties learning, difficulties in paying attention, sometimes are violent and have no other place to attend. There were people from the local children's aid society there, people from the local hospital who treat kids who sometimes find that they can't even go to the Children's Achievement Centre. They have to be hospitalized; that's how much difficulty they're having.
We have seen an incredible need for services for kids in our community, an increase over the last few years, but they don't feel as though their concerns are being addressed, and they're not being addressed because the local office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services says they don't have the funds to attend to the needs of kids. If you wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that kids aren't getting the services they need because they can't vote. I would say if that is the case, that is a real tragedy, because we know that if you invest in kids the return on that investment later on down the road is going to pay for itself sevenfold.
Mike Harris in the throne speech has said he's finally seen the light. He believes now in early childhood education, as though there was some switch that finally got thrown. When the NDP were talking about improving early childhood education, Mike Harris said that was the stupidest idea he'd ever heard. Now, finally, he's recognizing that early childhood education needs more emphasis, but it's yet to be seen whether that statement is going to actually result in improved services for kids, because the government will say, "We cannot afford to provide those services as long as we are on this single-minded agenda that it's only through the continuation of reducing taxes that we're going to achieve the Ontario we would like," to say that if we somehow were able to get taxes down to zero, Ontario would be greatest place in the world in which to live.
But I understand and I know my friend from Cochrane North understands that through the payment of taxes we are improving the quality of life in our communities. If we all decide that we don't want to pay taxes any longer, then we will not have any community and we won't have that responsibility to ensure that the entire community benefits from the economic productivity of our community.
We do have that obligation, that responsibility to ensure that when our community prospers, everybody prospers, everybody shares, everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed. That is the NDP vision for Ontario.
This government liked to say in the last election campaign, "We're promising tax cuts and these tax cuts aren't going to hurt a bit." People now recognize that this Tory tax scheme wasn't nirvana. We weren't all just going to get a big tax break and be able to spend it in any way we wanted. There are some people who are getting a bigger benefit than others and there are others who just have to deal with the cuts - the cuts to health care and to education - cuts that the Liberals seem to agree with because they're not going to reverse the Tory tax scheme. At least the NDP says that we're going to reverse the tax scheme for those who are the wealthiest and reinvest in health care, in education and in environmental standards and enforcement, and improve the communities in which we live instead of providing a tax break for those who are the most well off, those who really need it the least.
We need to ensure that we have a strong, vibrant public education and public health care scheme here in Ontario. People recognize the need for that. They recognize that's the only way we're going to have equal opportunity for everyone in Ontario, and we'll all share from our prosperity.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Windsor-Riverside. It was a little more thoughtful speech than we heard from a seatmate of his earlier, the one from Sault Ste Marie, that was all doom and gloom. At least he stayed on track.
I was interested in particular in his comments about the environmental record and I'd like to walk through some of the things our government has been doing. Before I go into that, I would like to remind him that the Minister of Environment and Energy just prior to our government, in the person of Mr Wildman, had approximately 30 staff members on staff, personal political staff. We went in to see those offices and I can vouch for it, and certainly a lot of the civil servants also told me he had that many on staff. The present Minister of the Environment has less than 10. That's how we cut back - by leadership - and I think he should be very aware of that.
Take, for example, what we did with Lands for Life. We established some 12% of the province set aside, and your leader said it couldn't be done. He stood up and told our Premier - your leader, who used to be the Minister of Natural Resources, along with Mr Wildman, who also was Minister of Natural Resources once upon a time. We've also set aside a special fund to look after wildlife habitat. All the fishing licences and hunting licences and fines go into that. We've returned the 75% taxes to the managed woodlot, which is something your government took away. We've also recognized conservation lands.
Now we get into truly the Minister of the Environment: We've brought in the Drive Clean program, the guidelines for waste-to-energy incinerators and the guidelines for landfill sites. The guidelines for contaminated sites have been updated. We also have brought in many bills, but one in particular was the one on enhanced environmental protection that has significantly raised the fines to ensure that this province will be properly protected by -
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Comments and questions?
Mr Michael Brown: I'm happy to make some comments on the member for Windsor-Riverside's presentation. The member for Northumberland, though, piqued my interest a little bit. I just wonder, with all of that, how is it that this is the third-worst pollution jurisdiction in North America, if it's going so well?
One thing I want to talk about is the $100 million of taxpayers' money, probably more than that by now, that has been sent out through the province, stuffing everyone's mail boxes full of pictures of Premier Mike and all that kind of good stuff. They must have made a mistake, though. It says, "Report to taxpayers, spring 1999." It shows here - there's a really nice chart. Actually it's jars of loonies, I think. It says, "Average family after-tax income" - guess what? It says right here - you can't see this on television, no doubt - but it's down $1,200 per family since 1989. In the last 10 years our families have lost $1,200 of purchasing power, each and every one of them. I ask the people of Ontario, "Who were the government during those 10 years from 1989?"
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): It's come up.
Mr Michael Brown: It's down $1,200 since 1989.
2040
Mr Len Wood: I want to congratulate the member for Windsor-Riverside on pointing out that the throne speech we heard last week is no more than a gimmick. It's to pull the wool over a whole bunch of people's eyes and pretend that no election has been called. But in reality, even before the throne speech was read out, everybody knew that the election campaign is on.
Let's get real. Four years ago Mike Harris went out and promised everybody, "There's a big pot of gold, there's hidden money at Queen's Park, and I can give this money back to the people." Lo and behold, we find out that they have to take billions of dollars out of health care, billions of dollars out of education, billions of dollars out of the communities. As far as protection of the environment is concerned, if you look at Cochrane North, which I'm representing right now, and the new riding I will be representing after the next election, Timiskaming-Cochrane, what this Conservative government has done is try to destroy northern Ontario by creating a huge landfill site in the Adams mine.
The Minister of the Environment is saying: "We don't care. We'll issue a permit that they can dump all this raw garbage into the mine site there." Eventually, within a year, we're going to see this bubbling up all over the place, polluting the Sturgeon River and the areas all down towards North Bay. We know it's going to happen; we know it's going to take millions of dollars to clean up. Why would the Mike Harris government want to do this, knowing that they're going down to defeat because of the destruction they did to health care, education, the communities, the environment?
The NDP is the only party that is committed to rolling back the Mike Harris income tax cut for the wealthiest people in this province, putting it into health care, education, communities and the environment, clearly on the side of the people in this province, as we want to be.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): The member opposite made a reference to the third-worst record on environmental pollutants in the atmosphere. What he refused and what he failed to mention was that that was based on data compiled between 1985 and 1995. To the people of Ontario: Remember which governments were in office between the years 1985 and 1995 - the Liberal and NDP governments. That should be noted.
The member opposite talked about government ads and I would also let people at home know that we're still spending less on any kind of advertising than either one of those governments did when they were in office. Advertising - or, I would say, the information we're giving to the people of Ontario, because with a lot of the stuff that we're giving people, a lot of the cost is people calling in and saying: "We want more information. Please send us more information." The members opposite would have us deny the people of Ontario the information they're requesting. But the cost of sending that out is in our cost. Members opposite, when we send that out it is information. It's a description of what's been happening in certain issue areas.
I recall that on my fridge, oh, about a month ago, I happened to notice a red and white fridge magnet. It was a tooth with a toothbrush beside it. I said, "What the heck?" I went and looked and it said, "Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health." I said, "Where did this come from?" The Liberals, when Elinor Caplan was the Minister of Health back in the late 1980s, printed thousands of fridge magnets with a tooth and toothbrush on them.
That's just one example, but I ask you: Where the heck is the informational value there? What the heck were you doing back then, fellows? Think about it.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside has two minutes to respond.
Mr Lessard: I just want to start out by saying to the member for Niagara Falls that I'm disappointed I didn't get one of those fridge magnets. If he has an extra one, maybe he can send it over.
To the member for Northumberland, to talk about the government's environmental record with pride by saying that their record of achievement is somehow measured by how much staff they could cut from the ministry office I think really talks a lot about this government's environmental record. If that's the sign of success, "How much can we actually gut the ministry?" it's beyond belief. That is just removing the ability for the government to enforce the laws, to monitor the laws, to catch the people who pollute, charge them and make sure they're fined and those fines are collected. But we're not seeing any of that. The sign of success is how many people they can cut out of the ministry.
The other big environmental achievement that he failed to mention was Bill 35, the bill to deregulate Ontario Hydro, a bill which is going to open up the Ontario market to cheap, dirty, coal-fired American power to come into Ontario. We in the southwestern area of the province, in Windsor, are going to get the air pollution. Other parts of Ontario may be able to benefit from cheap power, but we're going to deal with the environmental consequences of that. I say shame.
The member for Cochrane North talked about how Mike Harris in the last election promised that there was this big pot of gold that he was going to deliver to taxpayers in the province. Taxpayers now see there is no easy solution, and they're not going to believe the Liberals either, who have promised increased services and no increase in taxes.
What about the north? Nothing said about them in the -
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's very enlightening, as usual, to be back in this esteemed House listening to some of the material presented by members opposite. I heard the word "alternative," I think from the member for Windsor-Riverside. That's a curious word because that's the first time I've heard them speak about "alternative" in terms of what they would offer if they were over here. We know what they offered when they were over here in terms of the record deficit and debts they marked up.
I would like to start out by going back some years ago and recalling a chant we used to hear quite frequently from members opposite in question period, day in and day out. I would go back to about September, October, November and December of 1996. The chant and the mantra was, "Where are the jobs, where are the jobs?" because at that point the economy was still reeling from the disastrous decision, an unfortunate decision made by the previous Treasurer, to use the old pump-and-prime method of economics in 1991, when Ontario was probably the only government in North America, or one of the only governments, to put huge tons of money - as the leader of the third party says, just shovelling money into the coal-fired generator to keep things stoked up and going.
When you look back from the consequences of that decision, we're now just getting back in 1999, some eight years later, to having an economic environment that at least has produced jobs. The jobs that have been produced aren't by this government directly but through many of the initiatives and actions taken: in balanced labour legislation, in creating an environment that welcomes new investment into Ontario without subsidies. We did eliminate, much as it's never mentioned by members opposite, the corporate welfare subsidies that were in place in a plethora of programs across the economy of this province.
I just wanted to go back and mention, as it's pointed out in the throne speech, and reiterate the point of the question, "Where are the jobs?" And where are the jobs in 1999? Nearly 540,000 private sector jobs created - quite an accomplishment - by new investment, small business, new entrepreneurs starting up companies across Ontario - even in northern Ontario - home-based businesses.
It brings me to the question we never hear any more - "Where are the jobs?" - because we have satisfied in part, that question. But it leads me to a very critical analysis I have to make of our members opposite, especially in the official opposition. What I'm talking about when I'm reminded of this question - "Where are the jobs?" - what did we hear as a result of the collapse of the mayor of the city of Toronto's proposal put forth about a year ago called Technodome? Technodome was to be a rather adventurous, huge tourist attraction for the city of Toronto in North York. It would have dealt with a whole set of interesting things like a 100,000-square-foot playground for kids with its own chocolate factory. There would have been a whole plethora of sports: hockey rinks, basketball courts, volleyball, Olympic swimming pool and Olympic diving facilities, which we need for the 2008 Olympics should we be fortunate to win that bid.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Disneyland right in the heart of your community.
Mr Hastings: You can call it Disneyland if you want, but the point is that there were a pile of jobs connected to this proposal, nearly 35,000 jobs - construction jobs, full, time good-paying jobs - that we lost thanks to the co-operation of the Canada Lands Company in Ottawa, a magnificent group that doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to work with Toronto to bring this thing about.
Where did Technodome go, even if you don't agree with the largeness of the proposal? It ends up, unfortunately, in Montreal, in the province of Quebec, and what do we hear from members opposite on this particular proposal? Not one word, not in their platform, where they call it something like the 20/20 jobs of the future; it sounds more like a replay of the future or a nightmare. That is 35,000 jobs, construction and other jobs - no word from any of the members that I spotted from the city of Toronto or from the leader of the official opposition - jobs that we need. But oh no, that's not important.
2050
Do you know why Canada Lands Company wouldn't co-operate? Because they want to keep the land in perpetuity, so the thing dies and it moves to Montreal thanks to a lot of federal and provincial private sector investment: monies from the Caisse de dépôt and other institutions in Quebec, and what do we have for it from the Liberal Party of Ontario? Nothing. Zero. Not one intervention. I'd like to know and hear from the members opposite whether the leader of the official opposition even sent a letter to his cohorts in Ottawa to see if we could work with the mayor of Toronto to get this thing on the go.
I don't agree with all the stuff surrounding it, but at least it was a solid proposal and the proponents worked on this for over a year, and yet we hear nothing from the silent lambs opposite. Yet they were the ones who were always asking back three years ago, "Where are the jobs?" Well, 35,000 of those jobs have gone to Montreal. God bless them for at least having the political acuity and a little more political muscle perhaps, because a large number of the Quebec members are there to make sure they get their largesse from the federal government, and it worked again. That's not an anti-Quebec statement I'm making, so I'm anticipating. If that's what they try to place this on, they're not exactly correct.
Mr Patten: Of course it is.
Mr Hastings: Well, if it makes no sense, then why would you not at least fight for Toronto to have these jobs, and for the construction industry? It's like your same approach in pooh-poohing of what the Premier in this government has been trying to do to at least balance out the teeter-totter between the construction industry in Quebec and in Ontario, and to this day we still haven't got a sound agreement.
Where's the federal government when it's championing interprovincial trade in these areas? It's leaving it all to the provinces to fight out, and what does it cost us? Again, tons of money and the loss of well-paid jobs, not only in the construction industry but in the supplier-related industries all across eastern Ontario and right down into the engine of southwestern and central Ontario. I simply wanted to put on the record that whole thing about, "Where are the jobs?"
Secondly, I was listening today with some interest, curiosity, passing strange, that in the proposals by the Leader of the Opposition when he unveiled his new election plan for Ontario, the future, so to speak, 20 years out, I guess, we were looking at the statements in here regarding property assessment and the whole issue of tax relief. We know where members opposite stand generally on tax relief. It says their priorities of spending: health care and education. Who would not agree that those are the priority areas for making sure we have money well spent, getting good value and getting some results out of the programs of those two official strategic areas of the economy and of our quality of life?
But what I found interesting was that there won't be any tax relief from the members opposite, the official opposition, should they ever have the chance to be on this side again, because tax relief generally, both opposition parties agree, is not a very good thing, yet when you look at their brethren parties across the country, even in British Columbia of all places, they recognize the value of some tax relief across the board, pretty minimalist as it is. Basically all we get opposite is criticism that a tax reduction or some money in people's pockets is not a very good idea, because how they would know how to spend their own money or save it or invest it? That's a pretty damning indictment of how you look at what people are capable of doing with their own intelligence and insight.
Generally, tax relief from the members opposite won't come until the economy grows. What do you think it's been doing for the last five years? Not growing? If you look at our official stats from Statistics Canada, much as you sometimes wonder about their statistical reliability, we have had at least a 3% economic growth rate, so we're going to have to continue that into the new millennium, but to get your new economic growth you need an environment of low taxes, not high taxes, because if a high-tax regime is the way to go - when we won in 1995 we should have inherited a situation where there were hardly any problems: no debt, no deficits, all kinds of money to spend, more money to spend on health care and education. But that wasn't the reality. The reality was there was about $100 billion in debt and nearly $12 billion in deficit.
Members opposite commonly talk about the concept that if you give tax relief to people, somehow or other they're not going to help stimulate the economy, yet those folks across the way are strong adherents of the economists of the early 20th century, Keynes in particular. So there is a bit of a cross-contradiction within their opposition, or the reluctance at least to recognize the significance of tax relief and tax stimulation to economic growth. All you have to do is look at most of your states and countries of Europe, even of Asia. Where they have a low-tax regime, generally speaking their economic growth rates are higher than those countries that have high-tax regimes.
Let me come to the part of tax relief that the members opposite clearly, vigorously and consistently opposed for the last four years and that is the tax relief connected to the property tax reforms we introduced through the Fair Municipal Finance Act. Members opposite opposed at every twist and turn all those bills that dealt with low tax relief on property taxes. When we look at where it applied all you have to do is look within the city of Toronto, in the suburban areas. What has happened?
2100
Even with this city council, if you're critical of some of its decisions, it got two things right in the city of Toronto. It put a tax cap on the commercial and industrial costs of education. But it also did something else: It brought about some modest tax relief for hard-pressed property owners in my particular riding and in a lot of ridings across Metro Toronto. How much was it? About $150 to $200, depending on the location, depending on the type of property and depending on how long they had lived there.
If we applied their logic on this particular issue and said we should never have any kind of property assessment reform, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt so vigorously opposed every time - the member for Oakwood away back was in favour of it in 1983, but suddenly, by 1999, said, "This is the worst thing possible," and went out and paraded and said: "We don't need to have any changes anywhere because everything is good the way it is. It's pretty effective."
If you were one of those who would have been affected by some kind of tax increase, God bless. We wouldn't want to have any kind of equity and fairness brought into the system. Finally, we do. But according to their assessment of things, if we kept everything the way it is, people in Scarborough, people in Etobicoke, a large population of North York, East York particularly and even some parts of the city of Toronto in the downtown, I'm finding out, did experience very effective numbers in terms of tax relief.
I've talked to some people who have received up to $1,000 in property assessment relief. According to these folks, you keep everything the way it is and you could end up actually forgoing any monies you would have had. That's what happened when we had members of the Rae government holding committee hearings in November 1993 while in the cabinet room they were making a backroom deal up there with the folks who would have been affected.
We ended up with no market value or current value assessment. We went by for another six years, which cost a large amount of money to residential property owners in the city of Toronto and other parts of Ontario - $3,000, $4,000, $5,000. "But what's that? What do you need that money for? That belongs to the state." That's their approach to thinking.
It's interesting to note their proposals on education. I see the member of the opposition has already written a cheque to the colleges and universities as they need more money to operate. Let me tell you, folks: In point of fact, you can talk to some of the community college presidents in this great province and, while they acknowledge they have had some challenging times dealing with the reductions we made, they have improved the operating efficiencies of their institutions.
Not only that. What is significant in this whole area of reform of post-secondary education - without even moving in that area except reducing the amount of money and reinvesting it in strategic areas such as engineering and computer science - is that some of the community colleges are rating in the city of Toronto, across the Toronto region, 70%-plus student satisfaction rates. Even in the old city of Toronto, George Brown College registered 58%. Humber College in Etobicoke registered 71%. Students passing and getting a job - that's forgotten in the proposals of the 20/20 nightmare that have been outlined by the leader of the official opposition.
You just pour the money in, but don't ask for much in the way of results. We heard him today mention that yes, there were going to be ropes assigned to these conditions and one of them was that they'd have a report card. Oh, OK, so you have a report care and the report card says you've got X programs with Y students graduating but they didn't end up getting a job. You can count a good number of programs in the community colleges that they have eliminated because they couldn't find job placements for their students. It's not fair to a student to pay $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000, or any amount of money, if they know that there is less than a minimal guarantee or prospect even of getting a job interview, let alone a job. You don't keep programs and award institutions, even the universities, for programs that can't move them into jobs.
When I talk about jobs, we're talking about the liberal arts as well because the large companies today still favour people who can think creatively and strategically. They are valued programs but there has to be some linkage back, but that's not mentioned in the plan by members opposite. They just want to fork out more money.
They talk about accountability but there's nothing in there like we're probably moving to in the future across this country and in Ontario: fiscal accountability linked back to job performance, job placement, customer satisfaction. My goodness, I think it's a bizarre concept for some members opposite who were very critical when the former Minister of Education brought up that idea years ago. Somehow or other you never connect the two. In the real world you do connect the two.
In conclusion, in terms of education at the post-secondary level and many of the reforms that we've made at the elementary and secondary schools, we are going to end up in this province in the next few years with a learning rigour, with a learning curriculum that is going to put our students far ahead of many of the students in other provinces and other nations in the world. Why? Because we're measuring them. We've got a standard curriculum and that's where we're moving into the 21st century.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Patten: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, whom I truly appreciate, I think more than many of the members on this side do. They tend to be quite adamant about some of his outbursts and everything, but I think he often provides very thoughtful comments and so I will react to them, I hope, on a thoughtful basis.
He talked first of all, in terms of the throne speech, about the great declaration that 500-odd jobs have been created -
Mr Baird: That's 500,000.
Mr Patten: Five hundred thousand jobs have been created in Ontario over the last four years, although the target was 750,000 jobs guaranteed. Then, of course, Mike Harris would take full credit for this; nothing to do with the great drive that's happening south of us by the United States economy, nothing to do with the federal government and its particular control of balancing its budget and also limiting interest rates, making it easier for businesses to borrow and providing a much more stable community. You never give any credit on that particular side, which I think is due.
You mention the whole area of taxes. I must tell you -I only have a very brief time - I've been out in my riding, as I'm sure you have too, and I've talked to a lot of small business people. Their number one issue is their property tax. Nine bills later, the Harris government has still put it to a lot of small businesses. A lot of small businesses have gone out of business now and they need some support for stability and a fair share. Why? Because in your concept of fairness with big business, a big bank tower and a small business are going to pay the same rate. It doubles the rate for taxes for small business and it halves the rate for a big bank that's made $2 billion a year. You call that fair? We don't.
Mr Len Wood: Briefly, I want to comment on the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. It's quite clear to me and to the 11 million people out in this province that the 1999 election campaign is on. It was called when Mike Harris decided to deliver his throne speech. The NDP knows that the election is on. As I said before, 11 million people in this province know from the $100 million that has been spent on advertising by the Conservative Party and the government that they've been out campaigning for a long time.
They also know the promise Mike Harris made four years ago: "There's a big pot of gold out there and I can give money back to the rich people in this province." We've found out now that the pot of gold was not there. In order to give the $6 billion in tax cuts to the 6% of the wealthiest people in this province, they had to cut $2 billion out of health care, $1.5 billion out of education and billions of dollars from the environment and the communities. People are well aware of this.
2110
In the throne speech, although the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is pleased with it, there was not one mention of northern Ontario. There was no mention of the fact that thousands of people were thrown out of work because of the cancellation of the spring bear hunt. The lands for strife is going to cause nothing but heartaches down the road when you create more park land, take land away from active production and eliminate jobs.
Everybody knows we're the only party that is prepared to make a commitment to roll back the Mike Harris 30% tax cut that was given to the wealthiest people in Ontario. We will roll that back and we will spend that $1.5 billion for health care, education and communities. Northern Ontario is short 200 doctors. We need 200 doctors in northern Ontario, not one word about it in the throne speech at all.
Mr Galt: I was particularly impressed with the presentation made by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He talked about some of the difficult decisions that this government has made, decisions that were absolutely necessary, decisions to bring forth a strong economy, the creation of jobs and creation of prosperity here in Ontario so we can afford our health programs, our health care that's so important to us. He also talked about leadership and the kind of strong leadership that this party has had. Thank heavens we've had Mike Harris as our Premier, as the leader of this party. It has certainly been the kind of focused leadership this province so desperately needed after 10 years of wandering in circles, just totally lost in an economic desert.
I thought it was particularly interesting that the member for Cochrane North talked about a pot of gold. I can understand why they'd be upset that are a few dollars being given out, but let me tell you where the pot of gold came from. We finally got some of the health dollars returned from the federal Liberals. The health dollars were 50-cent dollars back in 1968 when the Canada Health Act came in. That deteriorated to 7.6%. With the recent announcements of the federal Liberals, it's going all the way up to 11%. It is those dollars that Ontario promised to spend on health care, and that is exactly where those dollars are going, to health care. That's what the recent announcements have been all about, Liberal dollars finally flowing to Ontario. I can appreciate your being very upset over it but nevertheless I compliment the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for just an excellent presentation.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm pleased to make some comments on the presentation from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I think it's interesting. Here we are 10 years later, 1989 to 1999. What has happened? We have a debt that has roughly tripled from the 1989 budget year. Imagine, 300%. We borrowed more? This government alone has increased the debt of Ontario by 26%. What has happened out there on Main Street? We find that people are making $1,200 less, taking home, on average, per family, $1,200 less now in 1999 than they were in 1989.
What else has happened? We have one out of every five hospitals closing. We have the lowest number of nurses per capita in the country. We're behind everybody else. That's what has happened in Ontario in the last 10 years. We have a government that wants to market its way to re-election, spending $100 million - my friend tells me it's $109 million - on pamphlets so they can be in your mailbox, so every time you turn on the radio you can hear Premier Mike, so every time you turn on the TV set you can see Premier Mike making the tough decisions.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, I can't hear the speaker. I have to be able to hear, but I don't have to have all you people here.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I just got here and I want to understand what he's talking about
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order.
Mr Michael Brown: I was just trying to point out what has happened in Ontario in the last 10 years: triple the debt, lower average per family income and health care that is chancy at best. That's what has happened. With that, I will wait for the reply from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has two minutes to respond.
Mr Hastings: I'd like to thank the members for Ottawa Centre, Cochrane North and Northumberland as well as Algoma regarding our presentation of ideas. To be fair to the member for Ottawa Centre, yes, the federal government did help bring about the economic environment we're in. But I have to also remind him that it was at the expense of this province and $6 billion taken out of our health care that we're now getting back. It was $6 billion, yes, when you count up the numbers over those years.
There's another thing the member failed to mention. He didn't respond to our concern over the loss of the Technodome. He hasn't made any comments about our red tape initiatives. If the feds would do even one tenth of what we have tried to do through the Red Tape Commission in this province in terms of getting job barriers down and job creation up, we'd have a lot more jobs across this country, particularly when you look at youth unemployment and the countless proposals made by the opposition parties in Ottawa to at least reduce the amount of UI per hundred dollars of payroll but to no avail, and particularly for young people, for employers who would hire those folks and not pay any UI premiums whatsoever, that would be really a major economic initiative if the feds would catch on and do it instead of gathering in the money.
Finally, I would like to congratulate an unspoken hero in this House who has worked very hard to bring about jobs in this province. That's the member for Eglinton, our former Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, as he heads up Ontario Exports, because we know that one out of every four jobs in this province is trade related in one way or another. He has demonstrated exemplary leadership in getting the job creation -
2120
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?
Mr Cleary: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the throne speech on behalf of the residents of the Cornwall area. Over the past few years, I have been contacted by countless residents who have expressed their concerns about health care and restructuring of the hospital situation, especially when Mike Harris, in his 1995 campaign, had no plans to close hospitals, not to mention that the day the announcement was made, the restructuring commission said that probably within four or five years we'll need another new hospital.
Cornwall hospital administrators are having a tough time adjusting to the new hospital plans, and the community has been split right down the middle. Together with the cutbacks in health care funding, the patients are paying the price. The throne speech said, "Health care we can depend on." I would like you to tell Mr MacDermid, a constituent of mine. The health care cuts are life and death issues. Mr MacDermid was diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm in July 1998. The aneurysm has now grown to the size that it has become vital that Mr MacDermid undergo surgery immediately. With the nursing cuts at the Ottawa hospital where he's going to have the surgery, he's told that his surgery could possibly be another two or three months away. This is unacceptable with the amount of growth in the aneurysm.
If the surgery doesn't happen very soon, Mr MacDermid will have a real problem. I have contacted the minister on two occasions, and I have had no response. This is how the Harris government manages health care, by cutting $800 million out of hospital funding, firing nurses and refusing patients like Mr MacDermid.
I would also like to mention Mr Clayton Lessard. Try to tell him that we've got a good system in place at the present time. And try to tell the Len Marsolais family. Len has passed away. He couldn't get the treatment he needed when he needed it. Yet the government - they tell us what a great government this is - increased the debt some $22 billion in four years.
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Come on, that's not right.
Mr Cleary: It's a fact. It's true.
I would like to talk a little bit more about the Quebec government and the Ontario government. I would just like to read a resolution that I have supported and my council in the city of Cornwall has supported. It says:
"And whereas Cornwall city council, as recently as September 9, 1996, supported Bill 60 introduced by MPP Jean-Marc Lalonde to eliminate unfair practices in the construction industry;
"Therefore, be it resolved that Cornwall city council likewise prohibit Quebec companies from bidding on city of Cornwall capital projects until such time as the government of Quebec removes its barriers to out-of-province construction workers and building contractors."
Mr Patten: What was the date of that?
Mr Cleary: That was on September 9, 1996.
Then there's the resolution they passed last night in which several members of council pointed out that they're pleased that the province has followed through, as city hall had been pushing Queen's Park to take action for many years. The motion was passed Monday night. Cornwall specifically has no choice but to take this action to support Ontario construction workers. I was pleased. They have been very supportive of that all along.
I want to mention a few other things here too about the turmoil, especially in the rural schools and the schools in my area, with the lack of staff and special education programs and school closures that are ruining the community. In many areas, especially in the rural part, the school is not only used for education purposes but is also the community centre, recreation facility and meeting place. If these schools are closed, it will cut the heart right out of my community.
In my municipal days, the first thing that people who were moving into my community would say is, "Where will my children go to school?" That was why they located there, so their children could go to a school close to home.
Some time ago, the Upper Canada District School Board held preliminary discussions on how to fix the mess the Harris government created in education in our area and has developed a series of recommendations which are outlined in its School Accommodation Study. In the report, the board suggests that the education ministry change its policies with respect to school board eligibility for new pupil places. The board believes the ministry should apply its 80% utilization provisions for school operations and school renewal to grants for new pupil places for school boards where students are spread over a large geographic area. The board is struggling to fix and adjust problems over which it has control, but it states that the Harris government must assist in addressing problems where the solutions are beyond the board's control and capacity.
Mr Saunderson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to correct something that's been said. This government inherited an accumulated deficit of $100 billion, not the $22 billion that he recognized. I want to get that in tonight because I think it's misinformation.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr Cleary: Finally, in the throne speech we heard quite a lot about this government patting itself on the back regarding job creation. The government loves to take all the credit when new jobs are created but the actual reason is the booming American economy and low interest rates. They're just a partner in what's happening.
In my area and across Ontario we have a strike with Bell Canada technicians. I received a fax from Mr Edward Burns of Cornwall who is currently on strike and is eager to have discussions take place to end the strike as quickly as possible. Many residents in my area support him and want to know if the government would have any advice on how to get them back to the bargaining table as there have been no discussions since April 9 and no plans are scheduled.
The government has created turmoil in health care and education, and is spending over $100 million in self-serving government ads to try to buy an election. That would provide a lot of health care and home care to some of our residents who've had their health care needs cut.
I was kind of disappointed in the throne speech. There was no mention at all of agriculture anywhere in the speech. I just got corrected on a few things a minute ago. The second-biggest creator of jobs in this province and nothing at all mentioned about agriculture. But the government can't cover up the fact -
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we're out of time. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2129.