Journal des débats 1994-avril-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Communities across Ontario have been shocked and frightened in the last few years by increasingly random acts of violence which defy our comprehension and challenge our tolerance.

We've now reached a point where action must be taken, concerted action by all three parties in this House, by all levels of government, by every community, by parents, by teachers, by everyone, because we all have a stake in this society and we are all part of the solution.

I should not have to remind this House that violence in our communities is a non-partisan issue. My leader, Lyn Mcleod, recently proposed a non-partisan approach to this problem. This is not the time to play political games. We have absolutely nothing to gain in this way.

Collaboration is essential and we can find a common ground upon which to launch new initiatives, initiatives that would reassert respect for human life, for the dignity of all individuals and for private and public property.

We do not want law and order at any price, yet we can no longer tolerate random acts of violence. To implement long-term solutions, we must attack the roots of crime, address the multiple social and economic causes of crime. We cannot afford Band-Aid solutions. Greater control over guns and bullets is a good starting point.

Let's work together on this issue. Let's do something.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Fifty-five thousand 13- and 16-year-olds randomly selected from English and French public and separate schools around the country are participating in the first national test in reading and writing launched by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

The purpose of the school achievement indicators program is to collect information that will help determine how effective our education systems are in relation to Canada-wide standards.

In 1991, the Minister of Education stated that the government would not participate in the national testing, stating that tests did not reflect Ontario's curriculum or demographic profile. This decision was almost universally condemned in newspaper editorials across the province, and by parents and by educators. This decision was made at a time when the public was demanding more accountability from our education system.

Our party vigorously, strongly supported a national testing program, and on December 10, 1991, the second Minister of Education -- with our strong urging, I might add -- Mr Tony Silipo, announced that Ontario would participate in the school achievement indicators program.

Our wish today is to urge this government to develop a core curriculum for Ontario for elementary and secondary schools which sets standards for each grade level and establishes testing at regular intervals to ensure attainment of those standards. I believe that an education system that is accountable and provides excellence must be a priority for the students, the parents and the whole, entire Ontario community.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to recognize some individuals from my region. As we all know, last week was recognized as Volunteer Week, and on April 19 I had the privilege of participating in the volunteer appreciation evening held by the Waterloo region branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. This is the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the association has been in the Waterloo region for 33 years.

Currently, there are over 500 volunteers in the Waterloo region, and each of these volunteers makes a very important contribution to our community. All the volunteers prove that a caring community is the answer.

In line with our government's mental health reforms, the Canadian Mental Health Association encourages community involvement, participation and maintenance. Volunteers are able to help make this a reality.

Volunteers give a very important part of themselves. They make a commitment to their community and to those they help. Volunteering is as natural a self-expression as talking.

The evening was an acknowledgement of the impact these volunteers have had on our community and all our lives. It was a pleasure to be a part of this event, and I just want to say thank you to all the volunteers. Their work, their efforts and their dedication is evident in everything they do.

The awards presented included length-of-service awards, outstanding volunteer contribution, honorary membership, as well as pins and certificates for one to seven years inclusive and for 10 years service.

These people are outstanding individuals in our community and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all our volunteers and the Waterloo region branch for their efforts in the community.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Malvern remedial project, a project jointly sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Government Services and Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, recently announced the final stages of removing radioactive soil from McClure Crescent and nearby McLevin Avenue to a temporary site at Passmore Avenue and Tapscott Road, where the material will be stored, sorted out and shipped to a storage site in Chalk River, Ontario.

This was a commitment I made on June 19, 1985, to remove this contaminated soil from the area. In anticipating that the process may take a long time, in 1986 the Liberal government of the day purchased 40 homes that were affected. We are just months away from when the process will begin. The residents who are still there are very concerned and should be commended for their patience and endurance. They just cannot wait any longer to have that soil removed.

The efforts of Gord Laschinger, the director of real estate of Management Board, should not go unmentioned. His competence and understanding of the issue allowed the matter to be dealt with efficiently. Brad Franklin, the senior public affairs officer for the low-level radioactive waste management office, kept me informed constantly.

I'm concerned that the mayor and some councillors are having second thoughts about this. I hope they get on with it and make sure that this soil is moved immediately.

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I recently had the opportunity to meet with members of my community representing School Bus Ontario, an organization which believes that safety must be the first priority of student transportation.

There is no doubt that Ontario's present school bus transportation network, which is the result of decades of fine-tuning of regulations and policies, offers the safety and security that is expected by the students and parents of this province. The alternative to school buses is to require children to use local transportation systems. While this may be acceptable for older high school students, I share the coalition's concern about the hazards which younger children may be exposed to.

1340

On a school bus, routes are planned around the location of students' homes and schools, eliminating the need for children to transfer buses. It is unlikely that children can get off school buses at the wrong stop. As well, on a school bus, students are not allowed to stand up.

Finally and most importantly, since children ride only with their peers on a school bus, they are safe from harassment or crime while on the bus and cannot be followed by adults intending to harm them.

Therefore this group, the School Bus Ontario coalition, has asked that in order to preserve safety and security, yet reduce total spending on student transportation, long-term restructuring of this vital public service is essential and that no further reductions of student transportation funding occur until such time as restructuring initiatives can be implemented to realize greater cost efficiencies.

I support safe transportation to and from school.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to provide this House with an update on job creation and job sustainability in northern Ontario.

As we know, provincial government activity, in partnership with communities and the private sector, has helped to stabilize the northern economy. Overall, the government has created and maintained thousands of jobs and has developed innovative approaches to economic development. Increased training and education have helped the north develop the capacity to continue diversification and become part of the new information-based economy.

In Kapuskasing, the province facilitated the employee and community buyout of Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co, saving 800 jobs, and in Thunder Bay, the employee buyout of Provincial Papers saved 700 jobs.

Loans and loan guarantees from the province and the northern Ontario heritage fund have allowed sawmills in a number of communities to survive in the downturn of the 1990s and return to profitability.

Since 1990, there have been 31,000 jobs created and supported in northern Ontario through the various Jobs Ontario programs, youth employment and provincial investment in companies. In Cochrane North alone, our Jobs Ontario Training program has helped to create 603 long-term jobs in cooperation with the private sector. We also have two aboriginal training brokers who have created 46 jobs since they started a year ago. This particular program has created over 2,700 jobs for all of northern Ontario. The Ontario native community infrastructure program created 300 jobs since 1991.

Hydro-electric generating stations also have created a number of jobs. The Negagami-Shekak project has just got the go-ahead. It will create 123 construction jobs and 400 indirect jobs.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Last Monday, Mike Harris questioned the government about its intention to start charging fees to boy scouts and girl guides using provincial parks. Harris noted that the government was so desperate that it was willing to go after six-year-old kids.

The Conservatives see this change as a new kind of user fee, yet though seemingly opposed to user fees in the parks, they are in support of user fees in other areas such as health care. The question is, what will Mike Harris do if six-year-old Bobby hurts himself while camping and has to be rushed to the local hospital? Under a Tory government, will Bobby's parents have to pay for the services of a doctor or for health care? Mike Harris says yes. Mike Harris doesn't think little Bobby should have to pay for camping, but isn't opposed to charging him to use the health care system.

Harris also noted that the campers could participate in activities around the park instead of paying daily fees, a kind of workfare. How does that work? Does little Bobby have to sign a commitment that he's going to work before they allow him into the park or do they check little Bobby's pockets to make sure he's taken out enough paper in order to allow him to leave the park?

Is this the same Mike Harris who thinks it's okay for Helle Hulgaard to stay at home and collect welfare instead of working? Mike Harris wants boy scouts and girl guides to work for their campground fees, but people with good-paying jobs can quit and let the system support them.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Premier and it concerns a fax I received yesterday, April 26, from a Mr Allan Deegan, vice-president, CN North America. Mr Deegan indicates that CN filed a notice of intent yesterday with the National Transportation Agency of Canada to cease rail operations on the Newmarket subdivision, Bradford to Washago, and on the Midland subdivision, Orillia to Uhthoff.

In 90 days or less, following the filing of the notice of intent, Mr Deegan said CN will formally apply for permission to abandon these lines. He said CN invited proposals from short-line operators for five lines in Ontario including the Barrie-Collingwood and Midland-Uhthoff lines. Mr Deegan said, and I quote, "Potential bidders withdrew from this process when changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were enacted." Thousands of jobs will disappear in Ontario because of the NDP government's job-killing labour bill, Bill 40.

Premier, you pledged that this session of the Legislature would be about "jobs, jobs, jobs." The word "jobs" came out of your mouth dozens of times during your recent speech to the NDP provincial council.

Premier, I urge you to table and support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Simcoe West, which amends the successor rights portion that makes it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines. Ensure that workers can keep their jobs, jobs, jobs. Your Minister of Jobs has said no to jobs.

LES COOK

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to pay tribute to Les Cook, a former mayor of the city of Woodstock who passed away last week.

Les Cook dedicated his life to public service. He spent a career with Canada Post before retiring in 1985 as a postal supervisor. He spent his spare time driving a school bus for the Oxford County Board of Education.

But as importantly, he believed strongly in involving himself in local politics. For 21 years, Les represented his neighbours and friends at city hall as a city and county councillor, plus three terms as mayor. He retired from the political scene in 1991 but remained an ardent observer. Often you would see letters to the editor in the local paper from Les as he offered his views on a problem.

But Les's contribution to his community and country stretch back further than his terms in public office. He spent more than six years overseas with the Royal Canadian Regiment and the Canadian Provost Corp during the Second World War. Upon his return, he remained a faithful member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 55, Woodstock, and for many years was the sergeant of the colour party.

Tributes to Les poured in from the many people who had served with him over the years. They painted a picture of a tireless worker, dedicated to doing his best in the public interest.

Les Cook's contributions to his community were many and they will not soon be forgotten.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday, during the division bells on second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, the Speaker received two letters of deferral pursuant to standing order 28(g). The Speaker, according to practice, accepted the first letter he received as the prevailing one. Following this, several members rose on points of order as to the decision that had been made.

Essentially two points were raised. The first was that the Speaker should not accept the first letter received but should adopt some other method of determining acceptability. The second point raised dealt with the question of what the words "specified time" are interpreted to mean in the standing order. I will address both of these points shortly.

Before I do that, however, I want to return to the further events of yesterday. Members will recall that it came to the attention of the Speaker that the first deferral letter received did not meet the requirements set out in standing order 28(g), which states:

"During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (f), the vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House."

While it is true that on at least one previous occasion a deferral letter signed by a member other than the chief whip of a recognized party was accepted, it is my view that standing order 28(g) is very clear and can only be interpreted to allow acceptance of a deferral letter from the chief whip of a recognized party. I therefore have no alternative but to find that the deferral letter received yesterday from the acting government whip is out of order and cannot be accepted. The vote on the question of second reading of Bill 138 is accordingly deferred until 4:15 pm today as requested in the deferral letter signed by the chief whip of the official opposition pursuant to standing order 28(g).

Turning now to the point raised with respect to the words "specified time" in standing order 28(g), I can only say that in this House for the purposes of this standing order, "specified time" has consistently been interpreted to mean either a time prescribed by the clock or a time in the proceedings of the House such as "immediately following routine proceedings" or "immediately prior to orders of the day."

1350

I now wish to address the question of which deferral letter is to be accepted by the Speaker when more than one is received. It has been our practice in this House that the Speaker accepts the first deferral letter received. It is obvious to me from the events of yesterday, a close reading of standing order 28(g) and previous occurrences in this House that this practice does not encourage dignity or preserve decorum appropriate to this chamber.

It is clear that a change is required, and it is my view that such changes are best made by consultation with members from all parties. Therefore, pursuant to standing order 106(i), I am referring this question to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for its consideration and expeditious report.

Members should be fully aware that should circumstances similar to the events of yesterday occur before the committee makes its report, the Speaker will determine the method of selecting the prevailing deferral letter.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Thank you very much for your presentation, sir. On the issue of when to choose the properly filed deferral notice, I commented yesterday, and it was taken as notice by the then Speaker, that the member who initiated the delivery of the government's notice of deferral was not in his own place. In fact, if he had risen in his place to initiate a speech or an intervention, he would have been ruled out of order and not recognized.

It is my view, sir, that when someone who initiates any event, any legal proceeding in this House, does so from a position or place of seating other than his own, he should be treated in exactly the same way as though he were intervening orally in the proceedings of the day: called to order, sent back to his seat, and then asked to proceed with whatever legal intervention in the proceeding he or she may wish to make.

I think that would have also solved some of our problem yesterday. It probably would not have eliminated the need for a foot race, because that eventually was all that we are now left with: The acceptance of the first filed is now obviously the way things will be until the House, through its Legislative Assembly committee, decides.

For me, we thought we had a decision taken earlier by a previous Speaker. In fact, I looked up the date and everything, and it was the sense I had that maybe there was to be a different manner of delivering our notices of deferral.

In any event, I think it is important for you to take notice of the fact that all of the proceedings, however or whenever they are to occur under the auspices of the standing orders, must be so done and conducted in accordance with order in the House. If somebody pretends they are to be delivering some message to your chair in accordance with 28(g), they should do so from their own place and not, as I suggested might happen from here on in, having a bunch of people camped out on the dais in order to be first on your list. I think you should make some decision with respect to that. I don't think you have any option but to declare that people can only initiate interventions here from their own seats, for instance.

I think you should be very clear that perhaps there is something that should be worked on in relation to what is most convenient for all of the people. I rose yesterday and intervened by saying that just because the government got its deferral notice there first meant that we as the minority then had to put up with whatever the government instructed us. That to me is not the way the deferral notice is to work. The deferral notice is supposed to mean -- well, it's not convenient for people now, but it should not be made less convenient for the rest of us just because the government was able to get its to you in time.

So there are several issues of which I think you should take note.

Preliminarily, I think you should declare that no one can initiate a proceeding here when he or she is out of order, that they be called to order and dispatched back to their place to initiate the event from their place of order. I think that, as a preliminary matter, might help some things be resolved.

I think you should also take into consideration that where there is a dispute as to timing of votes which are important -- this is a tax bill; this is a confidence item. It's not likely that the matter will be defeated by the few numbers of the opposition who now occupy this place, but because it is a confidence matter, I think it is imperative that if there's a disagreement as to time, perhaps the convening of a meeting of House leaders should be taken so we can work on the appropriate time so that the best result, in the sense of the House being most highly attended, can be arranged.

Those two points in particular I think are significant for us at this point.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Just very briefly on the issue of specified time, while I appreciate that in the past there have been letters that have suggested that a deferred vote be held in accordance with a certain spot in our business sheet, I would suggest to you, having spoken to the member for Carleton yesterday, who was the representative from our party who helped draft the change in the standing orders, that "specified time" was never intended by the draftspeople in all three parties of this Legislature to refer to anything other than a specified time; that is, a time on the clock.

If someone were to say, "What time is it now?" if you're walking down the street or here, nobody would say, "Oh, it's before orders of the day." They would say, "It is three minutes to 2." It seems to make abundant sense to me. The government doesn't seem to agree. Maybe when they have their cabinet meetings or their caucus meetings, they say: "It'll be on Tuesday before orders of the day. That's when you're supposed to come to caucus." Our caucus says, "It's Tuesday morning at 10 am." I don't know how the New Democratic Party works on that principle. It's kind of vague and it's certainly not specified and it's certainly not a time.

I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that you might want to refer the issue of "specified time" to the Legislative Assembly committee as well.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point you've ruled on in terms of specified time and that the House leader for the third party has raised, the House leader for the third party stands in his place and contradicts himself.

The opposition parties in this House have delivered deferral notices to the Chair to conduct votes "immediately after routine proceedings." Both the opposition parties have done that to the government. So it is the precedent of this House --

Mr Eves: We are in agreement: We have done that. We're not talking about standing order 28(g).

Hon Mr Charlton: No, no. When this issue originally arose here last fall, it was because the opposition parties intentionally deferred a vote until after routine proceedings, not to a specified time, and that caused the government to lose the afternoon on a particular matter. The precedents in this House for the last three years have seen the House defer votes on a regular basis to after routine proceedings. The procedure the government used yesterday, as you've set out in your ruling, Mr Speaker, is no different from that.

On the other matters raised by the House leader for the official opposition, Mr Speaker, I look forward to hearing your comments on them because they are probably legitimate questions that should be resolved.

Mr Elston: One other point: I did forget to raise one other issue with you, sir, and that is the question of the business of the day. We have a precise listing of what goes on here. In fact, it's delivered to us each day. What all this is about is exactly as the member for Hamilton Mountain has indicated: It is the struggle over when you get a full day's work so that time allocation motions will be seen to be valid in this place.

The whole reason the decision has been taken to refer this to a time that is before orders of the day is so that once orders of the day are called, he can get a full afternoon's debate on 120, thereby fulfilling his requirements under his time allocation motion.

This is one of those very fine-line issues. In fact, in this place, if we were to go through this with someone who has nothing in terms of knowledge of how this place works, we would divide our day down into routine proceedings and orders of the day. What is happening now, of course, is that we are trying to create some kind of twilight zone. The deferred vote is not a routine proceeding and the government wishes it not to be an order of the day, yet, legitimately, if we deal with this and we take it off our Orders and Notices, it has been the dealing with of an order. Basically, we can't have it two ways. It can't be dealing with an order and not dealing with an order. It may be that this will help us deal with some of the issues, but in my view, we cannot come to this place and say we have routine proceedings and orders of the day, and another thing called "convenience zone" so that whatever must be done can be done.

1400

From my point of view, Mr Speaker, it is either an order or it is not an order. If we vote on it, if we take a proceeding, it is the conducting of an order of the day. Perhaps you might think on that, because if we have a deferred vote which does get dealt with, then it seems to me that is and has to be considered an order of the day and the first item of business conducted by this place. I don't know how we can have a vote that is not an order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, to the additional point which the House leader for the official opposition has raised, you've already ruled on that matter. It was ruled on last fall and we've been dealing with that question, I think, rather appropriately.

As I said earlier, I would be happy to hear your comments on the other two matters that the House leader for the official opposition has raised, because they are questions that should have some definition and some understanding for members of the House.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders, all three House leaders have spoken quite eloquently on precisely why I have referred this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

May I say and underscore a portion of the ruling which I made today: The spectacle of members racing to the dais with a piece of paper is unacceptable to me in terms of maintaining the appropriate dignity and decorum which this chamber deserves. While this matter is being dealt with by the Legislative Assembly committee, should there be an occasion for a deferred vote, the Chair will have a method of dealing with it that is not simply first come, first served. I trust that all members are fully aware of that.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to remark about the elections in South Africa.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

ELECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It is indeed a great honour for me to stand in my place today and speak on behalf of the government of Ontario as we rejoice and celebrate the end of apartheid, the end of discrimination and racism, and the beginning of new freedoms, and certainly today the freedom of elections in South Africa.

Apartheid was a tool in South Africa to use in the form of racism and discrimination. It dehumanized 16 million people. It prevented them from fully participating in their country and it made them live in abject poverty that we as citizens in Ontario viewed with horror.

It took away these people's right to be able to participate fully in things that we in Ontario take for granted, occasionally, such as being able to express themselves, to be able to participate fully in their choice of a political party, to be able to vote, and to be able to have a choice in decision-making in how their government should be run.

We are extremely pleased that today, as we view from here in Ontario, many of us on this side of the House have both privately and publicly expressed support for ending apartheid and making sure that we came to a point and place in time that people would be able to participate, as we do in Ontario.

We all have two vivid memories of the events which have led up to this particular day. We have seen in more recent times the Sharpeville massacre, which we mark every year as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. There were demonstrations which were usually followed by bloody violence in Soweto township, and there were revolting conditions under which the majority of the people of South Africa lived, not just the poverty but the fact that they were dehumanized and they were unable to participate in equality and in fairness.

But then we started to see a change, in time. As we in Ontario put aside our political partisanship, we can all take pride in the fact that as Canadians, as citizens of this great province, we were able to turn the tide of events and we were able to put pressure on South Africa to end apartheid and therefore end racism and discrimination.

We participated in a boycott of South African products. We participated in rallies and demonstrations, voicing our concerns not only here in Ontario but at the United Nations. We participated in international events, putting pressure on the government of South Africa to review its practices and its policies and to bring in a free and democratic society.

More recently, the government of Ontario was also able to help in this new process. Just recently, in February, Jacob Zuma, deputy secretary-general of the ANC, who is a candidate for the position of Premier in the province of KwaZulu, Natal, and Felix Delamini, who is the principal secretary of the ANC, visited and shadowed our Premier. Not only did they shadow the Premier and see how a Premier is able to operate on a day-to-day basis, but they visited many of our ministries, participated in briefings to see how government in Ontario works, were able to view us here in the House, and were able to ask various ministries questions about how governments operate and work in a democratic society.

In addition, just recently -- in fact, in the last two weeks -- Ontario hosted eight public servants in training as part of an international program for South African civil servants. This mentoring program was for two weeks, whereby each person spent time with and shadowed a senior manager of a particular ministry.

This is surely an example of how Ontario has been trying to respond to the growing concern of making sure that the new democratic process will work and will continue to work. We're very pleased that we've been able to participate in this international movement to see South Africa become a democratic nation.

On this day, as we watch, we are still very concerned that we want to make sure that racism and discrimination are ended all around the world, not just in South Africa but here in Ontario as well. We wish all of our brothers and sisters in South Africa Godspeed and goodwill and we pray for them that this new process will work, and we will be there for them to make sure it does work.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of my caucus, I am pleased to join with all members of this House in congratulating South Africa on its first multiracial elections in that nation's history.

These elections mark the beginning of the end of three centuries of apartheid, a policy of oppression, a policy that divided a nation. This is another of those days that few of us expected to see in our lifetime. Who among us would have expected to see a free Nelson Mandela campaigning to become President of South Africa?

It was wonderful this morning, on television, to watch Nelson Mandela cast that first vote and it was marvellous to see the joy in people's faces as they lined up for hours just to have that privilege of casting their first vote, and to see the woman who dressed in her finest as she went out to celebrate what for her was the greatest day of her life.

As people around the world celebrate these elections, the people of Ontario and indeed all Canadians can be especially proud of the role we have played in achieving this historic event. From Sharpeville to Soweto to the imposition of sanctions in the late 1980s, we have stood solidly behind freedom and democracy and racial equality in South Africa.

The creation of a non-racial democracy has been one of Canada's main foreign policy objectives since the 1960s, and today Ontarians and Canadians are still at the forefront. In addition to Canada's team of 12 observers, there are 58 others from non-governmental organizations in South Africa right now, helping to ensure the freeness and the fairness of the elections. We thank them for their work and for their commitment.

1410

The road to freedom has not been an easy one for South Africa, and even today images of violence are mixed with the images of joy and the reality of celebrating a unique achievement. We know that making democracy work in South Africa is not going to be easy. As Canadians, we will continue to be there, offering our assistance, advice and encouragement so that the fledgling roots of multiracial democracy will take hold and grow strong.

Democracy in South Africa could not have been achieved without the leadership of people like Nelson Mandela who were able to inspire not just South Africans but people around the globe. I think we all remember Nelson Mandela's visit to Queen's Park three years ago, when tens of thousands of people came to the rally. I believe that said a lot about the way that Ontarians feel about the fight for freedom in South Africa.

We must also recognize the important role played by F.W. de Klerk, who heard the demands for change and who saw that apartheid was no longer viable for South Africa.

But most of all we must congratulate the people of South Africa for their tremendous resilience and perseverance and their vision of a free nation. Their struggle has been long and painful and too often tragic, but they were determined that their struggle would not be lost and they have emerged victorious.

This is a day that should make all of us stop and understand once again how precious democracy is, as we see others who have been prepared to fight for and to die for and to cherish the right to vote that we too often take for granted.

Let us hope and pray that as the voting takes place this week the people of South Africa will not be intimidated from exercising their newly won rights by those who wish to continue the violence and the hatred of the past. Whatever the outcome of these elections, we must hope that peace will prevail and that the people of South Africa will begin living in harmony, free of the fear and anguish that have gripped their nation for so long.

We extend to the people of South Africa our best wishes for success in these elections as they begin building a new country, one that, as Nelson Mandela said this morning, will bring prosperity and hope for the future.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'd like to thank our leader, Mike Harris, for asking me to speak on behalf of our caucus on this very important issue and would share strongly in the statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the government.

A historic event such as the free election in South Africa will be a day that is remembered for ever. It marks the end of apartheid, the beginning of a new democracy and a fresh start for freedom and hope and a new life for the people in Africa.

The Berlin Wall was built in August 1961 and came down in November 1989, some 28 years. Yet today the walls of segregation that have been built over time are at last coming down. The 340 years of an era of dominance in South Africa that has distinguished white from coloured and white from Asian are now coming to an end.

The walls of apartheid were formally erected in 1948 and laid down a structure separating racial groups one from another and ensured no resistance to the rule by a minority.

Today the South African nation has a new Constitution, a new flag and a new democracy. The walls of prejudice are as large as any that humans can build, and yet, like the walls of Jericho, with faith and much suffering those very walls are now broken.

When you think of democracy, I remember what J.A. Corry said in 1951:

"If the democratic ideal of the supreme importance of individual personality is clearly understood and firmly held by the bulk of the people and if enough persons with an informed intelligence participate actively in democratic politics, the needed controls can probably be devised and the required caution is likely to be exercised."

With democracy there are no guarantees, only the possibility of greatness. The step towards democracy in South Africa leads us to wonder how well it will succeed; it leads us to hope that the new president will be blessed with good health, a long life and the support of the minorities; it leads us to pray for peace and happiness and harmony.

I want to share with the Legislature an experience that brought me to South Africa. Markham was one of the centres where people were voting. They were voting in Oakville and Toronto, London and Ottawa. When I arrived around 7:30, there were still four hours of people in the lineup yet to vote.

There you saw people from all over different parts of Africa. They came from Bloemfontein, Standerton, Capetown, Durban, Johannesburg and other South African communities, standing in line together, coloured, white, Asian, going up that line to do something they'd never done before.

They came from as far away as Barrie. There was a Salvation Army lieutenant from Fenelon Falls. You had a mixture of people from Scarborough, Willowdale. They were all Canadians who have dual citizenship and the chance to participate in what was going on within South Africa.

It was interesting as well to see, at the very end of the line -- and members of this Legislature will be impressed at this particular fact -- our own chief electoral officer, Mr Warren Bailie. Ontario's ambassador for democratic process across the world was at the end of the line making sure no one else got in if they came after the clock had stopped, when they could be there for their own historic moment to vote in the advance polls.

I saw the identification cards that people had with them, with the little K up in the right-hand corner which meant they were coloured, so if they were on a bus or in a washroom or in a restaurant or on a beach where they shouldn't have been, the police could set them apart. There they were last night, and I'd like to share some of the quotes of the people.

Mrs Sherry of Scarborough, who has lived here in Canada for 26 years, said she felt "over the moon like Bishop Tutu."

Lynton Friedman of Thornhill, 17 years in Canada, called this a "historic moment, yet scary." He didn't know what would happen.

Colin Daniels, who has lived in Markham for three years, said: "I've waited all my life to vote.... A few hours in line means nothing to me."

Natanya Shevel of Thornhill, who has been in Canada for one year, said, "It's wonderful that people who have been waiting their whole life are now taking part in this process."

Les Bulkin of Willowdale, eight years a Canadian, said:

"For myself, I am pleased that the people from South Africa are able to participate in forming the future. With the position there as volatile as it is, I am sure everyone who has left can only hope that things will work out for the country."

Fatima Ebraham of Thornhill said:

"I am elated and excited to be able to vote. It's the first time I've ever been able to vote in a South African election. Since 1982, when I became a Canadian citizen, I have voted in all Canadian elections."

Selwyn Janit of Thornhill, who has lived in Canada for five years, said that it's the most wonderful experience because he can say he is voting for the first time without conscience.

David Marcus of Thornhill, who has lived nine years in Canada, said:

"From a South African perspective, it is appropriate that one person has one vote. From the sheer numbers, it is also appropriate for black rule. To have stability in South Africa is to have a strong government. It has been unbelievable, the brain drain from South Africa. The highly skilled and educated people who had an impact on the country have left and the leaders there now are there by default."

One final quote from Jay Dayaljee, who is classified as an Asian in South Africa but now lives in Markham as a Canadian citizen, who said:

"I saw no hope in South Africa. Botha went with the status quo and I knew there would be a power struggle created by apartheid. People need education to bring them up to a standard and to have true equality."

May I say that this gentleman, in Canada for six years, now owns his own house, has launched a successful career, has his own small business, something he could never have done in a lifetime in South Africa.

This new government will have the almost overwhelming task of dealing with the problems of homelessness, unemployment, staggering illiteracy rates in education.

But Canada has played an important role in this long journey to today's election through our sanctions, through diplomacy and through the will of the Canadian people.

1420

Today I would like to do something in this House that is rare for someone from our side of the House. I want to give special commendation to our Premier, who has on this issue stood apart as one strong voice for the people of South Africa. He is not in the House today to hear me say it, but I have to compliment him. Our party has supported him strongly in his efforts to break down these walls of prejudice and hatred.

The Civil War in the United States is a parallel to South Africa. It's a parallel to the move to democracy for a people. I'd like, then, to draw upon the words of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address of November 19, 1863:

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

May that be our prayer for South Africa.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wish to thank the Minister of Citizenship, the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Markham for those very sensitive and thoughtful remarks on this important occasion.

I wish also to draw members' attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, with a strong Canadian presence, has been in South Africa and remains there as election monitors, and following the election will provide post-election seminars for the newly elected members of Parliament. The efforts of your Commonwealth Parliamentary Association you can be most proud of.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Solicitor General. It has now been more than three weeks since the senseless shooting at the Just Desserts café crystallized the growing concern about crime and safety. Tomorrow marks three weeks since I urged that those growing concerns about crime and safety be referred to the justice committee of this Legislature so that we could address what actions we as legislators could take to help people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. Three weeks, and we are still debating the agenda for that committee.

I recall that in May 1992, when riots in Los Angeles set off incidents of looting and rioting on Yonge Street here in Toronto, we congratulated the government that within 72 hours the government had taken action and had set up the Stephen Lewis task force. There was a sense of urgency then. But now, even with the Just Desserts killing, with the drive-by shootings in Ottawa, with people in Chatham being concerned about incidents of gang-related violence, there seems to be no sense of urgency.

My question to the minister is: Why was the government willing to act almost immediately in response to the Yonge Street riots and yet you refuse to take any action now? Why will you not deal with these concerns, today's concerns, with that same sense of urgency?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I reject the suggestion that we haven't taken the type of serious response that the member offers. I was on my feet yesterday in response to the acting leader of the official opposition on exactly the same question and I would respond again the same. On the very day that she offered up the idea that we would talk about referring the matter to a legislative committee, I embraced the idea on behalf of the government and said we were quite prepared to talk about that.

I'm not aware at this point that there's any particular finger-pointing going on as to why there isn't agreement on the agenda. We were very close to an agreement and then some ground shifted. That is not unusual in politics, but I remain adamant that this government and my colleague the House leader are prepared to spend whatever time is necessary meeting with opposition members to put together an agenda that all three parties can live with, that would have us dealing with, in a constructive way and in a meaningful way, the role Ontario can play, recognizing, as the honourable member does, that most of the initiatives are in the hands of the federal government. They have indicated that they are planning to present a package of proposals, and we have indicated that we are prepared to receive those proposals and respond very quickly and very effectively.

Mrs McLeod: I do remember that the minister embraced my suggestion with some enthusiasm. That's why I'm so frustrated that three weeks later there is still no agreement about the agenda. I simply don't believe there is a reason to continue to stall in getting on to discuss issues and to take important action.

Yesterday the Premier accused my colleague who raised this issue in the House, my colleague the member for Renfrew North, of playing politics in continuing to raise this issue. I cannot understand how we can be accused of playing politics in raising an issue which is in the forefront of people's minds, one of their greatest concerns. I simply don't believe it is playing politics to urge this government to take immediate action on such an important issue.

I remind the minister and the government that we as legislators have an obligation to do everything possible to make people feel more safe. I urged that this issue be referred to committee because I believed we needed to take urgent action. The fact that we have not been able to agree on an agenda, that it is three weeks later, does not take away from the fact that urgent action is still needed.

We have made one proposal for a specific action to regulate ammunition sales. The police say it's a good idea, and it has widespread public support. Will you take at least this one step that could be accomplished right now and pass this bill making it more difficult to buy ammunition, for criminals to get bullets?

Hon Mr Christopherson: It really does leave one wondering whether or not the original offer and the way it was meant was truly sincere, given that what I'm hearing here is very similar to what I received last week from the Tories, and that is the candle being burned at both ends.

On the one hand, the opposition parties have specific issues they want to talk about in committee, and we are having those discussions in an attempt to reach an agenda. As far as I know, they're still happening. I haven't received any official notice that those discussions are finished and that no one is any longer interested in a legislative committee. Yet honourable members in the opposition parties rise in their place and ask: "Why aren't you taking action on the very area you've asked us to work with you on?"

With all due respect, either the opposition parties want to deal with these issues in a non-partisan legislative fashion or they don't. If you don't, then this government will move unilaterally on those issues. I have said they are good ideas. I've said we're prepared to look at them. If you don't want to talk about them in committee any more, for whatever political agenda that suits, then please rise and say so, have your House leader confirm it to our House leader, and we'll get on with doing it.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, exactly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: That is exactly the issue. We want to deal with the issues that matter. We want this government to be urged to take action. We did not propose the referral to the committee so that we could spend three weeks negotiating what would be on the agenda, negotiating what we would be allowed to talk about. We certainly did not refer it to committee so that the minister could take whatever time was necessary to decide what he would talk about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: The time necessary is for ever, and we are never going to get on with dealing with the issues at all. That was not the purpose of the referral to the committee. There are a whole range of actions that could be taken to restore people's sense of safety in their communities. It is quite clear that the minister has no support from the members of his cabinet or his caucus to deal with these important issues.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Sarnia, please come to order.

Would the leader place her supplementary, please.

1430

Mrs McLeod: I believe that we need to stop the endless wrangling over the agenda so that we can get on with dealing with the issues. We continue to put forward the range of actions that we believe could be taken. We have suggested and proposed legislation that restricting bullets is one example. We have called for clear directives on sentencing regarding violent crime and gun-related offences. We believe we need to deal with these issues.

We understand that the government doesn't want to deal with community policing, we understand that the leader of the third party doesn't want to deal with ammunition control, and we are concerned that if we can't agree on an agenda there will be no action at all.

Minister, will you assure us today that we will get past the wrangling and get on to action? Do I have your commitment that we can at least sit down and talk about community policing and the control of ammunition and sentencing issues?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I reiterate again, very sincerely, in the interest of trying to reach back to the offer that she originally made and the tone, this government is prepared to sit down and talk about an agenda that all three parties can agree on. Any suggestion that we haven't been prepared to do that does not reflect the history of what has happened in the last three weeks, and the honourable member is sitting right beside the person who can give her those facts if, indeed, she needs them.

If they don't want to talk about these things, then I wish they would say so. As I've said earlier, we will move on these issues. This cabinet, this caucus is committed, and has been, to the issue of public safety and we will continue to do so whether or not we get your support on how we do it.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The member has represented me as having stood in the way of a broad discussion of the topics on crime. He has suggested that we have been holding up the discussions. In fact, that is not true.

On another point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: -- was heard to say, and I heard her perfectly clearly on this side, to call my member, the leader of our party, a fraud. I think you should ask that member for Ottawa Centre to withdraw because she is bringing into very high disrepute --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Bruce, he raises two points. On the first one he does not have a point of privilege, which he will know, but indeed there is certainly a difference of opinion and that's quite evident.

On the second point, if there was unparliamentary language used I did not hear it. However, as is the practice, if the member identified, the member for Ottawa Centre, believes that she did use unparliamentary language, she has an opportunity to so withdraw those remarks.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker, if the House leader of the official opposition believes --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- that it was unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Because of the shouting I could not hear what the member said. It is now time for the second question.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll refrain from further rebuttal and come back to the issue tomorrow, because my second question is indeed for the member for Ottawa Centre, the Minister of Housing.

Minister, this afternoon your legislation legalizing basement apartments is going to be going through the final stages. This afternoon is the last chance that we have to amend this legislation. This bill, and you know it well, does nothing for the safety of tenants living in existing basement apartments and this year already we have seen three tragic fires resulting in five deaths.

My colleagues and I have put forward amendments which we believe would provide protection for tenants and would help to prevent more tragedies from occurring. You refuse to consider them. I still don't understand how you can steadfastly refuse to even consider these amendments, and one last time I ask you if you will explain to me why you refuse to take action that would clearly protect against future tragedies.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I withdrew earlier comments about the Leader of the Opposition. However, I recall now why I felt impelled to use a word in a way that the House leader for the Liberals suggested was unparliamentary.

The tone and the accuracy of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying proves once again that they play with issues like this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition should know that the games played yesterday by the opposition mean that Bill 120 won't be dealt with this afternoon, or maybe she hasn't talked to her House leader at this time.

Further, she also knows that until apartments in houses are legal in this province, they cannot be safe. If she wishes to keep them illegal, I wish she'd be honest enough to say that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It will be of great assistance in trying to establish an appropriate decorum in the House if language which is provocative was not used. I would ask the leader to place her supplementary.

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I truly feel that when a man representing a riding in this House expresses anger you understand that, and I hope you will understand it when a woman does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader place her supplementary.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As a woman in this House, I would like to dissociate myself from the insinuations just made by the Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It was not my intention to upset anyone, but I would appreciate it if the House would come to order and if the Leader of the Opposition could now have an opportunity to place her question.

1440

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt that you will understand when I, as the leader of the party, who just happens also to be female, take offence that this entire debate has just occurred.

If this minister would prefer to deal with my tone rather than deal with my concern, I would then ask her to deal with the tone of the letter from the coroner who happens to be investigating one of the three basement apartment fires that resulted in deaths in the last four months.

He wrote to you, Minister, because he has great concerns that your legislation will not prevent more of these tragic events from occurring. He's telling you what we have tried to tell you and what fire chiefs from across this province have told you: that simply legalizing basement apartments will not make them safe.

Our amendments, Minister, would require existing basement apartments to be registered. They would give the municipalities the tools to ensure that existing units, those units you are about to make legal, would meet fire code requirements. That's the issue we are talking about and that's the concern we keep raising. Unless you accept our amendments before that legislation is passed, it will be too late.

The coroner pleads with you to amend the legislation before it's too late. Will you accept those amendments and will you fix that legislation before it is passed into law and tenants are left without protection?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Associated with Bill 120 are changes to the fire code which will provide for fire separations, for adequate fire alarm systems, for adequate means of escape from apartments in houses. In fact, the recommendations of more than one coroner's jury over the years have been very helpful to those officials gathered together by the fire marshal of Ontario who proposed the changes to the fire code which will come into effect with passage of Bill 120.

I will say again to the Leader of the Opposition, she has suggested that we are suggesting that passage of the bill and removal of the zoning question from discussion of safety of apartments in housing is somehow going to make every apartment safe. It will not, and what will be required is to have apartment owners and apartment dwellers know they are in a position --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You don't care.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- where the apartments are no longer considered illegal because of zoning and they are in a position to seek help to bring apartments up to standard. That is the only way we are going to have safety, and to insist that we pass from a situation where zoning makes them illegal to one where lack of registration makes them illegal does not help, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Mrs McLeod: This might once have begun as a debate about zoning; it is now a debate about safety, and I cannot make this minister understand that.

Minister, last year alone, 30% of basement fires just in Mississauga involved basement apartments. It is the people in those situations, living in those existing units, who are going to be left vulnerable when you pass your legislation. They are left unprotected.

This is not about politics. This is about fire chiefs who want to prevent disastrous accidents from occurring. This is about a coroner who is investigating a recent death and who says to you that he doesn't believe your law will prevent another one from occurring. That's what this is about. Our amendments are simple. They're simple to implement. We want to see a registry for existing units. We want municipalities to have the power to ensure that those existing units meet the fire code requirements.

If you will not pass these amendments, if it's because they come from an opposition party, even though these are broadly supported, even though a coroner is pleading with you to pass these amendments, will you please tell us what you're going to do to protect the tenants who now live in existing basement apartments which you are about to make legal and which are not safe?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The situation currently is that there are over 100,000 apartments in houses in the province of Ontario which are called illegal because of their zoning. Bill 120 changes that situation. It then allows the process in which property owners, municipal inspectors, fire officials and tenants can address the question of bringing apartments in houses up to safety standards.

Mr Mahoney: Wrong. You were right to a point; you're wrong.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That is the only way we're going to achieve safety.

Mr Mahoney: She doesn't know what she's talking about.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, come to order and allow the minister to complete her response.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There is no magic wand, and the Leader of the Opposition should not pretend there is. It's going to take work to undo years of a situation in which an underground economy was created in basement apartments, side apartments, attic apartments, many of which are unsafe.

We want to get to work on that. We're giving municipalities more power for inspection. Fire officials know the kind of code they now will be armed with. It's going to mean the gradual, step-by-step improvement of health and safety standards for tenants and for property owners in this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, the Toronto Star reported this morning that you have recently written off $10 million in loans to the Supportive Housing Coalition. Why?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I believe the Star report was accurate and the way the leader of the third party has expressed it is not. There were two loans to the Supportive Housing Coalition that were written off. They were written off because since the period going back to 1988, they had not produced affordable housing. The likelihood of their being able to produce affordable housing on the sites involved, which were under a program called the land-loan guarantee program, looked to be very bad. I decided that the time had come to call it quits with those projects.

Mr Harris: The question was, they wrote it off, and I asked why. So I was quite right in my question. Thank you very much, Minister.

The taxpayers of Ontario spend over $1 billion a year on government-subsidized housing and they deserve to know that their money is being spent appropriately. For the last five years or so, we have been raising these issues, back to the Patti Starr days, of project after project after project where taxpayer dollars have been wasted, where there has been mismanagement of taxpayer dollars rampant and rife in the government-assisted housing programs; case after case, property after property, where taxpayers are being gouged. This morning was just another example in the long litany of waste of taxpayer dollars, dollars that should be helping those who need affordable housing.

What has been revealed during the past week doesn't of course give them much comfort that anything is changing. We do not know just how far the recent rot that has been uncovered at just two agencies extends. Therefore, Minister, will you support terms of reference for the public accounts committee inquiry that include all government-funded housing agencies in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party alleges that over $1 billion is currently spent in subsidizing what he calls subsidized housing. If he's talking about the non-profit program, the amount of provincial dollars currently spent is $575 million annually. I wish he would get the figure straight when he talks about it. That supplies housing in an affordable way to about 120,000 households currently.

It's a very good investment. It's a good investment because now is the time when people need affordable housing. People have never had a greater need in this province. It's a good investment because currently we're providing about $2.6 billion to allow people who receive social assistance to rent apartments in the private market. I hope he will take that into account too when he next talks about this subject. We spend far more on shelter allowances, a rental subsidy program, if you will, than we do on non-profit housing, and we don't get any new affordable housing for it.

If the leader of the third party was aware, the public accounts committee of this Legislature has been going through a review of the non-profit housing program of the Ministry of Housing for several months now, and that review will continue in terms of the reports back by the ministry and discussions with members of the public accounts committee. I understand that the schedule is being framed up as we speak. The discussion has gone on in the public accounts committee about when the ministry will next be coming to discuss the program.

1450

Mr Harris: What the public accounts committee is investigating is a narrow scope of the ministry and the ministry involvement that the auditor has identified, not the groups, where all the fraud, we now find out, the abuse, the waste and the mismanagement, have been taking place.

Minister, I've asked a page to deliver a proposal to you. Too many times we have seen your government and then the predecessor government use its majority on legislative committees to cut off debate and effectively muzzle the opposition in its inquiries and investigations. I have sent over a proposal for terms of reference for the public accounts committee to get to the bottom of what appears to be a far-reaching problem in government housing in Ontario. It includes giving the committee the power to requisition annual reports, financial statements and all other documentation relating to the spending of housing agencies.

Are you prepared to support these terms of reference for the inquiry that's going to take place in public accounts so that we can get to the bottom of the mismanagement and the waste of taxpayer dollars rampant in the government housing programs of this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The non-profit housing program in the province of Ontario has existed through three governments, not just two. It was begun in fact by a Conservative government in this province, and it was to replace a program which had outgrown the style of society, which was the Ontario Housing Corp public housing building program.

It's a program, the non-profit program, which provides a financing mechanism for non-profit, community-based groups to be able to undertake the development and management of mixed income developments of housing, which provides some rent-geared-to-income assistance for people most in need of housing in Ontario.

It is not fair and he has really no right to be able to suggest that the program is a program that is replete with fraud. There have been incidents in which some agencies --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Of course he's got a right. He was elected. What a stupid comment.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- which this government does not own and which are accountable, not to him and not to this government but to their non-profit incorporated boards --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Those agencies exist in the community -- he may not like it -- but in fact they are not organs of government. Our responsibility to the public in Ontario is to make sure that our contractual arrangements with them are accountable. That is what we will do and that is what we have proposed the public accounts committee feel free to do in the case of Houselink, the Supportive Housing Coalition and indeed the whole non-profit program.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I assume that answer means you will give direction to your majority to stifle the opposition on the committee.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, AIDS Action Now brought its frustration with your government into this chamber, and today, Minister, I want to bring that frustration on to the floor of the Legislature. Joining us in the members' gallery is Brian Farlinger, co-chair of Aids Action Now.

Minister, we are all aware of the financial pressures on your ministry. What that means is that you must set priorities.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: Your inaction, for example, on health card fraud alone costs 10 times more in waste than AIDS Action Now and others are requesting for treatment of catastrophic illness. Over the din and yelling and screaming and ranting of your backbench members, Minister, will you tell Mr Farlinger and others if drug funding for catastrophic illnesses will be a health care priority in the budget to come down next week?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I'm sure the leader of the third party is aware, I am not in a position to discuss what will be in next week's budget, but I am very interested to have the indication from him that funding for AIDS, drugs for people with AIDS, is a priority of him and of his party.

Let me say to him that for this government, the funding of the Ontario drug benefit program has been a priority. We spend over $1 billion a year on a program that provides free drugs to seniors, to people on social assistance and to people with catastrophic diseases in the most generous drug program of any province in this country.

I know the needs of people with illnesses who have catastrophic drug costs, and as we have expanded our drug programs, as we have done, we have also tried to manage them in a way that prevents the 16% growth in the cost of the program that occurred between 1983 and 1993. Of course, establishing new programs is difficult within that climate, but certainly if we find that we can do that, priority for AIDS drugs is one to which I'm very much committed.

Mr Harris: We've had several other announcements come from you and other ministers that have obviously had a higher priority. You would agree with me, from your comments, that the priority for persons living with AIDS is access to treatment to improve their quality of life.

In January 1993, the former Minister of Health, Frances Lankin, told the Toronto Star she hoped to have a comprehensive policy in place before your government's mandate expires. It is now over a year later and we have seen nothing. We have heard nothing interim. We have heard nothing from you or from the former minister or from the government.

Minister, for many members of Mr Farlinger's coalition --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: -- time is not on their side of living up to the commitment that your former Minister of Health made. Could you tell us you when you plan to live up to that commitment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm surprised that the leader of the third party is not familiar with the discussion papers, the reports that we have done, the discussions we have had with a number of groups about reforming the drug benefit program.

I hope he also is aware of the commitment to providing treatment for people with AIDS, again where this province has shown leadership across the country, whether it be the Wellesley primary care clinic, the opening of a new clinic and expanded clinic at the Toronto Hospital, clinics in Windsor, in Ottawa, in Hamilton, the provincial advisory network that we've set up, the anonymous testing program. We spend $40 million a year, and that excludes doctor's fees, hospital services and drug costs, on helping people with AIDS deal with their problem.

I would remind the leader of the third party that it was his party, at the federal level, that brought in a bill known as C-91, legislation that increased the price of drugs exponentially to all of the provinces and has made it ever more difficult for provinces, no matter how much they want to do so, to live up to their expectations of what they would be able to do.

1500

Mr Harris: Yes, Minister, I'm aware of the litany of committees, of reports, of recommendations. Yes, I'm aware that constantly when you're embarrassed by inaction, you point the finger anywhere around the world, to any individual, somewhere other than right here at home in the Ontario Legislature, in the Ontario government and the lack of priorities that you, your ministry, your cabinet and your Premier have had in this area.

In November 1991, your government set up the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, I might add to the unanimous support of this Legislature and all members of the House. Its purpose was to review programs, care, regulations and other issues affecting victims of this deadly disease. Minister, that group has been working for well over two years, yet you have taken no action in any of the areas that it has been addressing and asking you to take action in.

I guess, Minister, I have to ask you, after this period of time, if the purpose of the committee is simply to study, to assess facts, to have more committees, to have reports, if it's anything more than window dressing to hide the fact that you do not have a policy yet. You don't have a policy to address the concerns --

The Speaker: Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- of victims of AIDS in Ontario, nor have you set any deadline for recommendations from this committee.

I am asking you, Minister, will you set such a deadline? Will you set a commitment that I assume would be supported by all members of this Legislature to take action now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm very interested to know of the leader of the third party's interest in the work of the AIDS advisory committee. I don't know whether it is a new-found interest, but let me assure him that in fact there has been extensive work done as a result of the recommendations and the work of that advisory committee.

We spend, as part of our special drugs program, $9 million a year in order to provide drugs for people with AIDS. I recognize that there is more that could be done. I recognize that there are new drugs that come on the market that would help people live with AIDS.

On the other hand, as our government wrestles with trying to deal with the enormous fiscal problems of this province, we have to manage our funds as carefully as we can. We would all like to say that we could continue a 16% growth in the Ontario drug benefit program; we're not able to do that.

The management initiatives that we have taken and that have enabled us to expand the program, not as much as we would like, but to expand it and still live within our means, are ones that I think have significantly helped people living with AIDS.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question for the Minister of Housing. She has confirmed that the Ontario government and taxpayers have had to write off $10 million worth of costs incurred with two projects sponsored by the Supportive Housing Coalition in the city of Toronto.

Can the Minister of Housing confirm that there is a third project which has had to be abandoned, this project at 55 Kildonan Road in the eastern portion of the city of Toronto, another project supported by the group in question, Supportive Housing Coalition? Can she confirm that third project has been abandoned and can she indicate the costs involved there?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It is correct that a Cityhome project -- it was not a Supportive Housing Coalition proposal but a Cityhome project -- at 55 Kildonan Road was in fact written off at the end of last year. The amount of that write-off was for -- I don't find the number right here in front of me. I'll search for it while he asks his supplementary question.

Mr Conway: The beat goes on. The Provincial Auditor has pointed out the problems in this area. My information is that the Kildonan project comes at a very considerable cost to the Ontario taxpayer.

Let me ask this question: The audit on the Supportive Housing Coalition which was made available to your government in March 1992 makes it plain that no additional allocations from the Ontario government should be made to the Supportive Housing Coalition unless and until the myriad of problems that are identified in this audit are cleaned up. Can the Minister of Housing assure this House that no further allocations have been made in the interval between March 1992 and this date to the Supportive Housing Coalition for any of these kinds of projects?

Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact, the Supportive Housing Coalition projects to which he referred earlier are projects which may proceed on another site. What we did was write off the land-loan acquired sites because the costs associated with those sites were not acceptable. They of course were acquired under the Liberal government of which he was a member.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. We have just gone through a month of public hearings, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars in committee, reviewing Bill 120. The Minister of Housing has tabled amendments today which reverse motions that were passed in that committee, bearing in mind, of course, that that committee has a majority of government members on it.

What I would like to ask this minister, because in opposition I certainly know that she believed in democracy, she believed in representation of the people and she believed in the committee system, is how she can defend spending thousands of dollars in this sham of public hearings for a month, only to reverse one little step that was made to amend the legislation to respond to the public input that you invited.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): All the public input that was made to the committee was taken very seriously by me personally and by the Ministry of Housing people who have worked to develop Bill 120. It is certainly not without precedent in this Legislature that an amendment passed in committee will not be referred or transferred into amendments in the Legislature when we deal with it before third reading. This is quite normal and I'm sure if the member from Mississauga South searches her mind, she'll recollect many other incidents of that kind.

Mrs Marland: Obviously, this minister's idea of what is normal and what we think is democracy are totally at odds with each other.

This minister does not defend a process that has a history in this place. The very fact that this minister is willing to take away the rights of voting members on a committee, a standing committee, a committee to which they appoint their own members, a committee hearing at which their own members voted on and passed a very important motion which meant that a particular aspect of a program in connection with care homes, a program which is funded by two of the government ministries, will now be in jeopardy -- this minister stands in this House today and defends that process, a process that her ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services funded.

Madam Minister, I would like to ask you why you are happy to see those programs which are affected by a six-month limitation on care homes destroyed by your reversal of that motion.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not sure exactly what the member for Mississauga South is referring to in terms of amendments, but I'd suggest to her that throughout the consideration of Bill 120, all sides have looked at the issues involved, particularly as they respect care homes, to make sure that the programs that are offered in the very many excellent care homes that exist in Ontario are continued.

1510

Those programs address the needs of people who may be elderly, sometimes quite fragile elderly people, people who have disabilities, either physical or in terms of their development, people who are psychiatric survivors. We have discussed these issues very carefully to try to ensure that all the matters that surround the questions about service in care homes in Ontario are addressed satisfactorily. We want to see the services in Ontario's care homes maintained and improved, and that is one of the very strong purposes of Bill 120.

Mr Speaker, while I'm on my feet, could I correct the record? I said in answer to a question from the member for Renfrew North that the Kildonan site was not a Supportive Housing Coalition site. I was neglecting to remember that it was originally a site proposed for development by the Supportive Housing Coalition. It was subsequently taken over as a project by Cityhome.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Finance has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

GO TRANSIT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Etobicoke West asked the Premier a question yesterday dealing with GO Transit refinancing, and the Premier, in an act of awesome generosity, referred the question to me.

I should tell the member for Etobicoke West that the province is not and never intended to get out of paying any taxes as part of the GO Transit refinancing transaction. Let me explain that all provincial governments and their agencies, as well as the federal government, are currently exempt from withholding tax for payments on international debt financing transactions. As this transaction is a refinancing of GO Transit equipment, no withholding tax is applicable and the existing withholding tax exemption is sufficient to look after this particular transaction.

These types of transactions are also quite common in the marketplace, including governments, and we are not the only ones doing them. In fact, the Quebec government has proceeded with two similar transactions in the last couple of years.

Perhaps I could await a supplementary to go on before I explain any further to the member.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. Why then did your ministry request that the federal government exempt it from this specifically? A request was in fact made to the federal government, as I understand it, through your ministry.

Second, you say you're exempt. Tell me something, sir. Would the Bermudian company Asset Finance Bermuda, which bought it and then formed a company and flipped it --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You don't mean that.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that's as I understand it from your ministry again, that they formed a company, passed it through Asset Finance Bermuda, passed it through to this company that they formed immediately upon closing. Why then did that take place? As I understand it, sir, with all due respect, the ministry officials told me that subject to those two companies forming the way they did within Bermuda, they then became exempt from the withholding tax that would have been applicable. Had they not done that, it would have been applicable to the Bermudian company, Asset Finance Bermuda.

Further to that, sir, when I questioned --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: Well, there were a couple of questions there. When I placed the call to your ministry officials, I asked them, "Would this particular tax have applied had they not structured it this way?" The response I got was yes, and that in fact the federal government didn't give them a clearance that it wouldn't apply.

The question is: Did the federal government say, "No, this doesn't apply to tax"? And why did they structure in this way? What were they avoiding if it were not the withholding tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think that's a good question. The member for Etobicoke West is quite correct. There was an inquiry made of the federal government about the whole question of withholding tax exemptions on these kinds of transactions. I'm not a tax lawyer myself, but my understanding is that if it had been a sale and leaseback arrangement, there might have been a withholding tax, but this was a sale and sale back to the Ontario government. The reason for doing it that way was simply that it's the best way for us to manage the whole transaction, and I might add, save the taxpayers of this province money without costing the federal treasury any money whatsoever at the same time.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville just made inappropriate comments to one of the interpreters while I was leaving the House, and I would ask him to withdraw that, please.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Speaker's at a loss in that I did not hear the alleged remark. If the member so identified believes he said something inappropriate, then he has an opportunity to withdraw the remark.

OHC CHAIR

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is for the Minister of Housing. In 1992, Minister, you decided to take the position of chair of the Ontario Housing Corp from a part-time job to a full-time job paying $90,000 per year. You also decided to appoint your close personal friend Nancy Smith to this position. In addition to being a close friend of the minister, Nancy Smith is also the individual who found the minister a job after she was defeated in 1987. I suppose this is the minister's way of helping out the economy, by creating full-time jobs out of part-time jobs for her friends. Minister, do you think the public can call this appointment anything but pork-barrel politics?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I wonder just how mean-minded this kind of stuff can get. This is absolute nonsense. Nancy Smith was a member of city council in the city of Ottawa when I applied in 1982 to be hired by a volunteer committee working on behalf of the city council of Ottawa. I was among many candidates. The volunteer committee selected me.

When it came to seeking to fill this important post of the Ontario Housing Corp on a full-time basis, which our government felt was warranted given the neglect of previous governments for the Ontario Housing Corp's valuable portfolio and very important human communities in this province, we sought advice from many sources and we interviewed several excellent candidates. Nancy Smith was picked by a committee on which I did sit but on which I certainly was not a majority vote. I was among other people on a committee, and I was one vote on that committee. The other people on that committee unanimously chose Nancy Smith.

Mr Cordiano: It's interesting, because on top of the $90,000 salary and a newly created full-time position, Nancy Smith also spent some $50,000 on transportation and accommodation over the past two years.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Cordiano: This is why this is important, because taxpayers are shelling out $1,100 a month to rent a luxury apartment and over $11,500 per year to travel to and from her home for Nancy Smith. She lives in Ottawa. People are sick and tired of hearing about the lack of accountability in the Ministry of Housing, in the way things like the Houselink non-profit project are spending money that just gets blown out the window, and they're tired of hearing about the government spending money on its friends.

Don't you think it's time to clean up your act and become more accountable to the public for the very few dollars you have to spend in the Ministry of Housing? After all, the money isn't endless, and you should be more circumspect in the way you spend your money. This is what we're saying.

1520

There's a lot of expenses here for this person, Nancy Smith, who is spending this kind of money in her position going back and forth from Ottawa. That's a lot of money for taxpayers to spend each and every year.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I remind the member that the appointment of Nancy Smith was reviewed by the legislative committee that reviews appointments. It was the view of that committee that Nancy Smith was an entirely appropriate appointment. Furthermore, at that stage, I know of no questions that were asked by members of the committee -- and I've read the Hansard -- about the terms of her contract.

She does not earn $90,000; she was appointed at less than that. Her salary has been subject, as all of ours have, to the social contract. She has indeed been given travel expenses in lieu of selling a house and moving a household to Toronto. Once the equivalent of moving a household, under Management Board guidelines for an appointee of the nature of that position, has been filled, there will be no more expenses permitted.

The member has his facts wrong. The member is a member of a party which had ample ability to question all the matters he's raised in the appointments committee --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and he's being terribly silly in his accusations.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I regret to inform the House -- and I seek your guidance -- that the Minister of Housing I believe has inadvertently misled the House about the property at 55 Kildonan.

I have just spoken to the project manager at Cityhome, a Mr R. Gauzitis. Actually, my staff has just spoken to him. He has confirmed to my staff that in fact that never became a Cityhome project, that there were some discussions, but in fact it remains with its sponsor, the Supportive Housing Coalition.

My question remains: Is it true that the province there as well is on the hook for, I believe, $3.5 million to $3.7 million worth of costs?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, to the honourable member, I know that with his respect for Parliament, he would not want to use unparliamentary language. Indeed, earlier on there was a discussion around the very point he raised, and the minister at that time did rise to correct the record. The member does raise an important point. However, he knows he should not use the term "misled the House." I would ask the minister now if she has a reply to the concern raised.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I will verify the situation. It may be the case that discussions which I had assumed had concluded with Cityhome acquiring the project did not conclude there. I'll be quite happy to report to the House on that. The fact is that the property was not approved as a project. Therefore, I think all the information he was seeking has been provided, except inasmuch as I can't confirm at this stage the exact situation with the proposal itself.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for your guidance when a member of the Legislature is harassing my interpreting staff by saying, "She earns $60,000; she can hurry up." I would ask for your guidance with this.

Interjections.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Sarnia take his seat, please.

Mr Huget: Point of order.

The Speaker: Would the member for Sarnia please take his seat. If he has a point of order, I will hear him.

Mr Huget: Withdraw.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will withdraw.

The Speaker: Order. I can only deal with one point of order at a time, and I am asking the member for York Mills also to take his seat.

First, the member for York East rose on a point of order. I appreciate the concern which he has brought to my attention. I must say to the member that I did not hear the words which he alleged to have been spoken. Earlier on, the member raised a similar point of order, to which I offered the member for Leeds-Grenville an opportunity to withdraw the remarks if he believes he made unparliamentary remarks. He chose not to do so.

All I can ask is that members always try to use language that is courteous and not intemperate in any way, nor demeaning to any individual in the House. All members are deemed to be honourable and I trust they will abide by that title that is given to them, "honourable members."

The member for Sarnia had a point of order.

Mr Huget: I do, Mr Speaker, but the member for York Mills has indicated he wishes to withdraw a remark. If he does so, I don't have a point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Mr Speaker, I wish to withdraw my comment.

The Speaker: I appreciate it.

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for your guidance in this when a member harasses a member of the interpreting staff. I'm asking for your guidance when another member is harassing the interpreting staff. I need your guidance here.

The Speaker: The member has made a very serious allegation. On the one hand, I cannot assist him directly because I did not hear the comments he refers to. However, I take the member's concern seriously. I would suggest that the member has a number of alternatives available to him, one of which is to take his concerns to the Legislative Assembly committee; second, perhaps to discuss this matter directly with the member for Leeds-Grenville; or third, to request his House leader to raise this matter with the other House leaders.

Finally, I can say to the member that always, whenever there are intemperate remarks made or unparliamentary language used in the House, I deal with them, but I cannot deal with remarks that I do not hear. I understand full well the deep concern which the member expresses.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more than 850 people from my riding and all over eastern Ontario who are concerned about cutbacks for funding of the Special Program Opportunities for Knowledge in the Educational System, or SPOKES. The majority of these signatures represent students in the program. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, implore you to reconsider your cost-cutting strategies. We urge you to reinstate funding for the program at 100% so that it may continue to meet the needs of the consumers it serves."

I've already contacted the Minister of Education and Training on this matter and I hope he will soon respond. I have also affixed my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearm owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering script, size of writing or markings, and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I affix my signature to this in full support.

1530

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that comes from the residents and family members of Bearbrook Court Retirement Residence in Gloucester:

"We are consumers who will be directly affected by Bill 120.

"Whereas this government has ignored thousands of letters and postcards sent in 1992 opposing the concepts of this bill by ourselves and other seniors in other retirement residences across Ontario; and

"We have been effectively denied the opportunity for a direct oral presentation to this committee by the time constraints you have imposed; and

"We feel strongly that our residences should be regulated under the Ministry of Health or Community and Social Services and definitely not under housing legislation; but

"We nevertheless realize you intend to use your majority in the Legislature to pass this bill despite the objections of consumers."

The petition goes on. I am very glad to affix my signature to this petition and I approve totally of its content.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"I/We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

This is signed by about 60 people from different parts of Ontario.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have signed the petition.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"I/We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I affix my signature to this.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition that's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too have a petition from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereto.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by members of the United Church of Elgin:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise to present this petition on behalf of the Honourable Fred Wilson, member for Frontenac-Addington, from several hundred of his constituents:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the daily presence of a principal in each of our schools is fundamental to the education and wellbeing of our children, we are firmly opposed, therefore, to the Lennox and Addington County Board of Education's concept of removing any principals from our community schools, including Centreville, Enterprise, Tamworth and Newburgh public schools."

The member for Frontenac-Addington has affixed his name.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition that was sent to me by many people from Chesley, Ayton, Durham, Hanover and Mount Forest, and it's to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition here from an organization known as ALOHA, which stands for Association of Local Official Health Agencies (Ontario):

"Dear members of provincial Parliament:

"ALOHA is the collective voice of Ontario's public health agencies. It provides leadership and expertise on the management and delivery of efficient and effective public health services and advocates for the role of public health agencies and on public health issues that promote community wellness.

"We, the undersigned, the medical officers of health and associate medical officers of health, have a responsibility for the public's health in Ontario. The use of tobacco continues to be the number one preventable cause of death and ill health in Ontario. The promised Ontario Tobacco Act intended to prevent this from continuing to be the death of the next generation has still not reached the Legislature.

"We call on members of the provincial Legislature to ensure that this legislation is brought forward and passed during this session of Parliament. Each delay represents too many thousands of needless deaths and illness."

1540

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and supportive services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating the use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

This is signed by a number of people in my area, and I am proud to affix my signature as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 20th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I really do not have any comments. The decision of the committee was unanimous, and we were all very happy, including the Chairman, with the appointments.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr107, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr70, An Act respecting the Town of Napanee

Bill Pr86, An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant:

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York Mills, I believe you had the floor.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The question of health care funding is problematic for any government. We're seeing the problems that the US government is having, wrestling with the health care system, which indeed it urgently needs to change. It has been asserted by members of the government that the US should be looking at the Canadian health model, but the fact is the Canadian health model isn't working.

We now have a situation that doctors across this province are desperate to get out of the system, and many of the best surgeons in the province are being lost to the US simply because of the stubbornness not just of the provincial government but also of the federal government.

I noted in today's clippings that in fact the NDP government in BC is being threatened by the federal Health minister with withholding of funds unless they comply to the letter with the Canada Health Act.

It's time for radical changes in the way that we fund health care because the problem is that there isn't adequate access to treatment on a timely basis. We have the situation that the affluent are going to the US to get treatment or to get some procedures in the US, such as electromagnetic resonance scanning, which are not available on a timely basis here in Ontario.

It can be arranged within a couple of days in the US and the affluent are going, and not just the affluent. Some of the very well connected people in politics in Canada are going to the US for treatment. We only have to look at the example of the former Liberal Premier of the province of Quebec, who went to the US. Why? Because they didn't have the trust in the system here and they couldn't wait.

The fact is that some of our health care facilities are being used by vets in the evening because the equipment isn't being used by our health care professionals. Instead it is being made available to vets at the same time that the very same equipment is urgently needed for the backlogs. So indeed we have a two-tier system in Ontario at this moment. The sooner there is intellectual honesty applied to this question, the sooner we might begin to start to address the very serious concerns.

I mentioned yesterday in debate that we have the situation that the nurses got a much-deserved increase in pay after the NDP came into power, one of the few things I applauded you for. But immediately you started closing hospital beds, beds that could quite easily have been made available on a paying basis to US patients who would in fact potentially find the Canadian facilities attractive because they could be priced at a rate which was competitive with US hospitals, which would give a cash infusion into our medicare system that we urgently need and would allow the specialists to at least make some extra income and not attract them down to the US. I don't believe it would detract, as the concern is expressed, that in some way these specialists would only concentrate on the people who were paying. I don't believe that.

I must say that the riding I represent, the riding of York Mills, probably has the largest concentration of doctors and specialists in the whole of the province. I would suggest probably more doctors live in York Mills than in the whole of northern Ontario and I can tell you that these doctors are alarmed at what is happening in our health care system.

Only last night, after a meeting on an entirely different subject, I was introduced to a doctor who absolutely pounced on the opportunity to speak to a politician about what was going wrong with the health care system. During the social contract, we had the spectre of the government essentially dealing with hospitals which had already made savings on more or less the same footing as those hospitals which have not achieved any savings.

Instead of the government looking at a cost per procedure and saying to each hospital, "You must comply with these costs" -- given the fact that there would be some variance according to the size of the hospital because there are some economies of scale and, in addition to that, the fact that the most difficult cases are typically referred to large teaching hospitals in the urban areas, we would have to make allowance for those procedures.

But other than that, why not make those hospitals which are not efficient comply with those cost standards, instead of across-the-board cuts, which is what this government has got involved in? I don't believe that the government has done it with any evil thought in mind. I just believe that they are ill-advised in the approach they're taking to health care.

In a survey which I conducted during the summer householder for 1993, 74% of the respondents to my survey, and I asked many questions on a whole host of subjects, said yes to the question, "Would you accept user fees for health services, for example, a $10 charge for the visit to the emergency ward of a hospital?" and 25% no and 1% was undecided. I had an unusually large response to this questionnaire and I'm talking about the response of some 600 or 700 people who took the trouble to answer this questionnaire.

1550

I believe there is a mood afoot, that people recognize there are some serious problems in the health care system. Nobody wants to pay more money for anything -- that is the nature of people -- but there is an acceptance that maybe we have to bite the bullet.

Rather than saving on the availability of technology, for example electromagnetic resonance machines, perhaps we should be paying a small user fee. That's anathema to the government, but nevertheless it is a way of us trying to get some much-needed funds so that we can ensure the continued viability of our health care system, which we can be proud of, which has been built up over a long period of years but is beginning to be eroded by all the cuts that have been engaged in by this government.

I believe these are practical solutions to the problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to respond to the member for York Mills. Let me say that when he talked about what his constituents said about using user fees, he didn't make any comparison in terms of what the economic status is of his constituents and those in other ridings. I think that needs to be taken into account when we're talking about user fees.

He talked about the efficiency of the health care system. He talked about people going to the States to use MRI, CAT scans etc. I want to bring to his attention a recent study that I heard on the news -- it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine -- which indicated that there are probably too many CAT scans and MRIs being done unnecessarily. So if we really want to look at how we're going to improve our health care system, we can't just say, "There automatically should be more MRIs and CAT scans." We've got to look at the efficiency of them.

I know in one community, before they had a CAT scanner, the waiting list was three weeks. After they got a CAT scanner, their waiting list went to six weeks. That doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

In terms of the third party talking about the employer health tax and the cost of health care, I want to remind him again, because he talked about driving jobs away, that the cost of health care for employers in this province is far cheaper than in the United States.

I would cite to you, when we were looking at the underground economy, I believe the Institute of Chartered Accountants was in and said that basically when you look at the tax burden, when you include health care costs, because when you compare taxes of course in the United States, technically they're not paying taxes for their health care, but if you take in those health care costs, the costs of doing business aren't really any cheaper in the United States.

In terms of managing the health care system, my only question to the member for York Mills is, can he tell us why health care costs increased on average 10% a year during the 1980s, and why finally it was this government, not the Liberals, not the Tories, that got a handle on the health care system and finally started providing some real management to that system?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This debate on Bill 110 I guess could rapidly evolve into a full debate on health care. In fact our communities probably would sustain us in a direction that would allow us to discuss health care.

I have to tell the member for Oxford, and I'm not going to talk about whether he's involved in the proper debate or not today, but his government, our government, the Liberal administration and the Tories have been struggling with the one real problem which has beset our health care system.

I disagree with Mr Turnbull. It's not because our health system is not functioning. In fact our biggest difficulty in this province is because our health system works. Our health system does intervene and it does save critically ill individuals. It has intervened in a way which means that severe trauma victims now require extremely intensive care, and some of us here know that.

It isn't perfect, I understand it's not perfect, but to say that our system doesn't function, that we cannot save individuals and our health care system isn't functioning properly or that any government hasn't paid a lot of attention to the administration of health is bumf. Everybody's been concerned about the rising cost of health care.

I'll tell you, if the people of the province of Ontario want a cheap health care system, all you've got to do is say, "Don't respond to anybody's needs." Anybody who suggests that we can respond to our collective health care needs by forcing individuals to shoulder all the cost or some of the cost before they even access the system in my view is wrong.

They are wrong-headed, because in this province and in this country it is my clear belief that there is a collective understanding that we come together to help people in trouble, and what can be more troubling than when somebody is beset by a very bad situation, either by the happening of an accident or the beginning of an illness?

Let's get on with making this thing a good debate.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): When I hear the member for Oxford saying that perhaps there are too many of certain types of procedures being done in this province and that's what's causing the health care costs to grow to what they are, I would say to that member, I sincerely hope you never have to wait the way thousands of patients are waiting for procedures around this province.

For you to suggest that there is one unnecessary medical procedure involving an MRI or a CAT scan is disgraceful; it's absolutely disgraceful.

I have had patients in my own riding, one particular one I can recall right now who needed a pacemaker, a simple two-days-in-the-hospital procedure. She waited six, seven months to have that simple procedure. In the meantime, she kept having to be hospitalized at $700 a day because her condition was so grave and so serious that she couldn't stay at home. So for $700 a day, in and out of hospital for six and seven months, waiting for a procedure to be done that in fact involved two days.

Now we have a health care system in this province where we are deciding electively by bureaucrats and by this NDP Bob Rae socialist government who will have certain procedures. We are now deciding by the government whether you're too old for a bypass, whether or not you should have free testing for prostate cancer.

This government has taken everything out of health care under the word "humane." We now have a health care system that is going to play God, is playing God in deciding who will be deserving of having a surgical remedy that has cost millions of dollars in medical science to develop.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister without Portfolio in Health): Let me respond to the members' comments about beds closing and doctors running out of Ontario. As someone who has worked with doctors in the past and as someone who had to travel far with a sick child to Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital at a time earlier in my life, I know what it's like to access health care, to not be able to access health care. Let me tell you, this government has done more to allow people to access affordable, appropriate, accessible health care.

The issues in northern Ontario have not changed a lot over the years. I remember 10, 13 years ago advocating for better coverages in northern Ontario. This government has moved. We've got acquired brain injury patients now coming, living in Ontario.

Just this week I was at the Robin Easey Centre in Ottawa, where we opened a transitional living centre, which we never had here in Ontario. Later this week I'll be in Thunder Bay doing the same thing. We're bringing those people, those health care dollars back to Ontario, which both of these parties in opposition could have done many years ago if they had put their mind to it instead of putting all their money into institutions which the dollars will show you in the records.

Mr Turnbull: I seem to have hit a raw nerve. I will quote from the Economist survey on health care dated July 6, 1991. It says, "The big American gripe about Canada is that the tight cost control, especially on capital spending, has led to rationing in the form either of waiting lists or of shortage of equipment. Some claim that Canadians use the more generous United States as a safety valve, crossing the border when Canadian queues get too long."

The fact is I know of these examples, and I will also speak to the fact that we can still find marks on the ceiling where they had to peel Mr Rae off the ceiling when he was in opposition when Frank Miller tried to close some hospital beds. Then my good friend the member for Bruce I think had somewhat the same experience. In fact we've got two marks on the ceiling.

1600

This government hasn't done the job. We know changes are needed in the health care system. There are queues and there are very serious queues. We have doctors who are not being allowed to admit patients who have terminal conditions into hospital.

Why? Because they have exceeded their quota for admissions for that year. Fact, because I have a friend whose wife is in that circumstance and they had to admit her under a different doctor's name.

That is disgusting. I never believed that in this country we would see that kind of situation, but that is a fact and that is what you've brought us to, instead of admitting that we have to search for alternative solutions.

It is quite right; the member for Oxford said there is an economic difference between the people in my riding, but they are prepared --

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Elston: I wasn't going to speak on this until we started getting into health care and having the Tories put their position on the table talking about the type of rationing that occurs here. I tell you, it doesn't matter whether it was during Bill Davis's time or Leslie Frost's time or David Peterson's time or Bob Rae's time: There are circumstances when there are not enough resources to provide everybody with immediate relief. But let's not go reading a bunch of bumf printed by some anti-health-legislation group in the United States talking about how fragile the Canadian health care system is.

Listen, I would far sooner risk having an illness or a serious accident in this province than in any part of the United States of America because, I'll tell you, I do not have enough money to be able to survive in that type of position in the United States of America.

I cannot for the life of me understand who in their right mind would stand up in this Legislative Assembly -- and I'm sorry; my friend from York Mills is usually fairly diligent in his research. But who, I say again, would in their right mind stand up and expect us in this province, we who have a tradition of cooperative and collective action in terms of coming to grips with personal tragedies in terms of providing equitable assistance, to buy some kind of a United States solution to our health care industry?

Mr Turnbull: I didn't suggest that, and you know it.

Mr Elston: He says now that he isn't suggesting that. Well, he's getting darn close to it. He was reading out the material that pretty well sounded like he was advocating having the economic ration hammer come down on the --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member, I believe, is impugning motive in that.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, allow me to finish my point of order. The fact is that because of various procedural difficulties, my speech has been spread over three different days, and it can only be in the context of the total speech that this member can possibly form a judgement.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Please take your seat.

Mr Elston: I apologize if I've misconstrued the member for York Mills's speech, but I can tell you what happens in this place. The Tories are particularly good at it, and a whole bunch of people are as well. What they do is they take excerpts of their speeches and they will start off and they'll say: "Here's our health policy today. You see, I raised this issue in the House." Mr Tilson did that when he was speaking to my water bill, for instance. He read out the opposition to my private member's bill on water extraction, and I know that's going to be sent out to the water truckers' association, for instance.

What I want to put clearly on the record -- and it happens. All of us do it. Let's not be feeling like we're too --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Where are you going to send your speech?

Mr Elston: I send it to everybody. And you know something? I sent my bill out to the water truckers.

Mr Tilson: You know you're wrong on your whole philosophy. The municipalities can't win and --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Bruce, please take your chair. I would ask that whenever you deliver a speech, you address it to me, please. This way, we'll prevent people from heckling.

Mr Elston: I want to just say that the reason I came into this debate was to try and set straight what I think the real attitude of Canadians and Ontarians is towards health care. There is, in my view, a very broad-based tradition of cooperation in the communities which most of us come from. It doesn't matter so much whether we're rural or urban, but particularly from my point of view, having been raised in Huron county and now living in Bruce county, there is a real sense that when there is distress in our communities, then it is not just one individual who feels that distress but the community feels the distress. That was one of the primary motives for people coming together and, yes, being pushed by some people and being pulled by others into a collective response to personal tragedy, which was somehow to be alleviated, at least the best we could, by collectively putting our funds together to address the circumstances as best we could.

I take issue with those people who think that the best way to respond to that collective need to protect the community in times of tragedy, trauma or illness is to charge an admission fee. I don't like the idea of having to buy your way into the community support at your hour of need. That's my position. It's a personal one. I've seen families that have been torn apart by personal tragedies dealing with the psychological scars left from the very difficult times of having to suffer through accident and disease. That, in its own end, is enough for anyone to have to handle. But to be handcuffed by the type of economic bankruptcies that occur as a result of having to spend a lot more money to buy your way into the club, in my view, is not something that our society has ever found acceptable.

I understand more than anybody else the very difficult times we are in with respect to our money. In fact, that I guess is really what this debate should be about, whether or not we are collecting the money in the proper case through employer health tax. But, boy, I think it's time that we had best make it very clear indeed that it is not proper for us to start talking about having to pay an admission fee so that you can buy the community's support. I don't like it in those terms, and maybe that's the best way to describe it so a lot of other people won't like it either.

I'd like us to confirm again that the community will come together and help each other out in times of difficulty. That's not a lot to ask. It is for some people, however, a lot to ask to make the first payment, to admit that they need to be sustained by other people because the second part of the dichotomy is this fierce individualism that we still have in many of our communities; we're glad the community is there and we'll put our own resources behind those people who need us, but sometimes we have an unwillingness to ask for the help ourselves.

I just don't think through debates on employer health tax or on the WCB or other places that this bill takes us is the proper place for us to have individuals making speeches about how acceptable it is to have user fees being introduced into this Legislative Assembly and into the province of Ontario. I just don't believe in my heart that we are really addressing the issue that we've got to talk about.

The one thing that is really key for me more than anything else is that we make our peace with the fact that in Ontario we are different than the Americans. We are a people who have, through joint cooperation and joint effort, come together to forge, out of a very inhospitable, sometimes a very cold climatically located country, a very warm community of genuine interests. That's what we should be confirming here. We shouldn't let somebody try and introduce their philosophical bent to charge people entry fees so that they can get the community to help them with their health coverages. I maybe shouldn't rail too much on that one point but that is my first concern, about allowing that to overtake this debate.

The second concern is this: When people start talking about how bad our health care system is, they should know that it is a far better system than I have been able to locate in very many other centres of the world. I think that we as a group -- I would like all three parties at some time to have a joint resolution that says we've got a genuinely fine system that has problems, problems all of us can agree on.

I was the Minister of Health for a while, so I sometimes feel unhappy when one member or another, and there have been a couple today, says, "We are the only government that ever did anything about it." Well, you strive every waking hour. Ruth Grier is probably now inundated with some kind of briefing on what's happening at a nursing home. She may be finding out something that's happening with the drug benefit plan. She may be finding out something that's happening at a hospital. But as Minister of Health, you are doing nothing almost your entire career but trying to find ways of dealing with the problems of the day and making your circumstance better. We are sometimes more successful than others, but we've all struggled under that.

A real problem, as I tried to say in my two-minute intervention to the previous member's speech, was that basically we have been too successful. If you want a cheap system, don't do anything and then it won't cost us anything. That's of course not acceptable to me. In fact, I told a group of American insurers that, from my point of view, the biggest problem for them was to figure out how to get more people into their health care system but to acknowledge that it won't make it cheaper for anybody.

If you're going to be successful in health care in very many ways, treating cancer, treating heart disease, for instance, if you're going to be successful in reviving accident victims, having to open places that will house people with acquired brain damage, then you are going to end up with more costs. You'll have to sustain more costs and you will have, as a result, a need to extract more money into our public system to pay for those costs.

You want it to cost less? Then don't intervene. Don't intervene. You want a cheap system? Don't go and save the person in the car accident. You don't want an expensive system? Then don't intervene with somebody who has cancer. If you want a cheap system, don't call out the ambulance to answer any emergency. If that's what you want, then tell us.

I want a system that is operated so we will intervene to save the people in car accidents. I want a system that will intervene to help people with respect to the treatment of cancer or heart disease or any of the maladies that afflict or offend any of the people who live here in our province of Ontario. That being said, it needs money. It needs money.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Lots of money.

Mr Elston: It's true. The member from Etobicoke West is right: It does need money.

But it seems to me that as a society, we should dedicate ourselves to intervening in the places that we properly can and that we can make really good interventions, interventions that make the difference. You know, it does make a difference to those people who don't have very much money if you require them to pay for the first treatment of almost anything.

I digress for just a moment. I watched a program on an American station not that long ago about juvenile leukaemia, and maybe some others saw that: A mother who had a child in a hospital in the United States for about 14 months, an amazing young fellow who had gone through those treatments, had been up and had been down, had watched some of the people in his room pass away. A marvellously keen attitude. He had a chance to go to anyplace in the United States --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It's now 4:15. We've agreed there will be a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1614 to 1619.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Laughren has moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin;

Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Crozier, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Runciman, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes being 63 and the nays 33, I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed?

Interjection: Committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: This bill, therefore, is accordingly referred to the committee of the whole. Orders of the day.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

The Deputy Speaker: If some of the members want to leave the House, please do so now.

The member for Bruce, you had the floor.

Mr Elston: There for a second I thought you were naming all the other members. I wasn't sure what was going on.

Anyway, there was a young man who had been in a cancer treatment program in the United States. He could have chosen to go anyplace in the world, as I was saying before the vote was called, and he chose to go home to go fishing.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bruce, would you please wait for just a minute. There are too many people standing. Please, if you want to carry on conversations, do so outside of the House. We'll wait patiently. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Can I try again? In any event, I was taken by the story, because the young man put up a great struggle over a 14-month time period, but at the end of the day he passed away at his own home.

But the real contrast, of course, between that story in the United States and the one here in Canada was that the mother being interviewed said that they had lost all of their retirement funds, they had to sell their house and they had to pile the bills in a corner in boxes. In fact they had to make choices about which bills they did pay, and they paid only the bills that were absolutely necessary so that they could make sure they could get the drugs to keep their young son alive.

As I was saying in the previous part of this discussion on this bill, it is an expensive system but it makes sure that people don't have to go through episodes like that. It means that they are somewhat more free to endure the pains that are associated with personal tragedy of accident and illness. In Canada, I think that should be again underscored as part of our social and cultural fabric.

I think that there can be a lot of debate about whether or not the employer health tax way was the best way to get money into our public health care system. In fact I think probably in debating it again, perhaps the most beneficial way would be to look more at going into the income tax system to fund the entire health care system than it would be to have an employer's checkoff tax.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You'll have some fights there with the Tories.

Mr Elston: The member for Lake Nipigon is probably right.

A lot of the money is now raised for our health care system through the income tax system. The one thing that the employer health tax has done is that it has got some money into the system, but it really hasn't allowed us to carry on with the rest of the development of our economy. It has in some ways punished some of the employers in this province because they have had to pick up some paperwork and other things that they never had to do before.

I think there has got to be a real debate about whether or not the employer health tax actually is the best and most efficient way of getting money into our public coffers, the fairest way. The member from --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Down east.

Mr Elston: No, he's not down east; he's the Minister of Agriculture. A dear friend of mine, Mr Buchanan, who knows a bit about the health care system, is taking notes on this, and you know something? He should take notes on this.

In fact we should take notes on a lot of the things that have been done in the past because, quite frankly, they aren't now perhaps the best way of doing the things that we used to do. There is a whole series of those things, and I think maybe the employer health tax might be one of the things that maybe shouldn't be done.

If we could get to substituting income tax or whatever --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Which tax?

Mr Elston: Mr Cooke from Windsor-Riverside asks which tax.

Hon Mr Cooke: Five points.

Mr Elston: The member for Windsor-Riverside says that he's looking at five points on the income tax. But I can tell you that the only side of the equation is not to just raise the taxes all over the place; it is to consider how much punishment goes on to areas of our economy that cannot sustain them.

The good thing about income tax is that at least it is raised from people who are making money. The problem with the employer health tax or any kind of payroll taxes is that they come off the top. It doesn't matter if you make money; you've still got to pay them. If you are thinking of hiring an individual, your payroll goes up, your employer health tax goes up.

This extension of the employer health tax to people like lawyers and accountants will mean that there will be new ways of trying to limit the liability of people to tax. I think the big problem for me is that we really have a culture now that is geared more than anything else to trying to avoid tax exposure. When you bring new people into the tax net, they will spend a lot of resources, rather than spending them on productive acquisition of some kind of inventories or equipment, in trying to avoid the tax.

There has got to be a study someplace by somebody that tells us how many dollars are taken out of our productive economy every year by trying to get the best advice on how to avoid the government's tax person. That's a problem for us. We can extend taxes to every area in the province by extending the employer health tax if we want, but a lot of money will be expended trying to avoid that and people will write off amounts of money against other taxes in their attempt to avoid the extensive expansion of these new taxes.

1630

For me, what we should be doing is looking at other means of collecting taxes. I'm not talking about user fees. I don't want the member for York Mills or other places to suggest that a user fee is an acceptable substitute. I don't find that acceptable whatsoever. I don't think it is a good deterrent to accessing health care services by those people who do it now as inappropriate users, as some would claim; it is in fact a deterrent to those people who actually need the service in a timely fashion.

I am, as a result of this, opposed to this portion of Bill 110. I'm opposed to the bill. I think what this bill has allowed the government to do is walk away from the real debates about some of the other expenditures it makes.

Perhaps they should be looking at the style of delivery of services they are undertaking in a whole series of areas. Perhaps they should be looking at providing a much tighter list of services. Already in the health care field there has been some elimination of service by the Minister of Health.

I'm not talking about eliminating that type of review to see if every care package delivered now in the province is appropriate. I think we always have to go through and look to make sure that our care is appropriate. But I am asking the government perhaps to examine other program areas that are no longer now necessary.

We've got into a discussion in the last few days of a couple of programs that have not worked very well in the housing area, for instance, and I guess what we should probably be able to say is that when we are not able to perform well in that area, it means perhaps that the funds that would have been allocated in the future for those types of problems might very well be addressed towards the problems that we do know we do a good job at, and we do a good job at health care.

We do have a problem with resources. We do have a problem with how many beds we need, because nobody really knows that. We do have a problem with the number of machines that are available to do all kinds of treatments.

Dialysis, for instance, is one that has been a perennial problem. You catch up, you think, and then all of a sudden there are more difficulties that are associated with the diseases that require dialysis. There are problems with respect to the number of machines for treatment of cancer, and that is a problem.

But perhaps that means for us that we make a decision to do the things we do well by allocating our resources first and foremost to where we make a real difference to the people in the province, and it is a real difference that we know we can deliver to those people by making sure that our health care system is funded in a way that is appropriate and effective.

Just one other point which wears me down a wee bit. The member for York Mills read a little treatise from someone, and they had pointed out that there were particular benefits in having the United States next door as a safety valve for our problems. Well, people from the United States come up here all the time too, and they get relief from problems that we are able to help them with. It's something I feel kind of proud about, because people coming here accessing our system is I think the best indication that we've got a good system.

But it is the code words that are used around the discussions in health care which bother me most. It is the trying to destabilize some of the things we do very well by claiming, as the member for Oxford read out, that there are inappropriate uses of machines, so ergo -- he didn't say this, but presumably the next step would be, we don't need that many machines. He didn't say that, but if you say there are inappropriate uses of machines, you'd probably say we don't need as many of them.

We have got to get our hands on something that allows us to have a benchmark of discussion about the validity of our health care system and the treatments. We are always running around in circles with somebody who's trying to undermine the whole system, setting up these straw people they can knock down when in fact they aren't relevant to our debate.

We've got to get a handle on having the baseline discussion about where we are with our health care, the baseline discussion about what is appropriate, and maybe we'll never catch up with that, because even among the practitioners in medicine or nursing or dentistry or chiropractic, that is always a discussion of continuing and evolving difficulty for them.

For me, I think it would be essential, with the increase in the employer health tax that is about to occur here, necessary for a very strong statement of principle coming from the Treasurer, from the Finance minister who is sponsoring this bill, that he and the government are dedicating themselves to allocating the funds not for chipping away at the edges of the service but in fact for making it better.

I understand how we cast our press releases. I'm in the middle of looking at the reallocation of policing resources by the Ontario Provincial Police around my riding. One of the places that is now in question is whether or not a detachment will remain at Lion's Head. The concern is quite frankly that there will be good service.

We just lost a patrol yard with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario out at Tobermory and the press releases that come out are: "Yes, you've lost the presence of the Ministry of Transportation. Yes, we're considering moving out of the detachment at Lion's Head, but don't worry, the service will be better. We won't be there as much, but the service will be better."

I would like somebody to talk in terms of the truth in advertising that we all need as public policy individuals. The fact is if people aren't around, they're not around. If people aren't there at first hand to see what the road conditions are like, then it's not as good as it used to be.

If the police detachment is not there full-time, then the perception is, and probably the reality is, that when Murray Elston goes to drop into what used to be the detachment and nobody's there, then I know the service is not as good. Maybe there are two people in cars out in the middle of nowhere.

The same thing with health care. You can't keep chipping away at this and a little bit off here and another piece off there and tell people that with this chipping and this clipping at the edges the service is going to be better. Let's be honest with the people.

If it is unavoidable, because there are problems financially, then let's confess the problem is that we can't afford to do what was done before. Likewise, if somebody can come up and say, "We used to do this procedure and it is no longer necessary," I'm going to applaud the people who take that out of service.

We did it at one time in the Ministry of Health when I was there and I got a lot of static because I said it's no longer necessary to pay for taking wisdom teeth out of people's mouths unless you had to go into a hospital circumstance where you required an anaesthetic.

If you can do it in a different way and a better way, then that's okay. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick, I just recall, probably would have some firsthand recollection of those discussions.

We did that because we wanted to move to providing service to children generally, but also to a lot of people who needed work on their jaws as a result of having been born with birth defects. You could get medical treatment for curing the palate and all of that, but you couldn't get the dental work covered, and $20,000 for parents at that time we thought was really a lot of money and the kids really were affected in a very bad way. But we had to make a decision.

The fact was that the medical and dental technology had moved to a stage where people could be successfully treated without a great deal of problem or cost in a way which we felt would then allow us more appropriately to help parents deal with the cleft lip and palate problem. That's the type of decision we have to be prepared to make, I think.

Let's get it very clear. In my debate today I am asking the question about whether or not the employer health tax was a right decision at all. To be quite frank, I think the evidence from my part of the country is that it has been a most unpopular tax. It has been a most impairing tax from the small operator's point of view because, when you have no margin to operate on, this means more comes off the top.

I also want it very clear that today I am calling upon the Finance minister to again underscore the commitment of the government to a genuinely high-quality health care system, not one that is going to be chipped away at at the edges; not one, by the way, that allows people to opt their patients out of the system, because allowing some of these private clinic operations or taking this procedure off the list or letting the doctors charge $90 for an annual health check for the drivers of school buses -- you know, school bus drivers don't get paid a whole lot of money, but anywhere from $45 to $90 is being charged in some areas by people because that is now a delisted service as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned.

That's a bit of a burden, and we require it. We require those people to have the health checks because they're driving a publicly licensed vehicle with school children and we think it's necessary to make sure the people are in good health. I think it's a good public policy to make sure of that, so why are we forcing low-paid people to pay that $45 to $90 each time they have to have that check?

I think that's bad public policy, I think that's wrong public policy, because it's not that the people feel they need the health check; it is that the government feels they need the health check. In fact, I think we all think it's a reasonably good idea.

Let's rededicate ourselves to quality. Let's rededicate ourselves to understanding whether or not we have the appropriate vehicle here to get the money.

1640

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I always enjoy listening to the member for Bruce and I know he has a lot of familiarity with the health system. I was very interested to hear his analysis of the types of tax that should be used.

Clearly we both agree that there should be a prepaid arrangement, and I use the word "prepaid" rather than "insurance," because I think we have got stuck with the insurance model and I personally feel that's a lot of the problem, that the insurance model works with procedures, fee for service. I personally have great reservations about that, as have many of my colleagues.

I think the member probably would agree in private that the employer health tax was a quick-fix way of moving to a tax-based system from premiums, but it does have its drawbacks, and one of them is the inequity which we are addressing in this particular bill.

One other failure which I would like to mention is the fact that by moving to a tax-based system, we eliminated, at the time, even the possibility of a premium arrangement. Right now we can see the drawback of that because of the people who are temporary residents or in some ways are lacking full status, who now are suddenly finding themselves without coverage and who, those I've had quite extensive discussions with, would be very eager to be able to pay a premium so that they could share in the same arrangement we have. They could just get a card for the period that they're here in return for an actuarially appropriate premium. This would also be of great assistance to the physicians and the hospitals here, which could just seamlessly bill people for necessary health services.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I listened very attentively to my colleague for Bruce, and again it reminds me how fortunate we are in this House to have individuals with this experience and this kind of intelligence, those who have walked the direction of a full understanding of the subject.

The only unfortunate part about this Legislature is that sometimes when we hear this advice I often wonder if it is taken into consideration. I'm going to sort of reassure myself that I have confidence in the system, that the minister is listening, because what the member has done here is reassure us about the kind of health system that we have in place and that it's not bad, that we can also improve it, but that we must make sure we're going in the right direction.

The fact is that I had the opportunity in 1985 to watch this member handle one of the most delicate issues of the day at the time, the famous doctors issue, and the fact of how well he handled that and how they came to respect him because of his integrity.

I hope the members on the opposite side, the government side, who are listening, that you understand, that you go back over Hansard -- we've got time -- for some of those suggestions that he has made, because I feel that it's only the direction of improving that system. Of course he pointed out how concerned he is that this is the right direction we are going.

Mr Speaker, I saw you bowing your head too in agreement and many members of the government side agreeing in some of these suggestions. I just want to say to you how fortunate we are; even my good member for Scarborough East was agreeing fully with what he was saying. Again, what a fortunate opportunity we have in having this member in this House.

Mr Stockwell: There's no doubt the member who spoke, the member for Bruce, has a good understanding of the issues at hand, and I suppose it's very difficult to publicly accept this reality, particularly if you've brought in the particular employer health tax, but the reality is that it wasn't a saving grace. It was not, in the end, a policy taken by the government that resolved or brought the issue to a head and in fact tackled the issue.

Sometimes we bring forward recommendations that we call progressive, and the government opposite often spoke about progressive changes. I guess the dilemma that I have with "progressive," the only point that I can make with respect to the progressive change is that it seemed to me in the old days of the Liberal government in the beginning and then the Conservative government's 43 years that the premium system under the OHIP plan seemed to work better. It worked better, in my opinion, because there were a little better checks and balances in place.

I'm not saying that this card --

Mr Frankford: Twenty-three million cards.

Mr Stockwell: There were lots of cards, but there weren't that many active cards. They weren't active because the premium was put in place.

You argued recently about the insurance premium plan. Maybe there's a hybrid here that we can bring in this card, employer health tax, with some sort of premium, but I will guarantee this House that you will not get the system under control as long as it's simply a payroll tax because a payroll tax just deals with numbers. There are no people involved. There are no real people insured, and it's just a number based on your payroll, which has no relationship to what we're supplying people with, and that's health care service.

So until that's resolved, I don't think you're going to resolve this issue.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As I listened intently to my friend from Bruce, who usually plays right wing when we play hockey, sound like a left-winger today, I understood through his conversations he does support a health care system publicly funded and publicly administered.

He talked about communities collectively coming together, and I can only reflect on my own community. When Michelle Wright, who is a well-known country singer, came back to our community to help us put together a CAT scan in our community, I remember even times that I sat on the dunk tank while people threw balls at me for two bucks, and helped to raise the funds for it.

I must reiterate, because the member made reference to the member from York Mills reading from a document and I happen to have a document that seems to be circulating across this country, and it says:

"A comprehensive re-examination of Canada's health care spending is required. Without doubt, part of the immediate pressure on the program has arisen from the decision of the Conservative government to steadily withdraw from health care funding, thus passing costs on to the provinces...

"A Liberal government will...in the renegotiation of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, engage with the provinces in a major re-examination of the funding of the health care program...."

I know the member for Bruce, who spoke very eloquently today from a left-wing perspective of a community -- and I only say that jokingly. I know where he actually sits in this and I think it's to the centre right a bit, but to the centre, he tries to, but I know the member would be and I think all of us are concerned about our health care system. I know a lot of people would demand more. In rural communities, like my own, we have to travel to Windsor and London for the services, and we'd prefer seeing the services in our community. It's a matter of cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency that has to be put in place.

He talked about the story that was about the person with leukaemia. I can recollect with that because my sister at the age of nine died with leukaemia in our own home, and I understand the costs that are associated with that.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bruce, you have two minutes.

Mr Elston: There are some pretty good suggestions, I think, about us looking at some other things that we should do. The member for Scarborough East's suggestion, for instance, that we have a way for people to enter our system when they're here temporarily is not a bad suggestion. It seems to me that it's something we could take a look at. The thing that obviously you have to be careful of is that people don't try to get into the system when they know they've got a very bad pre-existing condition. But all of those things we can check.

I like when people want to have access to our system, because that type of endorsement is hard to get from our own people, who I think really have become familiar and comfortable with our system and also demanding in a way which is kind of a credit to the people who work in the health care system.

I do believe, and I agree with the member for Etobicoke West, that the health care tax is not appropriate. Where it really did work, and this an interesting thing about the employer health tax, we used to lose a lot of people when they moved from one job to another. If I was working at GM or something and I fell out of the group coverage, then I had to apply with the 104 form to get myself re-enrolled. I could be lost. I maybe didn't bother until I found out that my child was sick with appendicitis or whatever it might be. So we had to chase that person. The administration was hard. We had cheques to cash; we had all of that administration. There were some benefits that were picked up, but at the end of the day, the premiums aren't the easiest thing to administer and you can't chase people down.

The employer health tax got us away from chasing individuals and making sure that nobody falls out of registration once you're enrolled, and that, I think, is a real benefit. The place that it does hurt is for those people who have no margin to work with in the small business sectors. That is where it really is a punishment and that's where it is regressive, because those people probably could have gotten a premium exemption under the old system. That's difficult.

I think we should re-examine and I'm sure that there will be a re-examination of this system. Right now, I think my vote will be just in protest of the extension of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): This bill has a number of interesting aspects. Last week at a town hall meeting --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): David, we haven't heard you for a while. Come on.

Mr David Johnson: The member is pleased to see me speaking. I am pleased to see the member in the House. Thank you very much for your comments.

Mr Stockwell: You might regret that statement.

Mr Perruzza: Breathe a little life into it.

Mr David Johnson: All right, we'll do what we can.

Last week at a town hall meeting I raised the fact that this week we were still discussing tax increases from the budget of 1993, and that's exactly what we're doing here today on two counts.

Earlier this afternoon we had a vote on a bill that implemented the provincial sales tax on auto insurance. All those people in Ontario who are delighted with the 5% increase on their auto insurance -- and there must be one or two somewhere; I haven't found them yet -- can thank the debate we've had over the last couple of weeks and can thank this government for implementing a bill in the 1993 budget which is still debated right up until this afternoon. The provincial sales tax on home insurance; the provincial sales tax on various employee programs, insurance programs, that sort of thing; the provincial sales tax on sand, gravel, building materials, and on and on it goes: That was a bill that we voted on earlier this afternoon. That was a bill that came out of the 1993 budget and, believe it or not, we're just dealing with it today.

It's interesting; when we talk about the 1993 budget, people assume that is way back in the past, dealt with, a nightmare that's behind us, and yet how many days of debate have we had on the 1993 budget?

Mr Stockwell: Two days.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Etobicoke says, "Two days." That's the kind of priority this government puts in terms of the financial status of this province, the financial situation of the province: Bringing in $2-billion worth of tax increases -- another two; two is the key number here -- and two whole days of debate is what's permitted on it.

Mr Stockwell: A billion bucks a day.

Mr David Johnson: A billion bucks a day. You know, it's really frightening that that's --

Mr Perruzza: How much is that in dollars?

Mr David Johnson: The member is interested in dollars. That's actually $4 billion over the three budgets that this government has brought in: $1 billion in tax increases in the first, $1 billion in the second and $2 billion in the last one.

Here we go on another tax increase from the 1993 year, yet next week on May 5 we are going to see a new budget for 1994.

Mr Perruzza: It's an exciting day for Ontario next week.

Mr David Johnson: An exciting day? It'll be an exciting day if for once there are no tax increases. Has the message sunk in? I think it has. I hope it has. We'll be waiting. The taxpayers are waiting.

The members opposite are wondering what the public mood is. Last year, I might say, during the budget process, the Progressive Conservative Party went out and talked to the people, and I'll tell you the feedback we got on the budget last year, if I could repeat it in this House: the people are sick and tired of the tax increases.

I bring to the members opposite a little education on this matter, because I know they haven't been quite so anxious to hear this message. I bring to them a letter from a constituent of mine. This is a letter I received yesterday from a constituent.

Mr Perruzza: Send it on over, will you?

Mr David Johnson: To the member for Yorkview, it's entitled "The Excessive Tax Burden in Ontario and the Excessive Tax Spending of the Provincial Government." That's bang on. My constituent says, "I wish to send a strong message to you and your government." This is the unfortunate part of the whole letter: They wish to send a strong message to me and my government. Well, I can assure the people of Don Mills and the people of Ontario that this government opposite is not my government. This is the government we got saddled with in the election four years ago, but this is not my government.

The resident goes on to say, "Cut taxes," and this is in bold. I think those watching on television will be able to see this: "Cut taxes. Cut spending." Perhaps the members opposite can see that. This is the feeling out in Ontario today. This is the feeling that's not being reflected in the two bills, the one we voted on today and the other that we're debating here at this instant.

He says, "We face the highest tax burden anywhere in the developed world here in Ontario," and he's almost right. You may find one or two countries in the world higher taxed than right here in Ontario. "We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it any more. My wife and I are fairly productive members of society. We paid over $30,000 in income tax alone last year. However, we plan to move to the United States, to get out of here at the earliest opportunity."

There is a message there, and we can choose to ignore that message. We can say, "Here we have a right-wing reactionary, a person who's not proud of his country."

Mr Perruzza: Come on, David, breathe a little life into that one.

Mr David Johnson: To the member for Yorkview, I can tell you that many people are sick and tired of tax increases and they feel very strongly about this, to the extent that is being expressed in this letter.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Downsview. He's Downsview, I'm Yorkview. Yorkview. Downsview.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Downsview. Thank you.

"If you cut taxes and make this country more amenable to the investor and the worker, then just maybe I'll sell off some of my US holdings etc. A primary focus for people nowadays is structuring investments to get the money out of Canada. Are you hearing the message?" No, they're not hearing the message.

"Tax evasion is no longer frowned upon by the middle-class citizens. Our wages have fallen well behind inflation over the past few years and yet at every opportunity you legislators increase our taxes."

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: That's a fact. Through the heckling, that is an absolute fact.

There was a number I quoted, speaking to the bill that increased the provincial sales tax: Wages over the past few years, I believe it's 10 years, since 1985, have increased by 53%. The level of taxation that we are experiencing here in the province of Ontario has increased by 73%. That's 20 percentage points higher in tax increases than wage increases.

1700

So the constituent of mine is bang on. He's raising a point.

The members may feel this is funny, the members may feel this is worth heckling, but I can tell you, the people will not be silenced. Come the next election, if this government doesn't pay heed, it's going to pay the price, the price it's paid in the by-elections up to this point. Is it any wonder why the government achieved 6%, 8%, 9% of the vote in the by-elections? This is one of the reasons right here and it's being expressed by a constituent of mine.

Another of the reasons this debate is of interest is because it can be construed as a debate about health or it can be construed as a debate about taxes, and we've heard both angles debated here today. I've heard some words about a health program that are a little disturbing to me. The member for York Mills was attempting to bring some sanity, some reason into this debate, and certain statements were made questioning that. I think he had every right to be concerned.

Personally, I have been involved, in my years in municipal life, with the health system in the borough of East York. I've been a member of the Toronto East General foundation, the Toronto East General hospital, located in the borough of East York, servicing the citizens of East York, servicing some citizens in North York, servicing some citizens in the city of Toronto, in the city of Scarborough. I have always been thoroughly impressed with the role our hospitals have played in our community. I've been immensely impressed with the way the hospitals have undertaken the social contract program.

This program was put upon them without proper consultation in the first instance, and this program has cost the hospitals in the province a great deal of their revenue. The hospitals in Ontario rely on that revenue to provide the services to the people they serve. Notwithstanding that, the hospitals have gone about their work, recognized the money that's come in, cut their services -- I shouldn't say "services"; they have cut their costs, and they've been scrupulous about that -- they've cut their costs, and in my estimation they deserve a great deal of credit for the way they've handled this situation.

I can tell you, for example, in the Toronto East General hospital they have needs, they have a great number of needs. Just to list two or three, in the surgical and emergency care section of the hospital they need electric beds. It doesn't sound like a big thing, but it's very important. In the critical care directorate they need a great deal of equipment to bring their facilities up to standard. In the maternity, children's, women's and mental health sections, they need incubators and other equipment. They're going about their business to cut their costs, to go out in the community to raise money to provide these services.

We're right to have a debate about health care, but during that debate we should recognize the stress that the professionals in the health care community have been subjected to.

The Sunnybrook hospital is in my riding, the Sunnybrook hospital that services many veterans from the wars and indeed is home to many veterans having served our country. But the Sunnybrook hospital has many different programs and the Sunnybrook hospital has needs. It has needs in the new clinical services wing to improve services to cancer patients, and this is a growing component of the Sunnybrook hospital. The cardiac and trauma patients are needing increased services in the Sunnybrook hospital. The needs are immense: the intensive care units, the operating rooms, the ambulatory care centre, the centralized diagnostic services in the Sunnybrook hospital, and on and on it goes.

These hospitals are in a sense the meat in the sandwich. They are trying to provide the services that are demanded by the public on the one hand with the money that's available on the other hand, and in my estimation they're doing an excellent job.

The North York General Hospital is an example of another hospital. If we want to talk about health services, as we should during this debate, perhaps we should mention the North York General Hospital and the emergency care and the expansion and the modernization that's required in that particular hospital.

Perhaps we should mention the seniors' health care at the North York hospital, the seniors' health care which is a growing component of our life here in the province of Ontario. We are an aging community in the province of Ontario. The services to seniors are required, and the North York General Hospital is a good example of that.

These are some of the excellent health programs that we have today in the province of Ontario. So it's right that we talk about health care services, but it's also fitting that members who have spoken earlier, particularly the member for York Mills, raise the issue of funding.

The situation is, and the situation that I believe the member was bringing to our attention, that of every budget dollar that is required in the province of Ontario, 32 cents goes to health -- 32 cents out of every dollar. Education takes 17 cents, social services 20 cents, the public debt -- the interest, just to pay the public debt, because governments in the past, and I have to say that Progressive Conservative governments have played a role in that as well, but over the past few years in particular, the debt has risen to the extent that today 13 cents out of every dollar in the budget goes to pay the interest on the debt, and nothing else.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Just like in 1984.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite from the Liberal ranks has made a comment about 1984. I want to come to the period following 1984 in a moment. I'll come to the period following 1984 in a moment. But that's the situation we face, that health is 32 cents out of every dollar in the budget.

The revenues, on the other hand -- and that's what we're speaking about here today, the revenues coming in from the employer health tax -- six cents out of every dollar in revenue comes from the employer health tax. So there's obviously an imbalance there.

The employer health tax in reality is just a source of revenue. If there's a perception that the employer health tax pays for all our health needs in the province of Ontario, then I hope that's dispelled, because 32 cents out of every dollar represents over $17 billion in health needs, with revenues of about $2.5 billion from the employer health tax. That I believe is what was trying to be conveyed, and we need to have a sensible discussion about that.

It's interesting that, looking at another angle of this, this employer health tax -- and my colleague from the Liberal ranks harkens me back to the 1980s -- was introduced in the 1989-90 budget, but it had good company at that particular point in time. Indeed, in that budget, a Liberal budget, there were 16 taxes increases. This was one of the 16 tax increases.

1710

I might say, for those curious as to what the other 15 were, the personal income tax was raised to 53%. That sounds low today. Today it's actually up to 58%; the total rate, the high-end rate, is the highest in Canada of personal income tax, so it's gone up even further. But that year, 1989-90, 53%, it was brought up to that point.

The gasoline and fuel taxes were increased in 1989-90. The famous tire tax was imposed, the $5 tire tax. I know many of the citizens of the province of Ontario have paid a $5 fee every time they purchased a tire; that tax was put on 10 million tires a year, by all accounts. There was some $200 million generated in revenue through that tire tax, and a very small proportion of that money ever went to the purpose that was intended, which was to recycle tires, reuse tires.

That tax, thank heaven, has now been eliminated, but that tax was included the same year as the employer health tax. A gas guzzler tax came in that year; a five-cent container tax on non-returnable recyclable containers. The commercial concentration tax was implemented in that same year. So there was a whole plethora of taxes that were increased with the employer health tax.

The employer health tax was estimated to bring in over $2 billion in taxes, which it has done. I was not in the Legislature at that particular point in time. My colleagues tell me that the Premier, in opposition, termed the employer health tax to be a cash cow, one that would raise considerable amounts of money. Over the intervening years the tax has generated about two and a half billion dollars a year.

I might say, the land transfer tax -- and that's a favourite tax, I'm sure, to many people -- was also included in that 1989-90 budget by the Liberal government.

Here we are back in 1989, we have all of these new taxes coming in. We have a new tax, the employer health tax. We have the OHIP premium being rejected, an OHIP premium over which we had some control. Now we have a new employer health tax that is brought in, generating over $2-billion worth of revenue, and the problems began in our health care system.

Right away the health cards became out of control, to the point that today it's estimated that there are somewhere between 500,000 and perhaps double that, a million cards that are not accounted for in Ontario. This is really an outrage. This is an outrage to the citizens of the province of Ontario that there are so many cards that are unaccounted for that are used illegally, that drive up our health care costs, are used by Americans, are used by people coming in from other countries.

The amounts of money that are associated with these unaccounted cards are staggering. The estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I've seen estimates up to $1 billion in costs -- fraud, I would call it, people using cards who are not entitled to use these cards. This is where the control seems to have been lost.

Speaking of control, I was interested to read the auditor's report -- and I'll admit, this is the 1992 auditor's report; the auditor doesn't report on every aspect of provincial finances every year -- and in the 1992 Provincial Auditor's report under "Employer Health Tax" he stated that, "The ministry did not audit employer payrolls to verify the accuracy of the employer health tax remitted." There was not an audit to verify the accuracy of the employer health tax. Bear in mind, this was some time after the employer health tax had been implemented, so there was time to do the auditing, but the auditing was not done.

"The ministry estimated that lost revenues from both underreported payrolls and from unregistered employers is about $140 million annually." So here we are talking about $140 million in underreported payrolls and from unregistered employees, employees who were not known to the government and consequently the tax was understated. It demonstrates the lack of control in the system.

The auditor says "Several options should be pursued to obtain audit coverage." I think, if anything, today the system is more out of control than it was two years ago when the auditor made that statement.

The auditor went on to say that the "Employer account balances contained significant errors because the system processed remittance forms which had not been properly completed by employees. Consequently, employers received erroneous statements, about $5 million had been incorrectly credited to employer accounts, and collection efforts have been significantly delayed." Again, problems in the control of the employer health tax system. Is there anybody who would say that our health system is financially under more control today than it was when the auditor made those comments in 1992? I would doubt it very much.

What we're talking about today in this bill is extending the employer health tax system to self-employed individuals. I might say that goes against the grain of what's happening in Manitoba, for example. In Manitoba, the government apparently recognizes, in this instance, the burden of payroll taxes on businesses, and businesses -- I'll tell you, I've met with the Toronto board of trade, I've met with business organizations representing many aspects of life in the province of Ontario and the message is a familiar one, it's a constant one: Businesses are being suffered by payroll taxes, by the workers' compensation, by the unemployment insurance. Here we are with the employer health tax. This is a message that's coming across.

In Manitoba, what did they do? They raised the exemption rate up to $750,000. So if you have a business in Manitoba with a payroll of under $750,000, you do not pay an employer health tax. That's an encouragement for small business. Why couldn't we look at that here in Ontario? What are we doing in Ontario? We're going the other way. This bill goes exactly the other way. This bill says no, there are people out there -- they may be accountants, they be consultants, but they're self-employed people and they should pay a tax.

I suppose you can argue a fairness aspect; some people pay the tax, some people don't. But shouldn't there be a recognition in this day and age, in the recession that we've come through, in the hard times where small businesses are hanging on by their fingernails, where every nickel counts -- we're hearing that message and I'm sure the government must be hearing that message -- that this is not the right time to increase a tax? If there is a right time, it's certainly not today, to extend this payroll tax to more people. That's the message Manitoba has received.

I was disappointed with the Fair Tax Commission's analysis of this situation. The Fair Tax Commission, I must say, has been roundly criticized for this and, while there are some good aspects of the Fair Tax Commission, there are many, many aspects that are going to be a great problem, and I hope the government recognizes this.

1720

The Fair Tax Commission went the route of suggesting that the employer health tax, which is now a graduated system, should be a uniform system, but should be a uniform system at a high rate generating, I believe, about a quarter of a billion dollars in extra revenue. Well, there's the key. Well, there's the key. The Fair Tax Commission is looking at a way of generating more revenue again. It won't work. We've seen the revolt with high taxes on cigarettes. We've seen the smuggling. When the taxes are out of line, people say: "This is not reasonable. Taxes are too high." The underground economy flourishes.

The home builders of Ontario tell us that 41% of home renovations are paid for by cash. People do not believe that the tax structure in the province of Ontario makes sense any more. They avoid it. Now we're seeing this problem in the liquor industry, with a couple of charges the other day of premises that were purchasing home-built booze, I guess. In talking with the chairman of the LCBO, this is becoming a regular occurrence: It's not just these two premises that are being charged, but tax avoidance is the aim of the game. Why? Because our taxes are too high. Our personal income tax is way too high at 58% of the federal amount. Our employer payroll taxes are too high. It's a burden. We have the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto saying that something has to be done, that our businesses are just overwhelmed by the taxes.

Here we have a bill, Bill 110, which is suggesting that the tax be broadened and more people -- I guess accountants and consultants are easy targets; perhaps they're not favoured people of the government, the self-employed. But this tax is not going to generate enough revenue to cover our medical needs; $35 million, I think, is the estimate. It'll generate less. I can guarantee it. People will go underground. There will be more tax avoidance. This is the wrong time for Bill 110.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments? Further debate.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It wasn't my intention, I think, at the beginning of the day to speak to this bill, but there have been some things said today that have prompted me to do so.

I want to start out on a positive note. That might surprise my friends who are starting to chirp over in the corner, but I'd like to start off on a positive note. That is, and I think it was said earlier in the House today, that we do have a good health care system, albeit it may have some problems.

I've had recent experience, as a matter of fact, in our family where there was a time of need, where there was an emergency, and in that instance our health care system performed admirably well. I know there are other instances, and I hear of them each day in Essex South, where there are problems with someone accessing the health care system for a particular problem, but I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that we have one of the finest, if not the finest, health care system in North America and perhaps even in the world.

Health care is a particular concern in my area. A great deal has been said about it recently in that we're undergoing some radical changes in the Essex South and Windsor areas. Windsor is out of my riding, but the health council affects the residents of my riding. There are attempts in Windsor, and I suspect they'll be successful, to make some changes in the delivery of health care that will result in a considerable amount of saving. I think that's one of the areas we should look at: giving better health care, more efficient health care, but doing it more effectively and therefore in some instances less costly.

In Essex South in particular we have the only hospital outside of the city of Windsor and from there to the city of Chatham. It's a small hospital but it's a hospital that I think delivers excellent care.

There are seniors in my riding who are going to depend more and more each year on our health care system. Those residents of my riding are of course concerned.

Therefore, that brings me to the point of the bill that we're discussing today, that being Bill 110, and in particular to the health care portion of that bill. I agree with what's been said here earlier this afternoon by some of us on this side of the House, that this is not the time to increase taxes. As I said before, I think it's the time that we look to save money in our health care system in order to deliver it more efficiently.

Let me give you an example of why I don't think it's the right time to increase taxes. Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4%. The average real gross domestic product growth over the last three years has been 0.3%. In fact, it's been minimal growth. What I am concerned about is that any introduction of taxes at this time, particularly on the self-employed, will impede any growth we may be hoping for in the near future.

The self-employed aren't only the accountants and the lawyers and the doctors. The self-employed aren't necessarily rich people. Of course, it says in this legislation that self-employed who make less than $40,000 a year won't be affected. I'm glad to see that, because there are a great number of the self-employed who certainly make less than $40,000.

But it's those individuals we're counting on, who we're asking to make an investment in this province, that we may be hindering with any kind of tax increase at present. As all of us have recently gone about this province and asked that we create an environment in which employment can then be created, again, this is the kind of thing that's going to put the damper on that environment. That's going to put the damper on the enthusiasm for it.

There's been some criticism today of the employer health tax and the fact that it's not related to the number of people it serves, like the old premium system was. But I suggest that our main objective is of course to take care of our people. If we always relate the income to the numbers, why, we may never do some of the things we should for the citizens of our province.

A few minutes ago, the member for Don Mills talked about the increases in taxes that may have been put in place by the current government and perhaps by the previous government, which I wasn't part of, but I certainly represent the party.

1730

When the members from the Conservative Party speak about being the great tax eliminators and the great tax fighters -- I just happen to have this with me, just happen to carry it around in my briefcase, because I really didn't intend to speak on this today. But during the last recession, and it may have helped extend that recession, in the 1981 Ontario budget presented by Frank Miller of the Progressive Conservative Party, OHIP premiums were raised by 15%, to bring in $120 million.

During the last recession, in the 1982 budget, OHIP premiums were increased by $4 a month for individuals and $8 a month for families, to bring in $170 million. During the 1983 Ontario budget, again presented by Mr Miller and the Tory government in power at that time, OHIP premiums were increased by 4.9%. That resulted in $1.35 for singles and $2.70 per family --

Mr Stockwell: A buck thirty-five.

Mr Crozier: But it adds up -- for a revenue of $60 million. These are the tax fighters. He says, "It's only a buck thirty-five," but it amounts to $60 million. The point is that they were tax fighters. In 1984, the Tories increased the OHIP premiums again by 4.9%, another $70 million.

I'm coming to the best part. The interesting thing, and it was my friend the member for Don Mills who brought this up, is that Mike Harris, the tax fighter, supported every one of those tax increases, along with a multitude of others that were on alcohol, tobacco, corporations income tax, social services maintenance tax. That's one that even the current government hasn't been so creative as to bring about: social services maintenance tax. Retail sales taxes were increased while the tax fighter was in office.

What I'm saying is that had I been here then, as I am now, and since we were in a recession then, as we are now, I would have stood up and opposed these increases in tax as well.

Then, in November 1993, just a few months ago, at a speech given to the Ontario Hospital Association, the leader of the third party, Mr Harris, told his audience that he supports user fees for health care. If that isn't a tax on the poor, in many instances, if that isn't a tax on the seniors, then I don't know what is, because a user fee by any other name is just a tax.

What I'm saying in general terms is that it's not the time for a tax increase, if, as it's been suggested before, there ever is a time. So let me make some suggestions. What can we do rather than increase taxes? What can we do, rather than further tax the self-employed at this time, when we want them to invest in our economy, that will allow them to continue to do that? Yet what can we do that will, at the same time, save us money that we can put into our health care system?

I have a card here that was put out by our leader, Lyn McLeod, on changing politics. I'll just take one suggestion from that that may help us in this instance. What we're talking about, if the figures I have are correct, is that we're expecting to raise $35 million with this particular tax increase, and it's going to result in $10 million in tax credits, so we're going to end up with $25 million. How can we find that $25 million without increasing taxes?

We could reduce the number of political staff who walk around this lovely Queen's Park of ours, that's larger, I'm told -- and you have to realize I'm new here, so I need the help of my friends across the way -- than at any time in history. Let me take that advice and suggest that we could reduce the number of political staff and save $2 million a year. You keep track of this, because I'm not so sure I'll get up to the whole $25 million -- but nevertheless.

Take Lyn McLeod's task force on creating jobs. How can we increase our revenues by not increasing taxes, by taking some of the advice of our leader? Our leader said, first of all, and I agree with her, holding the line on taxes to boost business and consumer confidence -- just what I said a few minutes ago. We have to create an air of confidence so that things will start going again -- perhaps before the member across there was even born. He's such a young fellow.

Mr Hope: Just tells you how young I am.

Mr Crozier: Exactly. We could reduce the deficit by cutting government spending, by eliminating wasteful programs, and we can encourage economic growth again by kind of redefining the role of government. Get the government out of small business, self-employed people's hair, and they'll create more money for you. The employer health tax and workers' compensation taxes aren't the way to get out of their face.

We could ease the regulatory burden on small business. They tell us that then they'll have more time to get out and increase their revenues and consequently do better for the province. But what is this employer health tax going to do? When you put it on the self-employed, it's going to cause more red tape. They're telling us they want less red tape and we're going to cause more red tape for them. So I think that's something we could do.

I have another suggestion. When it comes to our health care system itself, you just take the commonsense approach. Spend your health care dollars wisely. You could eliminate fraud, and that's been suggested here -- abuse, duplication and waste. If you could attack those areas, fraud, abuse, duplication and waste, I suspect that you would even save more than the net $25 million that this is going to get you.

I do want to mention the one thing about user fees again. In spite of the fact that Mike Harris and the Tories are in favour of user fees, in spite of the fact that they want to tax the less fortunate and the seniors in our province -- because the rich people can afford user fees. No problem for them. We, like some of our other friends in the House, want to stay away from user fees, but we, I think, can simply increase the efficiency in our health care system, and as well, since this bill addresses the Workers' Compensation Act, we can increase efficiency.

People asked me, when I was attempting to get the office that I have today: "What is it you're going to do for us when you go down there, Bruce? Are you going to become like the rest of them and just forget about Essex South?"

I said: "No. I'm going to go down there and I think that we can save a great deal of money by simply becoming more efficient, looking at abuse throughout government, not just the health care system or the workers' compensation, but throughout entire" --

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You won't forget about the people in Essex South?

Mr Crozier: I won't forget about the people in Essex South. Thank you very much. I know they want to hear that.

"I'm going to go down there and if I can do one thing only, I'll see that they spend their money more wisely."

Applause.

Mr Crozier: Thanks very well. My leader made me the associate Finance critic, or appointed me to be associate Finance critic -- I guess I have to make myself that -- and also put me on the public accounts committee. So there are the two areas where I can look at government spending. I don't think raising taxes at this time, be it the health tax or in workers' comp or any other area, is the way to attack the problem when we're in a recession.

Ease off a little bit. Back us up from that wall of tax that we've hit. Let's each of us look in our own office, in our own area and in our own ministries where we can save money, and this $25 million net that you're trying to collect here will come to you, I think perhaps several times over.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said at the beginning of the day, it wasn't my intention to speak to this bill, but there have been some things said that I felt the record should be made straight on that I have had the opportunity to do today, and I thank you very much, sir.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I would like to compliment the member for Essex South in what was his first of many speeches in this Legislature. I think, Mr Speaker, that you, as I know, were listening intently. The member is very adept at his new responsibility, not only as the MPP for Essex South, but also as the associate Finance critic.

I know from dealing with Bruce that he speaks up and loudly for the interests of his constituents, and I think that has come through in what has been his first speech in this Legislature. He brings forward important issues, important issues not only to his own riding but indeed which affect all of the people of this province. He speaks in a manner of determination and of commitment. He speaks intently and intensively about those things which concern him and the people whom he has been elected to serve.

There is no question that in this speech we see an individual who serves his constituents well, and as well serves our caucus well as the associate Finance critic. He brings forward important issues, he brings them forth in a forceful manner, and I would like to just take that moment that is given to me as two minutes to congratulate him on this speech, the first of many in this Legislature over many, many years.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to congratulate the member for Essex South on some of the views that he has put forward as our associate Finance critic. He indicated about serving his constituents of Essex South, and I must say that we have been happy that he has joined our caucus and I know full well that he will certainly continue to serve those constituents.

The member for Essex South brings forth a good point in his main speech. He indicated that user fees by any other name is just another tax. I must say to him that as we take a look at what this government is doing and how it's increasing those user fees, adding those user fees to various different things, we are certainly seeing just another form of taxation.

He indicated a number of times too that our leader has talked about changing the way we do government and changing what we are doing around Queen's Park here. I must say that the member for Essex South will have a much better chance at serving his constituents after the next election when our leader becomes the Premier of this province and is allowed to put forth those ideas that she is presently carrying throughout the province.

He said something which sits well as well with a lot of my constituents. Only yesterday afternoon we were at the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association's luncheon, and when the leader indicated that she too would be looking at the cutting of red tape, reduction of taxation and of course above all the creation of jobs across this province, that message was very well received. I must say that's a message the member for Essex South, our associate Finance critic, has carried forth in a very proper manner as well.

Again, if I just might, I'd like to congratulate him on his maiden speech in the House. I can tell his constituents that he will certainly do a good job on their behalf.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I want to join with the other members in the chorus of acclaim for the member for Essex South, whose maiden speech to this Assembly was an excellent one. I know both the thrill and the challenge that can represent, as it was not so very long ago that I too made my maiden speech in here. I actually was unused to the half-hour time segments that there are and I actually could only speak for 19 minutes. However, I've gotten over that now and I can fill out the time.

I do know, and I want to send a message to those viewers who may be watching, that in the member for Essex South, Mr Bruce Crozier, they have an excellent member, a member who will serve them with distinction and ability and talent and forthrightness for many, many years to come, both as the MPP for the riding and, I know, in greater and wiser and better callings, perhaps a cabinet post. You never know. He has the talent, the ability and the experience in his community. That may come as soon as months away, a few more months, this fall or maybe next spring, when the NDP will meet its comeuppance at the hands of the electors.

I know in my riding, much like the member for Essex South's, the electors are waiting for their chance to vote them out and will be, I think, presented with that possibility and will not feel the frustration, for example, they felt when Brian Mulroney resigned and they couldn't vote him out. They're going to get a chance to vote the NDP out, and they're looking forward to it. I think they will get that opportunity, seeing the comparable choice by the kinds of arguments and skill presented by the member for Essex South on behalf of his constituents, who I know will appreciate in the years to come the kind of quality he brings to the job.

Mr Stockwell: On such an important issue as this, it's certainly good to hear from a member who's reasonably newly elected. You forget, I guess, considering the last session that he came in, that this would be his maiden speech. I myself would like to take the time to thank him. It's good to hear from people and the concerns around this province, and those were enunciated very clearly by the member. It was of some interest to hear his rendition of history, certainly during the Conservative years, and maybe ours may be somewhat different. I can only offer my sincere congratulations on his election, because we in this party understand the democratic process.

I would ask, when he speaks again, if he can come back at this issue on another day and work in those actual whole numbers when he talks about the percentage increases to the premiums. It might be of some interest. It would help me certainly when I get up to applaud you next time. It won't be a maiden speech, and you'll find, as Mr Cooke, the Education minister, said, "There are only two times you get applauded by the entire House in this place, and that's when you're welcomed in and when you resign."

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Essex South has two minutes in response.

Mr Crozier: There are two things I didn't expect today. One was to speak, and the second was to hear these nice things said.

I don't want to use unparliamentary language, but my colleague reminded me, when he talked about the percentages and the figures -- I'm an accountant, by the way, and I've always been told that figures lie and liars figure. I hope not to do that with any of the figures in the future.

But really, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to address the House today. I hope I was able to add something to the debate and not take too much away so that the net result is too little.

Thank you very much. I know that if you receive me this way each time I speak, my stay here will be most pleasurable.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Stockwell: This debate has sort of wound its way through quite a number of issues, and it really entered into a different level, I suppose, when the member for Bruce got up and spoke about the health care system in this province and the way it is situated today: the health, in fact, of the health care system -- no pun intended -- and how we are going to go about, through different parties, rectifying the situation.

I think the member for Bruce used a lot of nice words on how to fix the system and why we need the system to be as universal as possible and to ensure that with that universality, there will be no tax hikes. I know the member for Essex-Kent just commented on the tax hikes and the need to ensure that we don't have any more tax hikes.

1750

But I guess the rub, as far as I'm concerned, is simply this: Something has to give, not just in the health care system but across the entire finances of this province. Everyone in this House seems to stand at one time or another and express to each other about the greatness of this health care system and the universality of it, and the fact it shouldn't be chipped away at from the outside and user fees implemented in any way, shape or form. Particularly on the opposition benches, it's much easier to say, "No tax hikes and no user fees."

I know the government of the day when in opposition mentioned on a number of occasions that it was thoroughly opposed to any form of user fee, co-payment or any program that involved actually paying for health care. We know that today to be a very different position this government has taken. If you want to get an ambulance in some parts of this province, it costs you money. It costs you money out of your pocket. Many would suggest that that is truly a form of a user fee.

The very difficult problem faced by this government and by a succession of governments, whoever gets elected, is going to be how do you deal with the situation when you have a public out there that says, "We don't want any tax hikes, but we don't want any service reductions."

The only place that they will not debate service reductions appears to be in the health care system. In fact, it seems to be our claim on our culture. There seems to be a move afoot or a mood out there in the general public that what makes you a Canadian is the fact that you have universal access to health care. That seems to be a position proffered by many people out there, and many people seem to buy into it.

What I don't understand, and I put to the government and put to the Liberals and I say it in our caucus on a number of occasions, how can you have universal access to health care and not increase taxes and have no deficit? It doesn't seem to wash. It doesn't seem to make sense.

You've got a health care system that's costing you in the neighbourhood of $17 billion a year. Now you're only collecting about $40-odd billion in revenue. If you're only collecting $40-odd billion, you're spending in excess of $50 billion now, and your health care system costs you $17 billion, that means when you talk about priority spending, you're talking about huge and massive cuts in other sections of this government. Case closed. Debate over. You can't have a $17-billion health care system and collect $40 billion in revenue, roughly, and then say you're going to balance the budget and have no tax hikes.

Although we use some very nice words and although everyone wants to stand up and be counted on health care and say, "I will not touch health care, I don't believe in user fees, I don't think health care is on the table," then you've got to explain to me and the general public out there, if that is the case, what is on the table? Because if health care is not on the table and you're going to reduce this deficit and balance the budget, you've got to put education on the table and you've got to put social services on the table and you've got to put deficit payments on the table. Because when you deal with a budget, as the Treasurer's going to have to in the next week or so, three sections of this budget chew up enough money that he doesn't have to spend another nickel, and that's how he balanced his budget.

Do you realize that? When you get health care, servicing the debt, education and social services, there's nothing left to spend after that, because you've spent it all, let alone every other minister who sits out there, from the Attorney General to Agriculture to Economic Development to any of the other ministries. There's not a nickel left to spend if those three issues are off the table.

We seem to have decided today that issue one that is off the table is health care. Tell me, aside from all the lovely words, and deal with it in practical economic terms, how it is we are going to provide universal access, maintain levels of social services, maintain spending levels on education, balance the budget, reduce the deficit and have no new taxes. That's absurd. That's absolutely absurd. It can't be done, because two plus two equals four and it will never equal eight. That's the only way you're going to balance the budget under that approach: if you try and convince people that two plus two equals eight. And that's the dilemma.

Before we finish with the rhetoric, in my opinion, and the kind of glossy, $10 words about the need for these programs and the sanctity and the fact that they'll never be touched and so on and so forth, fine: You pick your programs that are not up for debate and I'll pick my programs that are not up for debate, and then you go out and tell the public what is going to be axed, what is going to be reduced, what is going to be capped.

We know you're not going to increase taxes and we know you don't want the deficit to go any higher, so my friends across the floor have a very difficult job a week from today. That difficult job is to tell me how they're going to maintain universality and how they're going to maintain all the other programs and how they're going to keep a lid on the deficit, and how they're going to do all that and not increase taxes. I'd say it can't be done.

What is the dilemma? Well, the dilemma is another phrase that seems to be picking up steam as we get closer to the election. It's the phrase of "spending smarter." Some of the other phrases they use are "spending smarter" or "priority spending" and those kinds of things. You know what spending smarter means? Spending smarter means cuts; read "cuts." That's just a catchphrase.

Preston Manning was a good example. He ran in the last federal election and he used to talk about transfers to individuals. Transfers to individuals at a federal level meant -- read into that -- seniors' pensions. He would cut transfers to individuals; that meant seniors' pensions. They didn't understand that, I don't think, but that's what he meant. So when we hear people talk about "priority spending" and "spending smarter," those are just terms for cuts. And my question is, what are your cuts?

Mr Sutherland: You're not supposed to give away your code words.

Mr Stockwell: These aren't my code words; these are universal code words. The Liberal book was full of them in the last federal election. Your Agenda for People was a litany of code words; there was a code word for everything. What I'd like the people to come forward and say is not how precious this system we have is; I'd like them to come forward and tell me where their priorities are. Where does spending go and where does it not go? Does it not go to education? Does it not go to social services? Does it not go to health? It has to not go someplace, because $40 billion is less than $50 billion, and that's going to happen every day of the week. That's how much money you collect and that's how much money you spend.

I'm going to pick up the action on this debate another day -- I'll have 20 minutes to finish -- and I want to talk about where my priority spending is. My priority spending involves different things maybe to different people. Yes, I agree with the health care system and I agree with a system that allows universal access, but I will be frank enough to tell you that if I believe in universal health care and universal access, I'm going to tell you there are places that I think we're going to have to stop spending money, big amounts of money.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Where?

Mr Stockwell: In the next 20 minutes I will tell you where those places are, so I expect the member to be back and taking notes.

I will say today, just before 6 o'clock, just before I adjourn this House, that it's a big day for the member for Yorkview. After one heated debate a couple of years ago I think I offended him, and I'm sorry. I want to just wish his daughter, Nicole, a happy birthday. She's five years old. And I apologize for a couple of years ago.

On that, I will adjourn the debate today.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 28, at 10 o'clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

27 avril 1994