Journal des débats 1996-juin-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Consideration of Bill 47, An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

The Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): Are there any amendments, and if so, to which sections?

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Yes, Mr Chairman, I have three amendments. The first one would be to section 13 of the bill, section 9.2 of the Land Transfer Tax Act. The second would be section 66.1 of the Corporations Tax Act, section 20 of the bill. The final one is section 24 of the bill, subsection 1.1(4) of the Financial Administration Act.

The Chair: Shall sections 1 through 12 carry? Carried.

Section 13.

Mr Sampson: I believe since this is a treasury amendment it will have to be moved by a member of cabinet, Mr Palladini.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I move that section 9.2 of the Land Transfer Tax Act, as set out in section 13 of the bill, be amended,

(a) by striking out "not after June 30, 1997" at the end of subsection (2) and substituting "where the newly constructed home is occupied by the purchaser as his or her principal residence no later than December 31, 1997"; and

(b) by striking out "1997" at the end of subsection (5) and substituting "1998".

The Chair: Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Sampson: If I could just elaborate on this particular amendment, the amendment in clause (a) of the above motion will extend the eligibility for refund to first-time buyers who purchase a newly constructed home and begin to occupy their home as their principal residence by December 31, 1997, even though they may not have received the conveyance of title. The present provision requires that such conveyance occur by June 30, 1997.

Typically when buyers purchase a new condominium unit, they begin to live there under interim occupancy agreements with the condominium builder, and this would be well before the unit is transferred to them. The proposed amendment substitutes occupation as a principal residence for conveyance by December 31, 1997. For a condominium unit a conveyance is not available until a declaration is registered, and this typically does not occur until the units are sold, even though many purchasers will have occupied the proposed units under interim occupancy agreements for many months before registration of the declaration.

The amendment in clause (b) permits the refund to be made available to all buyers so long as title is transferred to the buyers by December 31, 1998. This gives a year after interim occupation for the completion of a condominium project and conveyance of title to the unit of a first-time home buyer who occupied the unit by December 31, 1997.

1010

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? It is carried.

Shall section 13, as amended, carry? It is carried.

Shall sections 14 through 19 carry? Carried.

Section 20: Mr Sampson, please.

Mr Sampson: I move that section 66.1 of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in section 20 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Regulations

"(15) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(a) providing that the rules set out in subsection (9) do not apply and prescribing rules for determining the qualifying amount of an eligible investment in substitution for those rules;

"(b) prescribing investments, other than investments made in qualifying small business corporations, that will be eligible investments for the purposes of determining the amount of a bank's small business investment tax credit under subsection (2) if they satisfy the prescribed conditions, and prescribing those conditions;

"(c) prescribing rules for determining the qualifying amount of an eligible investment that satisfies the conditions prescribed under clause (b); and

"(d) prescribing rules for determining the amount of a bank's small business investment tax credit account for a taxation year if the bank has made an investment in an eligible investment that satisfies the conditions prescribed under clause (b).

"Same

"(16) A regulation made under subsection (15) may be effective with reference to a period before it is filed."

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just a question of the parliamentary assistant. We hear a lot over the course of the years in the discussion in the media and the public in regard to the amount of money that banks make, the idea being that banks pay very little, if any, tax, in some cases with very large profits. I'm just wondering if you can explain under section 66.1 what this actually means for a bank such as the Royal Bank in regard its profits. What would that really mean in last year's taxation if this formula was applied as a tax on them?

Mr Sampson: Perhaps I could start off by at least explaining what this particular amendment is doing, and then I'll deal with that particular question raised, although I don't have in front of me the details to tell you what that particular item will raise as far as taxes. If I can just get to the amendment first, then I'll deal with that question.

The proposed amendment to the small business investment tax credit of Bill 47 is in response to submissions we have received from the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It will give flexibility to cabinet through the authority to make regulations to extend the tax credit to investments made by banks in unincorporated small businesses -- these would be partnerships etc; secondly, effectively changing the 10% rate of the tax credit by altering the portion of the investment that will be eligible for the credit; thirdly, changing the size of the criteria for small business, if that was a necessary direction; and fourth, changing or eliminating the formula that results in a lower tax credit for investments in larger small businesses.

This amendment will allow but not require the tax credit to be extended to investments by banks in smaller and larger businesses than the bill now permits, and allows but does not require extending the tax credit to investments in unincorporated businesses by the banks.

In regard to the question that was raised and directed to me, I don't have the specifics as to what that tax amount would be for -- I believe it was the Royal Bank you questioned. It would depend of course on what assets the Royal Bank was able to demonstrate it had invested in accordance with the tax credit component in the small business categories that we have highlighted. Discussions are now under way with the financial institutions, the banks specifically, to determine how they will participate in this program and to what extent this particular tax credit will allow them and encourage them to participate in further lending to small business, which is what we're trying to do with this particular legislation.

Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, listen, let me be straight to the point here. There are many people in this province who feel that banks are making enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of profit, and getting away, quite frankly, with not paying their fair share of taxes as compared to the average working person. I find it hard to believe that the Ministry of Finance -- being a member of a former government, I understand how the Ministry of Finance works. It would put together some scenarios in regard to what revenue it figures this particular part of the act would raise for the province of Ontario.

I ask you again, if this part of the act, the amendments to the Corporations Tax Act, is in order to put a surtax on bank profits, what do you expect that to be able to generate in a period of a year, based on last year's numbers?

Mr Sampson: I'll reply by saying that the intent of this is not to generate additional tax revenue for the treasury. It's to encourage further investment and the creation of an additional capital pool for small businesses so they can get on with the business of generating jobs in this province, which is exactly what we are hoping they will do in order to improve the economic performance of this province. I want to tell the member that this is not an attempt to try to extract additional tax revenue from financial institutions, but to work with them to generate the appropriate capital pool to create jobs in this province through the small business sector.

Mr Bisson: This part of the act reads, "66.1(1) In addition to the tax determined under subsection 66(2) for a taxation year, every bank shall pay an additional tax for the year, equal to the amount, if any, determined according to the following formula...."

I understand how it works. The idea is that if they reinvest money back into the small business sector, they're able to get that back as a credit. But when I sat here in this Legislature and listened to the deliberations of the Minister of Finance putting forward his budget, this was billed as a surtax on banks in order, I would imagine, to respond to the issue that many people feel, which is that there are people in this province, especially the middle class, who are paying a higher rate of tax as compared to some of the corporations in this province, which pay little or no tax on fairly large profits.

1020

I understand what you're trying to do here, but I'm just saying you must have some sort of scenario that says, "Based on last year's numbers, we expect, if things were to be as last year, this would mean X amount of dollars for the treasury of Ontario." Can you respond?

Mr Sampson: I just want to correct the record slightly. I want to draw the member's attention to the fact that in the budget speech, page 22, the minister specifically referred to the fact that, "Banks...must play a key role in the new economy by increasing their longer-term financing of Ontario's...growth firms -- especially smaller businesses." Clearly, the intent of this is to create that capital pool. What we're talking about now is a future tax. I will indicate to the member, if this is the answer he's looking for -- and it may be; I don't know -- we are hoping that the banks will participate in this program and that additional capital will be raised for small business and that the net tax raised will be zero. If they choose not to participate in this program entirely, the estimate of future tax collection could be in the neighbourhood of $20 million, but that's only an estimate if the banks don't participate in the program. We believe they will and so believe there'll be additional capital created for small business that will encourage job creation in this province.

Mr Bisson: As the representative of the government in this particular case in the House, do you feel that banks pay a fair share of their taxes in the province? I look for an answer. I take it you nod your head to the negative, or are you of the opinion that they are paying their fair share? I asked for a response.

Mr Sampson: If the member wants to have a debate on the taxation of banks, this is not the environment in which to do it. I'm telling him that the intent here is to encourage and work with the banks to create a capital pool for small business. I'm disappointed that the member has difficulty with that concept.

Mr Bisson: The parliamentary assistant suggests this is not the forum for the debate in regard to the amount of tax paid by the banks here in the province of Ontario. (a) We are in a budget debate and, (b), we are making amendments to the Corporations Tax Act that deal with taxation as applied to banks.

I understand that this section deals with trying to build a mechanism so that if banks don't reinvest money back into the small business sector by way of loans, they are penalized. I understand that's what you're trying to do with this particular piece of legislation, but I come back to the point that you as well as I know there are many constituents in our ridings who are paying a fair amount of tax in the province of Ontario, the same as any other province across this great country, and people are saying, "Listen, I accept I have to pay my share of taxes, but I'm offended when I see people who have more money than me paying less tax." I ask the parliamentary assistant again, does he feel that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes?

Mr Sampson: I don't want to belabour this point and I think the member is. If he has problems with establishing a capital pool for small businesses, I hope he would make that statement in this House right now. If he has problems with the incentive, I hope he would make that statement here. I draw to his attention that the previous government did not do that. This is an attempt by us to create a capital pool for small businesses. We believe the banks can and should play a crucial role in that and we've designed that plan so they will.

Mr Bisson: Let's be clear here; I'll put it for the record. I haven't got a difficulty with what you're trying to do. Everybody agrees and understands that banks are fairly restrictive when it comes to their lending policies, and that is part of the problem we're having in the economy of Canada, not just here in Ontario. You know and I know. I've dealt with it on a personal level in regard to businesses in my riding which were in fairly good shape and went to the bank to have their lines of credit extended or to get money for an expansion of some kind, only to be told no by the banks because of their restrictive money-lending policies.

I understand what you're trying to do here. I haven't got a problem with the concept of this. I think it's a step in the right direction. I wouldn't do it quite this way, I'd do it a little bit differently, but I haven't got a problem with the direction. But if I'm willing to answer the question as to where I stand on this section of the bill, I'm asking you to do the same and give me the respect, and the rest of the members of the assembly the respect, of telling me where you stand when it comes to the question of how much tax the banks pay. Do you think that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes, yes or no?

I take it that the member is unwilling to answer, does not want to answer because he might find himself in an embarrassing situation. The reality is that you know as well as I do that there are banks in this country that made an enormous amount of profit last year. Profit is not a bad thing as long as it's shared back into the economy by the way of the tax system so that we can pay for our health care system, our education system and other services people require in this province.

If we're going through difficult times here in Ontario, as across the country, when it comes to trying to maintain services, we would expect that the corporate sector take its responsibility. We don't tax them more than they should be or to the point that they're not able to do business in this province as compared to the taxation system of other jurisdictions, but the point remains: The lion's share of the tax burden in this country and in this province is on the backs of the working class. I'm asking you yet again, do you think that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes, yes or no?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Just to ask a question of my colleague opposite, could he tell us what percentage of taxation banks pay in the province of Ontario?

Mr Bisson: No, actually I can't, and that's the point: I cannot tell you what taxation rate banks pay in this province. The point is that there is a minimum corporate tax that was put in place by our government previously that applied to banks as well. I remember that in the budget of 1992 or 1993. The majority of taxes levied on banks are in the federal jurisdiction; I recognize that as well. The province has only a limited number of levers it can apply to the banks. But the government could send a good message here in regard to the taxpayers of this province: that banks will pay their fair share of the tax burden as compared to the people of this province.

If people are saying anything in this province, and I think this is being demonstrated through the government's move in the tax cut, there is a general feeling that there are people in our society who are getting away without paying their fair share of taxes. I, for one, get upset when I look at my paycheque at the end of the month and I see the tax I'm paying on it. I don't mind paying it, but I get upset when I look at certain people in our economy who pay less tax than I do as a middle-class working person. Banks are part of that.

I ask any of the government members in this House to stand up and tell this House and me and the people of Ontario, do you think, as Conservative members, that the banks pay a fair share of taxes here in the province of Ontario? That's what I ask.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I think the member for Cochrane South is trying to politically grandstand here this morning. I don't think it's fair for him to put the member on the spot, asking him whether the banks are paying their fair share. He doesn't have a bank statement in front of him; he doesn't have that information. The member for Cochrane South has admitted that he doesn't even know how much the banks pay in taxes. Consequently, I don't think it's a fair question to ask the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Bisson: I will categorically say that I feel banks don't pay their fair share. I remember, as a member of the government in 1992-93, through the budget process and the consultation we had done, looking at this particular issue. What I remember of the debate and what I remember of the figures is that in this province the percentage of tax levied by the province on banks is less than in any other jurisdiction. In other words, if you operated a bank in Ontario, you were more advantaged as compared to other jurisdictions in other provinces in Canada because the rate of tax applied to banks in Ontario in 1992-93 was the lowest or the second lowest in the country. I think Quebec was the lowest and Ontario was the second lowest.

We as a government moved, through the minimum corporate tax, to try to address some of that. I recognize the issue the members are going to raise: If you tax corporations too much, they're all going to pull their money and run away from here. The point is that we had moved, through the minimum corporate tax, to try to address that.

I was hoping that this government, in its attempt to redress some of the tax issues people really feel are an issue, would try to move on the question of corporate profit and the amount of tax paid by banks. I take it that if the government doesn't want to respond, it's because it feels that if it got up and said anything against banks maybe it'd get in trouble with its friends on Bay Street. Or is it that they're somewhat embarrassed to respond for other reasons? I'd be interested to hear what the members have to say.

1030

Mr Sampson: I've listened intently to the member continue on with his ranting and raving about taxation. I would draw to his attention that this is primarily the reason we are here in government and they are there in opposition.

The previous government's focus and, prior, the previous Liberal government's was indeed on taxation; across the board, on the personal and corporate sides, they increased tax rates.

The focus of our government is jobs. We believe that our role as government is to create the environment for the creation of jobs, not to create the environment for tax; just to tax for the purposes of taxation. We believe the taxation here -- and that's the theme of this particular section of the bill -- is to create an environment that will create jobs and growth and opportunity in this province, not simply to tax.

I draw the member's attention to the fact that his well-publicized corporation capital tax was not solely a bank tax as he is leading this House to believe today; it was a tax across all businesses -- small businesses as well -- paying taxes, and increased taxes, year over year over year, as a result of the implementation of programs of the previous government and the Liberal government that preceded that.

Our focus is jobs. Our focus is to create an opportunity for jobs, and that is what we are trying to do, working with financial institutions in this province.

The Chair: Our business is debating the amendment. Further debate?

Mr Bisson: Back on the amendment, to the government: I take it they're not going to respond to this question because they're afraid to stand up and say anything that would be contrary to bank interests in this province.

Yes, we as a government introduced a minimum corporate tax that applied to all businesses, including banks, which is what I said in the beginning.

The government takes great pride and the parliamentary assistant takes great pride in saying it is your agenda to create jobs. Where are they? We have been looking for the creation of the jobs that you've been talking about for the year that you've been in office, and the only jobs you can point to are $7-an-hour, minimum wage jobs that you're creating as you're privatizing services in the province of Ontario, including the foodservices of this Legislature. That's one of the issues.

Mr Sampson: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Could I encourage the member to debate the particular amendment that we're speaking to?

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr Bisson: I'm almost finished. I'm responding to the comments that the parliamentary assistant made. I didn't go down this line; he's the one who started it.

The premise of what you're saying in regard to section 66.1 -- my point is there are many people in this province who feel they're paying a high level of tax and an unfair level of tax as compared to banks and other profitable corporations in this province. The question I have asked you is, do you think that's fair?

The government has chosen not to respond. I take it what the government is saying in its silence is that it will not respond because it is afraid that if it says anything, it might upset either the voters, if they were to hear the real answer the government wants to give, which is that they don't believe they should do anything when it comes to doing fair taxes in this province, or you have to think the converse is true.

The parliamentary assistant stands here and says, "We don't want to do that because we're creating jobs." The jobs that you're creating, my friend, are on the backs of hard-working people who are losing them as you're privatizing services across this province for a lower wage. We're seeing it happen right here in the Legislative Assembly in many of the services that are done. We're going to be seeing it at Ontario Hydro; we're going to be seeing it across all kinds of services.

When you talk about a lower tax rate as specific to this section, the taxes may be lowered on the personal income tax of this province by 30% over a period of years in what you're doing, but the reality is, you know as well as I do that the big benefactors of that policy will be those with a lot of money. People like myself and others who are low-income or middle-income people are not going to benefit, and whatever we do get, we're going to pay back in user fees. I can tell you now that the user fees that are applied in our community, in the city of Timmins and others, are starting to amount to a hell of a lot more than what we're going to get back in the tax break that your government is giving.

So I take it on this section, the government doesn't want to respond because it feels that corporations and banks are paying their fair share of taxes, and they're not going to move in this area because they don't want to upset their big business friends on Bay Street who back their campaigns in the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The member for Cochrane South has a legitimate point. Surely the government has to acknowledge that by introducing this section on banks they are saying, "Bank taxes are too low." You are introducing a tax on the banks. You are saying: "We are going to increase the taxes on the banks. If they change their behaviour, they can earn the tax back, but if they don't change their behaviour, the taxes are going up."

I think it was a legitimate question: Has the government concluded that the taxes on the banks are fair or has the government concluded they should be increased? I gather the government's concluded they aren't fair and they should be increased. So I think we are debating a bill here designed to increase the taxes on the banks. I think that's quite a legitimate question to ask the government: What is your position on the taxes on the banks?

I think we're owed an explanation and a justification for what I gather the government has concluded: banks need to have their taxes increased. I think that the member for Cochrane South, if I recall his riding correctly, asked a legitimate question, and we are owed an explanation.

Mr Baird: I would ask the member opposite, who has indicated he thinks the taxes should be raised -- raised from what? What percentage of taxation are the banks currently paying that would lead you to believe that they should be raised? I know you're a member who's always prepared, who doesn't make statements lightly, who would have done his homework on this ground. What percentage are the banks paying now, and why would you feel it would need to be raised?

Mr Phillips: You're going to have to listen more carefully to what I said. I said, the government -- you -- you have decided to increase the taxes on the banks, not me. You've decided that. That's what I'm saying, if you listen carefully, and I'm simply asking for the justification. Your budget calls for an increase on the taxes on the banks. If you don't understand that, and you seem surprised by that, then I'm surprised that you're in the caucus because, surely Mr Eves should have told you, we are increasing the taxes on the banks. He must have said: "In our opinion, they're not high enough. We've got to take the taxes up in the banks."

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What's your opinion?

Mr Phillips: The member says, "What's my opinion?" Frankly, we are here to debate your bill, and if you're not prepared to defend your budget you should quit. You should quit.

Mr Jordan: You're not prepared.

Mr Phillips: The member, Mr Jordan, is saying, what's my opinion? My opinion is, we are here to debate your bill, and if you say the tax on the banks should be going up, then give us an explanation. If you can't explain it, get the Minister of Finance in here; maybe he can explain it.

Mr Jordan: Then debate the bill. You'd better read the bill.

Mr Phillips: So the people at home understand, we're having heckling here. Why? Because the government doesn't understand its own budget. The government doesn't understand that it is taking the taxes up on the banks and will not give us an explanation for it. That is simply all we're asking for.

Mr Sampson: I always appreciate when my colleague from Scarborough participates in the financial debates, and I do believe he does come quite prepared.

The member is asking for us to justify why this particular section is in the bill. He's quite correct: This does, if the banks do not participate in the plan, create an additional tax revenue for the province, tax expenditure for the banks to the tune of $20 million. I said that a while ago and I believe --

Mr Phillips: Tell your caucus that.

Mr Sampson: No. The caucus is quite prepared to stand behind this.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Some of them don't believe you're doing this.

Mr Sampson: The caucus is in support of this, as, I believe, the Liberal and the NDP are, unless of course they've changed.

Mr Silipo: They probably think you're lowering taxes for banks.

Mr Sampson: The member here is now heckling from the NDP. I gather he would not prefer us to tax the banks at issue, but maybe --

Mr Silipo: No, I said I agree with what you're doing.

Mr Sampson: Maybe that's a change in position from the NDP convention last weekend, I don't know. But I would say to my friend -- and I believe he is my friend -- from Scarborough that the intent, the justification here, is to encourage the banks to pick up a little bit more of the pace, pick up a little bit more of their involvement in providing capital to small business. I think the important question is, did we believe that the banks were playing as active a role as we would like to have believed they play in that sector? And I think the answer to that question, to my friend from Scarborough, is no; and that's why we've brought forward this plan.

The mechanism is, how do we choose to do that? Well, we chose to do that through a mechanism of adding an additional tax to their cost. There's no question about that.

Mr Silipo: There, that's finally on the record.

Applause.

Mr Sampson: My friend from Scarborough North is applauding. I don't always appreciate when he applauds as I get quite concerned when he applauds.

I will say to my friend from Scarborough, his colleagues in Ottawa, who have been in control for some time -- and we'll see what happens when they go back to the electorate again, but anyway -- chose to increase the capital tax on banks, but they didn't choose to link this by the way that we did, with what we believe is an appropriate job creation plan. They just said, "Give me the tax," and no provision or no requirement to earn it back. "Just give me the tax and I'll spend it somewhere else."

We took a different tack, again because our focus here is to encourage the creation of a capital pool that will be used by small businesses in this province to generate jobs. Many of us have heard the horror stories of small businesses finding it very difficult to raise capital to create jobs in this province. I would say every member in this House has had those stories come to them, and I can speak perhaps a little bit more directly to those because of my prior experience.

1040

Clearly what we're saying to the banks is: "Listen, we want you to be more aggressive in lending and providing capital to small business. Here is the mechanism we have created to encourage you to do that, and we're prepared to work with you to create that capital pool." Because small business, as we all know, and as I stand here in this Legislature, is by far the biggest generator of jobs in this province. It's not the Fords and the large auto companies that create the biggest slug of jobs; it's small business, people working 12 or 15 hours a day, no holidays, working weekends, the small business owner who needs to generate the jobs, and they need capital to do that. That is the intent; that is the justification for this particular section of this bill and subsequent amendments to the section.

Mr Phillips: That was helpful, and the member for Cochrane South asked the question some time ago. Just to confirm, I think what the member said is that they've decided that the banks are not performing as they want. The way they will get them to perform is to increase taxes and -- well, that's what the member just said. Mr Jordan is smiling, but they'll increase taxes, and if they perform as they want, they'll refund them. I just wanted to get that on the record because it's important for the future action of the government.

In terms of jobs, we are anxiously awaiting them. The headline in the Ministry of Finance document dated June 7: Employment in Ontario decreased 17,000 in May. We're down 10,000 jobs over the last three months in the province of Ontario. The government promised 145,000 jobs a year, and believe me, you will be held accountable by the people of Ontario for delivering that. So far it's going in the wrong direction, 17,000 fewer jobs in the month of May, so the Common Sense Revolution has been revolting for a year now without the promised job performance.

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 20, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 21 through 23 carry? Carried.

Section 24.

Mr Sampson: Section 24 of the bill, subsection 1.1(4) of the Financial Administration Act. I move that section 1.1 of the Financial Administration Act, as set out in section 24 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Regulation

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may provide that an amount other than $1,000,000 shall apply for the purposes of clause (1)(b) and prescribe that amount."

Just to clarify, the subsection added by this amendment will allow cabinet by regulation to change upward or downward the figure of $1 million, which is the threshold for determining which assets of the crown or crown agency, when sold, will have their sale proceeds credited to the Ontario opportunities fund for the reduction of the substantial debt and deficit in this province.

Mr Phillips: A question of the member. This has to do with the Ontario opportunities fund. Can the member explain to us what impact it will have on the debt of the province, how by implementing the Ontario opportunities fund the debt of the province will be changed from the way it was previously reported? What impact will this have on the debt of the province?

Mr Sampson: I'm not exactly sure of the direction of the member's question, but I'll attempt -- it's one of the very few times that I have difficulty with his questions.

The intent here is to provide some flexibility in regard to the application of the sale proceeds of certain crown assets to the debt and deficit. So really the net impact on the debt and deficit we can't determine until we know what those sale proceeds are. Again, the intent is to be able to apply -- if the sale proceeds are, for instance, $750,000, under the current bill without the amendment we would not be applying that to the principal of the debt, but under this amendment we could.

Mr Phillips: Just briefly, the Ontario opportunities fund, with all due respect, is a public relations exercise and nothing more. It has zero impact on the debt, and I think the members opposite understand that. It's a trick to say, "Boy, we've created this opportunities fund," but let's imagine you sell an asset for $1 million. Right now it goes to reduce the deficit. Whatever the deficit is each year, that's added to the debt. Now you say, "Well, we're going to set up this red tape called the Ontario opportunities fund, it'll go in there, and then we'll channel it over through to the debt." The net result is exactly the same.

You've got this Ontario opportunities fund, and Chelsea and Samantha Smith came down here, six- and five-year-olds, but the net result is exactly the same. Now, you can do it. You can put out your nice public relations stuff. You can say you've got it. You can set up a new red tape. But it has absolutely no impact on the debt. Eventually people will see it for what it is, which was a neat little public relations thing in the gallery where the Smith sisters -- it was a neat photo opportunity. That's not the Smith sisters today; I mean on budget day.

Interjection: You're just jealous you didn't think of it.

Mr Phillips: Well, jealous we didn't think of it. But it will be shown for what it is, and we all will know that. So it's a one-day sort of PR exercise, but it's a permanent piece of accounting that has to go on that add costs to the people of Ontario purely for a public relations exercise.

The Chair: Just to clarify for all of us, I want to introduce Brian Gropp and his wife, Barbara. Brian is the manager of the Stratford and District Agricultural Society complex and certainly not the Smith sisters. Welcome to Toronto, Brian.

Mr Sampson: Thank you, Mr Chair, for alerting me as to who was in the gallery. I appreciate that.

In response to, I think he still is, my friend from Scarborough, I want to tell him that he may see this as a public relations fund but, frankly, I think people who make contributions towards the net reduction of the debt of this province need to be assured that those funds will go there. They need to be assured that those funds won't be --

Mr Baird: Used for current spending.

Mr Sampson: Well, redirected? We've seen a little bit of redirection in the previous government's management of the fiscal books of this province. When I say a wee bit, I'm withholding my comments slightly. I think the people of Ontario deserve to be assured that moneys placed in that particular fund for the purposes of debt reduction will indeed reduce the debt and not be spent in other areas where they were not intended to be spent. It's not a public relations exercise; it's purely -- I was going to say something but the member for Beaches-Woodbine is still recovering from last weekend.

1050

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Now, be nice.

Mr Sampson: You were very nice to me; I appreciate that. I'll withdraw that comment.

It's not a public relations exercise. This is an exercise to provide some level of confidence to the taxpayers of this province that we are going to seriously address the reduction of the deficit and debt in this province.

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? It is carried.

Shall section 24 of the bill, as amended, carry? It is carried.

Shall sections 25 through 28 of the bill carry? They are carried.

Shall sections 1 through 3 of the schedule carry? They are carried.

Shall the schedule stand as part of the bill? It is carried.

Shall the title carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It is carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? It is agreed.

Hon Mr Palladini: I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Shall the motion carry? It is carried.

The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? It is agreed.

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Mr Sampson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 47, An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Sampson?

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I do not have any further comments.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): What an honour and a privilege it is for me to respond to this long-awaited budget of this Conservative government, which had waited such a long time to present the budget to this House. I thought that with the fiscally responsible manner they ran on, one of the first issues of the day when they arrived would be to bring forth a budget. However, we waited and we waited, and here it is. This opportunity is given to me to respond to that. There are so many things that have happened so far over the year of this government that I may just focus on a couple of issues here that are extremely important to the people.

I would first say that my understanding for a government to present a budget is the way in which it distributes the wealth of this province, in a manner that would make sure that all those in our society are equitably looked after, especially those who are most vulnerable, especially those who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, find homes, get on with life -- the disabled, the seniors -- who need the support. This is an extremely rich province. With all that is being said about deficit and debt, this is an extremely rich province. The problem we have of course is how we distribute that wealth, and the Conservative government has come consistently -- their ideology is to give it to the rich and then hope that when the rich are well satisfied what is left over will be given to those who are disabled or discouraged, the seniors -- those who need it more than anybody else.

The problem we have though with that kind of theory, which they call the trickle-down theory, is that the appetite of the rich is so enormous that they find other bellies, even outside Canada. Therefore, by the time the others are to get some of that wealth, nothing is there, so we scream about debt and deficit and focus on that.

But let me emphasize that as long as I am here and as long as many of my colleagues in the opposition are able to say to them, "We will not allow you to bully your way through" -- and one of the first things this arrogant bully government has done is to make sure that we have a bill, legislation, that gives it ultimate control. In a democratic way, of course, we feel there is a process to do that. If you want ultimate control, you put forward legislation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There's much too much talking. There is only one member who has the floor. He is the only one I would like to hear.

Mr Curling: I appreciate that very much, Mr Speaker, and I hope they would have taken the approach you have taken, because I know it's very difficult to listen. It's very difficult to understand that the things you are doing to the poor and to those who are the most disabled in our society -- although you're doing it, you're closing your eyes. Those who are freezing on the streets without any homes you hope will just go away. For anyone to bring it forward to you, it's a bit of an embarrassment. The government -- I know they have a soul, I know they have a heart, but someone has to tell them. While we tell them that, it's a bit painful, so they respond in that manner. So I'm glad, Mr Speaker, that you maintained some order so they'd listen. If they don't, they can leave if they want or they can read the Hansard, so to speak.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North has the floor. The rest of you will get your turn. I'd like to hear the debate from him right now.

Interjections.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, regardless of the noise, I'll remind the Tory government, I'll remind those people without a heart that when they tried any kind of legislation itself --

Interjections.

Mr Curling: It's okay, Mr Speaker, I'll speak above them. I'm telling you, the people have more power than you. The people out there whom you are discriminating against, whom you are depriving of their basic income, whom you are depriving of the basic way of training, whom you're depriving of education, are much more powerful than you. This democratic process works very well. The thing is that many of us who believe that we are more powerful than the cause, then the cause will get you somehow sooner or later. I, on my side, hope much sooner than later.

1100

Let me just focus directly on a plot that this government has done. I want the people of this province to understand that, and if you feel, as one of the poor that will be reeling with this kind of pain, you will then sooner or later realize what this vicious, dictatorial government has done.

I want to go back to Bill 26 when they, in a democratic way, should have put this process through in a manner that we all can debate and understand it. These people were running this bill through in a very short time, hoping that of course the members over there who follow blindly their leader would not understand the implications of this bill. Even today, many of their own members, many of the members of the Tory party, of the Conservative Party, are asking many of their ministers about the user fees that have invaded their municipalities and invaded their community, not realizing that we were warning them all along that when they brought this Bill 26 in, the kind of power that they were giving and the kind of manner in which it was being administered was basically to change the name of taxation into user fees and copayments. The individual on the street, the individual in the home, the individual community is paying more today than they were when this government took place.

I want to speak about this plot, this plot that this government has done.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A plot?

Mr Curling: The plot that this government had started immediately when it came into office. And I would ask you, Mr Speaker -- and I will respond because I know you know the answer -- the first thing they did was to attack the poor. They took 22% from the most vulnerable people in our society, 22% of their income from them. How would you, Mr Speaker, or many of these members here feel if they had taken 22% of your salaries? You'd be screaming and doing all sorts of things. I think the first thing you should have started is cut 22% from your income and then see how it felt.

They took those on welfare and took 22% of their income and said: "Now you go out and pay your rent. Now you go out and feed your children. Now you go out and buy food." And the response from the Minister of Community and Social Services was that he will prepare a menu for them, they should buy tuna, and they should have a different diet altogether. He wasn't having that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There's too much noise, honestly. Too much noise. I can't hear. If you want to hold conversation, do it outside, please.

Mr Curling: And as the plot boiled, as the plot went on, as they cut 22% from the most vulnerable people, they went ahead again and cancelled all the non-profit housing that was being constructed for those who can't afford the market rents outside there. Immediately they went out there and they cancelled that. I'm sitting here wondering, why would they be doing that? Why would they be cutting 22% off the most vulnerable people in our society? Why would they in the meantime cancel all that non-profit housing that would provide decent affordable shelter for those people? The plot continues.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that he's going to eliminate rent control in this province. So here it is: the individual, less money, and that individual consumer, after having less money, has no other place --

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): How did you vote on it?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's very difficult, I know, for them to listen to this. It's painful because I know, when they go home, there are people on welfare, there are people who need affordable housing, there are people who were expecting fair treatment of this government, a budget that would show that they are supportive of them, not a government that looks for the rich, not a government that would see that landlords who have the control of tenants would get more, or the bankers, or all those who are in a most comfortable position. It's very difficult for them to listen, and I understand that very much so.

This minister -- to come back to the point -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when he arrived on this job he said, "You have a friend," to all the landlords and to the builders. "Now you have a true friend." All along he's only a friend of the landlords and the developers. The tenants were very scared. The seniors were scared. They were frightened because they saw now that they'll be pushed out of their homes.

The landlords told them, "If you get rid of rent control, we will build." That's what he was telling us. I checked with those landlords; I checked with those developers. You know what they told me? They will not build if you take off rent control. They said rent control is not the demon in all this problem of having affordable housing; that's not it at all.

Then here comes a by-election and the greed of power hung in the heart of those of the government and they changed their tune. They said, "We're going to have a tenant protection package." We said, "What's that?" "It's a tenant protection package." We said, "No, you told those that you were going to cancel rent control." You said, "No, this is a tenant protection package." I watched them through the by-election. To buy votes, they promised to have a tenant protection package. People did not believe them. I just told you as I started that the people are much more powerful than you are, because that's where the power lies. They know what you've done to them. They know very much that you have conned them in this, telling them one thing and doing something else.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs announced his white paper. What did the white paper tell them? The white paper told them that if you ever move from your home, you will no longer have your home in that affordable manner in which you have it now. Once you vacate, the price of that vacant unit will go up. In other words, "I'm going to give to the landlords the right to raise that rent whatever price they want," because it will be no longer under rent control. So the individual who would like to move, because it's a free society, to move anywhere they want, to go to school where they want to, to work where they want, to go to church wherever they want, and decide that they will change that venue, is not able to do so because they have to consider now, "If I move from my environment, from my community, or choose another community, I will be penalized by a high rent that a landlord will be instituting on us by the power given to them by this Conservative government." So what they do is they may have to stay.

On the other hand, if the landlord chooses that he doesn't like this tenant and starts to put some harassment on this tenant in all kinds of creative ways and forces that individual out, what else can they do? They would have to go and are forced to pay more for their accommodation.

I think I will be out in that province and telling all those tenants: "Don't be fooled by this. Don't feel that this is the ultimate power of the government. You do have the power to tell this government to stop, that they are the one who's harassing." The government itself tells us that in its white paper it's going to have this harassment unit bureaucracy, this huge bureaucracy that will deal with any of those infractions.

Let me tell you about some harassment infractions and a bureaucracy that's been established to deal with that. It's called the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If you ever see that backlog in there, if you ever know the backlog that exists in there, you would not carry any of your cases there. I know people who have been there for five years waiting for their issue to be addressed. But this has not been so; they waited. So they're going to create this bureaucracy about the harassment and say, "If we do find someone harassing you, we'll charge that individual $5,000 and we'll charge this other individual $10,000 to $50,000." But where is that poor tenant going to find anyone to go each day to put their case, to define what is harassment? I see a long lineup.

1110

The other issue I want to speak on is that same white paper that was presented said they're going to build a lot of affordable units. I'm trying to find a very parliamentary expression to use. I think it's hogwash. They will not do so. They're trying to model their program on the BC model. In Vancouver it's there. There are almost no vacancies for apartments in Vancouver, yet they have not built any new units -- not one new unit.

I can't understand this government, which is so vicious to the poor, which closes its eyes to the seniors. They are fearmongering to the poor seniors out there. Those who are comfortable in their environment are finding today that a government that should protect them is not doing so. Not only are they being attacked by high user fees on prescriptions and drugs and higher fees all around us, for using the parks and using the libraries and what have you, but now they're being attacked, they're coming right inside their homes, to invade them, to push them out, all for the price of a profit for the landlord.

I want very much to make the point that I'm not against landlords or developers. I'm not at all against the landlord or the developer, because I think we need them in our society. They can continue to build, and I'd encourage them to build, but I will tell you, they will never build for the lower-income people. I would say to them, "If you're not making a profit, don't build." Why should they be subsidizing the poor? They should not be subsidizing the poor. They are in this business to make a profit, and that's fair.

What we as a government should do is to make sure we regulate that industry properly, because we realize the free market system doesn't work in housing. It does not work at all in housing. If you don't believe me, you can look at 1975 when the same government understood it wasn't working and decided very much so to introduce legislation of rent control. That's why you did that. But you did it in a half-hearted way that made matters worse. If you're going to do something, do it all the way.

In 1985 another government came in and tried to introduce a wider process of rent control, and later on, in 1990, another government improved the conditions in some respect. And here comes 1996, and this Conservative government has decided they're going to sacrifice the poor, they're going to sacrifice those tenants who are having extreme difficulty in paying affordable rents, and pass their fate over to the developers and to the landlords, pitting one against the other.

The Conservative government has abdicated their responsibility to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable. It's evident in the way in which they have passed laws; it's evident in the dictatorial way in which they have practised their policies; it's evident when they eliminate employment equity; it's evident in whom they have targeted.

I am so happy, so glad that I am in a democratic process, that I can see the back of you all a couple of years from now, because the people will have spoken, the people who have been subjected to the abuse and the bullying by you, by the Premier and his government. The people will not forget. They will not forget when they find themselves living in worse conditions, when they find themselves not able to get jobs because they are being discriminated against and there are no laws to protect them, when they find that budgets have been cut in the Ontario Human Rights Commission in order to carry out their work efficiently, because they do not care about those who are vulnerable in our society.

I say to the people outside, don't give up, don't give up any hope on this, because we know that things will get better as soon as we see the back of this Conservative government which has so viciously attacked the poor in our society.

We'll be happy when our kids -- mind you, some of them will be in pain. There will be pain in their hearts when they realize that the tuition fees for their children have gone up almost beyond the reach at which they can educate their children. Today we need more education in order to access jobs. But what they have done is increase tuition fees. They've increased the rents for students. Every September -- and I have spent a lot of time in the education system helping students get accommodation -- they are seeking accommodation. I tell you that not only their tuition fees went up, not only user fees for every other thing within that system, but also rents for students will play an adverse effect on those who would like to access higher education and training. This government doesn't care. They hope that the rich, who are able to send their kids somewhere else or to private school, are better off and they don't have to worry.

They have made some tax cuts that we talked about. One person in my riding of Scarborough North said to me, "Will I be getting a tax rebate?" I said, "How much do you earn?" They said, "I get about $22,000 a year." I said: "No, you'll be paying for the rich, those who can more afford it. You will not get a tax rebate because it's not for you, you see. It's for those at the top end of the scale."

People out there waiting are those who may get $200, and then this government tells them that they go and pay it down on a house or buy some furniture to stimulate the economy. You know what they're going to do with that, Mr Speaker? They will pay the debts they have on their Visa because the other capitalists are all waiting there for it. The bankers are saying: "Your Visa is due. Give me that money."

It didn't going anywhere. Where did it go? Where did it improve the economy? It has in no way improved that person's life because it may have given them a bit to pay down, $200 or so, on the debt they have, but not to buy furniture, run out and take a trip, as the Premier said, and go to a ski resort, hoping that will stimulate the economy so jobs are given in tourism. No, that's not the way it's going to happen. This government has brutally and viciously attacked the poor. They have done it in such a vicious way that they will not forget. That day of reckoning will come when they will vote this Conservative government out.

On my last point, just quickly, some of my constituents asked me to give some awards out here and I think it's appropriate. In giving some of these awards, I want to read this. This one is for Steve Gilchrist. It says the Most Talkative Politician Award. This award goes to the politician who speaks the most and says nothing.

Another award that is given, and I thought it was a wonderful award, is the Mismanagement Award, to Al Leach. This award is for your mismanagement of the TTC and now the destruction of tenant affairs. That's another award they have asked me to give. They also gave me an award, and I won't bother to read that award here.

1120

I want to read another award, the Hot Water Award to David Tsubouchi. This award is for the man who ends up in hot water the most: welfare cuts, dented tuna, shopping list and cutting 100K off welfare etc.

This is what people out there who have more power than you, who vote, are thinking. They are very discouraged. I said, "Have faith," because in the next three weeks, when you take that white paper on the road, that discussion paper about eliminating rent control, you will be hearing from them.

I am extremely discouraged about this budget. I'll be voting against it because I don't think it does anything for the poor or for the disabled. It doesn't do anything for the man who froze on the street, and they could not even recognize him because he was frozen with his hands over his face, frozen because he had no home and because this government does not care. Any government that does not care deserves to be voted out.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think my friend failed to announce another award: Most Considerate Member of Parliament, Alvin Curling.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Questions and comments?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I stand to endorse Mr Curling's ringing condemnation of the free market system and its inability to provide housing in a fair and equitable way along with a whole lot of other products and services. Here we are on the last day of this House sitting in this session, the last day for this group of pages here, as fine a group of pages as has ever served this Legislative Assembly. They should be awfully proud of themselves, because I know their families and their communities are proud of them and so are all of us, but they've been witnesses to some of the cruellest attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable in our society by this government, by the Harris Tory government.

Who pays for the tax break for the very rich? Those 22 women and men downstairs in our cafeteria and our foodservices are paying the price. While these fat-cat Tories come back here, where they continue to get their $80,000-plus a year salary, Monday, for those 22 women and men downstairs in the cafeteria and dining room, there is no place to go to work; there's no paycheque.

Here we are, I've got around 11:20 on Thursday at Queen's Park, and the foodservices are going to start in just a few minutes down there. I ask the public who are watching right now to come on down to Queen's Park today. Come down to the cafeteria, come down to the dining room and take a look at the faces of the victims of Mike Harris and share some of their despair and tragedy. Understand the price they're paying for Mike Harris's revolution. Understand the price those workers are paying for Mike Harris's fidelity and his obedience, like a lap-dog, to the very rich and the powerful in this province. Come down to Queen's Park and watch blue-suited, fat-cat Tories chow down after they've condemned those workers to destitution.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I just want to congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough North on his most eloquent and passionate speech. There are few members who can address the House in as passionate a fashion as can the member for Scarborough North. As always he demonstrates an ability to reach beyond what is seemingly debate in this House, reach beyond this assembly to the real people out there who are concerned about what this government is doing with their lives, who are concerned in community after community, as was pointed out by my colleague, about the consequences of total neglect in some cases by this government of those people who are going to suffer the consequences and the wrath of this government, the wrath of this budget, totally neglecting the difficulties and suffering that will take place in community after community across this province.

My colleague's remarks pointed towards the back benches of this government are called for because it is that back bench which at the end of the day can make a difference. If they were to be real members of provincial Parliament, members of this Legislature and interested in what would happen in all those communities beyond their own partisan considerations, beyond their considerations for what's going to happen in the pecking order, who's going to be in a cabinet position, who's not and who's going to get a parliamentary assistant's position and who's not, who's going to sit on which committee and who's not -- forget about all that. You're here to consider the concerns of all your constituents, regardless of their partisanship, regardless of your partisanship.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I will have an opportunity to speak to the third reading of this bill, so I just want to respond very briefly to the member's comments and particularly on the awards he read out from the Lawrence Ave East Tenants' Association. I think it was an award for the worst management or the greatest mismanagement that went to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the award for the minister who was in the most hot water went to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The member very modestly didn't read out the award that went to him as the most considerate member of the Legislature, and he very nicely sent down one that actually came to me. I'm very appreciative of this. It was Member of Parliament Petition Award to Frances Lankin: "This award goes to a member of Parliament, a person who has given in the most petitions for all Ontarians, such as Bill 26, housing" etc. I'm quite impressed to have received this award. I think the member for St Catharines might want to contest the accuracy and the fact of whether or not I have put in the most petitions. I know he's at it every day, so he might want to contest that.

I want to say to the folks from the Lawrence Ave East Tenants' Association, Veronica Hering, who is the chairperson, Ruth Lunel, who is a fearless advocate on behalf of seniors, whom I've known and worked with over a number of years, that I appreciate their taking the time to observe what goes on here, to comment, to provide their feedback and particularly the kind of work they've done on issues like housing, like Bill 26, like standing up for seniors in Ontario. It's that kind of participation in the democratic process that keeps all of us in this House accountable. It's that kind of response from the public that I hope in the long run will bring about a change in direction on the part of this government, a realization that they're not acting in the best interests of all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough North has two minutes.

Mr Curling: I just want to thank the members who have commented on my speech. I appreciate it very much.

I also want to read one last part, just to round off these awards: "Most Inconsiderate Politician to Mike Harris. This award is for your total disregard for the poor, disabled and especially the seniors." That says it all, in the sense that the people out there are frustrated. These people are so frustrated, as I meet with them each day, even up to last night in the riding of my good friend the member for Yorkview, where over 50 or 60 tenants came together to express their fear about the fearmongering that goes on in this government, that they feel they must react and stand up for their rights. I encourage them to continue the fight. They should not be fearful of any ministers of this government who seem so mighty and powerful that they're beyond democracy.

I never had an opportunity in that Bill 26 demonstration, but I want to thank many, as a matter of fact most, and all the members of the opposition who stood up to this arrogant government's ramming this bill through. I say to them that it encourages me to know that there are people who believe in democracy and see that it must carry through regardless of the dictatorial way of this government.

Over the next year people will be coming before legislative committees to express their concern, and it will be heard. I will make sure it is heard.

1130

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Lankin: I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak on third reading of this very important bill, this tax bill, this bill that comes directly out of the finance minister's budget. It's not with pleasure that I take part in this debate because I'm concerned. I'm very concerned about the direction this government has set out in its Common Sense Revolution and as it follows through on that. I'm concerned about the impact on people in the province.

The centrepiece of this government's budget, of this government's commitment to the public of Ontario really was that 30% tax break. Give credit where credit's due: At least that's one promise they're living up to. But I can tell you that this is a promise that is very dangerous, not just to the economy of this province, not just to the government's fiscal situation, not just to the ability for government to continue to deliver important services, but to the lives of people.

I really hope over the break of the Legislature over the next few months Conservative MPPs go home to their ridings and meet with people in their ridings who are starting to feel the very direct result of this government's policy.

It won't be people who will come in and say: "Thank you very much. I now have a job I never would have had."

It won't be people who will come into your office and say: "Thank you very much. I now have this wonderful tax break I can go out and spend on all of these things I've always wanted to have or pay down my debt or do whatever I choose to do with this money."

It won't be from people who'll say: "Thank you very much. You've made me feel secure in my future in terms of my rental housing situation."

It won't be from people who say: "Thank you very much. I feel my health care system is going to be preserved and that medicare will survive these very difficult challenges that governments face in dealing with fiscal situations."

It won't be from parents who will come in and say: "Thank you very much. I know my kids are going to start to get a better quality education. I know class sizes are going to be controlled. I know the resources are going to be there when they need them. I know the supports in the school are going to be there when they need them. I know my child's teachers are getting the backing they need to be able to do the very best job possible."

It won't be from seniors who are going to come in and say to you: "Yeah, I can afford the user fees you've put on drugs. This is not a problem. I'm going to be able to maintain the pharmacological treatment that's been keeping me out of hospital, out of institutions."

Those are not the sorts of things you're going to hear. People are not going to thank you for that. And all of this because you're so committed to this 30% tax break, which costs the government $20 billion in a combination of lost revenue and money you've got to go out and borrow. I genuinely thought Conservatives prided themselves on some sort of fiscal common sense. How can it be common sense to have to go out and borrow and pay interest on the money you've borrowed to give a tax cut in the order of $20 billion over the next number of years that in fact goes to the wealthiest people in this province?

This is what is just so inane about the approach you are taking. Middle-income earners, working families, who are going to get back a couple of hundred dollars out of this tax break aren't going to see it, because you know the cuts you've made to municipalities mean that municipality after municipality is taking decisions either to increase their property taxes or to impose user fees for picking up garbage, for kids going to the skating rinks, for seniors having aquafit programs in the local pool, things the municipality used to be able to provide without additional fees out of their property tax base.

Because you've cut back on the transfers for municipalities, they're raising property taxes and they're imposing user fees on the citizens of their municipality, and working families are not going to see a penny of that great, wonderful, Tory promise of the provincial income tax cut.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Yes, they will.

Ms Lankin: You know who will. Of course you do: the wealthiest in this province.

Mr Baird: You will.

Ms Lankin: One of the members across, the member for Nepean, says I will. Well, you know what, sir? In this province of Ontario, members of the provincial Legislature in fact are among some of the wealthiest. The salaries we get are pretty damn good salaries and I don't need that tax break. Do you know what I need? For my community to be safe and healthy, I need a health care system, I need a good education system, I need roads I can count on that do not have potholes, I need a transportation system like our TTC. Those are the things that make my community healthy, that make my community a safe and wonderful place to live.

Those are the things you are just ripping out of Ontario and we are going to suffer the consequences of that in the deterioration of the network of support, of the networks that pull us together in our communities, of the networks that provide the quality of life that we have and enjoy -- have had and did enjoy -- in the province of Ontario.

There are many ills I could speak of when I look at the agenda as it has been unfolding over the last few months under this government. Every time I look at this, I say: "Why? Why are they doing this?" There are one or two answers only: either it's a move that benefits your friends -- I'll talk about rent controls and some other examples of that; privatization benefits the private sector -- or it's a move you have to make to pay for this inane, stupid tax cut you're proceeding with. Why would you force on Ontario an additional $20 billion of debt over the next four to five years to pay for this tax cut, and also, to deal with the government's fiscal situation, have to cut that much more out of services? This does not make sense.

This is not about deficit reduction; this is about smoke and mirrors which allow you to go out with the excuse of the deficit and say: "Gosh, we've got to downsize government. Gosh, we've got to pull government out of the way. Gosh, get government out of your face and let the markets take over." The markets, my friends, don't share my values. My values are values that put people first. My values are values that say families need to have the support in their communities to provide for their kids, to make sure their kids are nourished, that they're well fed, that they're healthy, that they don't go to school hungry like we see more and more in this province, that those kids have got a good opportunity for the future, a good education system that's going to provide them the basis to learn and to be able to go on and develop a career, that there will be a possibility for a job.

My parents worked really hard. They understood the work ethic. They worked really hard, and one of the reasons they did it is because they wanted my brother and I to have a better shot in this world than they did. They wanted me to be able to go to school, to be able to go to university, to be able to get an education, to have dreams about a career, to be able to pursue a career in a field of my choosing. They worked hard and invested hard in my future, and of course left it up to me to do the best I could with those opportunities. But they believed they could create that opportunity. And we lived in a province that said: "Yes, you can. You can do that for your kids."

That's not how parents feel today. That is not what parents -- working families -- believe today. They don't believe they can provide better for their kids. It's killing parents to think about their kids not having the same breaks they did, not having the same opportunity.

I must talk for a moment about the youth who are coming out of school right now and the bleak sense of despair so many of them feel. I came out of school with a sense of optimism, a sense of confidence, a belief that I would have a job -- a belief, a full expectation. I never doubted it for a minute. I never worried about the possibility of having a job, of having a career I could build. Not for one moment did I worry about that. You talk to youth today who are coming out of school. You ask them how they feel about their futures. You ask them if they think they're going to have a job and a career. Let me tell you, the bleak sense of despair, as I said, the lack of optimism and of confidence is a frightening thing to confront sitting and talking to young people who don't know what the future will hold for them.

1140

There's a growing part of the population for whom this is true, and I say this to politicians of all political parties, how we must strive to become more relevant to the real lives of people. There's about 30% of the population out there, working adult population, who may find work but who are not likely to find a job in the traditional sense of a job with security and benefits and the things that I at least took for granted and expected would be part of my life. Those are people who are working part-time, who are working on contract, who are working on fee for service, who are working seasonally, who are working in the grey market. They're not attached to the workforce in the same way that we expected most people would be.

When we talk to them about regulation and red tape and the sorts of things that we hear from this government are going to make the world so much better, when we talk to them about employment standards and those sorts of things, what does this mean to those people? Very little. Politicians and governments are becoming irrelevant to their lives.

We must find a way to speak out -- first of all, to listen -- but to speak out to the issues that affect people's real lives and to provide a sense of possibility, of hope, of vision in their lives, to create a situation where we, as elected representatives on behalf of our constituents, are here actually debating a vision of community, of the society that we want to live in, and then talking about what are the right steps to take to actually achieve that. Not the other way around. Not the way I have heard for months from this Conservative government. Not the: "Get government out of the way, get elected representatives out of the way, there is no role, let markets take over. Somehow all the good economic stimulus that will come with this will trickle down and everyone will benefit."

Just think for a moment of some words from south of the border, some words from Ted Kennedy actually, in response to that old saying about a rising tide lifts all boats. As he pointed out, it seems like the yachts, in fact, are being lifted, but the skiffs and the rowboats and others are slowly sinking.

The polarization that is taking place in our North American society, but very, very certainly here in our Ontario society, is one which leads to a decay of the social fabric. It's one that leads to the world of the haves and the have-nots. It's one that leads to social discontent, families in poverty, in desperation, seeking alternatives to the desperation of their lives. It's one that leads to inner cities that are reminiscent of Detroit and New York and many other large US cities, not our Canadian experience. It's one that leads to what we see more and more: homeless people, people living on the streets.

A couple of months ago I attended a fund-raising dinner and it was for a very important environmental cause and I was invited as a guest of a prominent member of the business community to be at a table this person had purchased. I was proud and pleased to be there, I'm very supportive of this cause, and it took place in a lovely, old, posh club that has been around since virtually the time of Confederation.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Not the Albany Club?

Ms Lankin: It's down on Bay Street. I came out of that at the end of the evening and walked out the door and down the few steps to the sidewalk on Bay Street. Right outside this building there's a large grate. It was winter; it was cold. There were two men with sleeping bags on this grate. This is where they would spend the night. I was hailing a cab to come back up here to Queen's Park to get my car, and there were many other cars lined up, and the imagery -- and I'm sorry, I don't mean to exploit this -- was pretty powerful. There were BMWs and Mercedes and limousines lining up to pick people up coming out of this event, a very worthy event, and this is no comment on the people who were there or the worthy cause they were supporting.

But the contrast, I say to my colleagues in this House, the contrast was so startling and so upsetting, it was like being punched in the stomach. You come out and you see this in our city, more and more people who are homeless; as I said earlier, more and more kids who are going to school hungry. Well, we have a responsibility, colleagues in this House of all political parties. We have a responsibility to say "No. That is not our vision of the community. That is not the Ontario we want to live in, and we have a responsibility to work together to create something different."

I have to say to you yet again, a stupid tax cut which is giving most of the money to the people who already have in this society and causing you to cut services from those who have not does not contribute to my vision of Ontario, to my vision of the community that I want to live in.

Just look at some of the things you've done this week, because there are so many. That's one of the things I'm trying to debate or to talk about, this government's agenda. You have to have a shotgun, you have it cocked in all directions, because you got your fingers in all sorts of little parts of what goes on in our community. Things are changing so quickly and so dramatically, and the cumulative effect you have not thought about, and that's where the danger lies.

But let me just talk about this week. This week we see the introduction of the white paper talking about changes to rent control, gutting rent control, destroying rent control. But rent control is the name of a process of a protective piece of legislation so let's not worry about the law, the name, the whatever. Let's talk about the people.

Let's talk about the seniors whom you are saying to, that they are now economic hostages in their apartments, because if they move, their rent control protection is gone. So, if a senior gets to the point where they need a little more help, the need to rely on their family a little bit more, but they still want to live independently, and they want to move from Peterborough, where they live, to Kingston, where their son or their daughter has relocated for business, for work, they want to move to be closer, gone is their rent protection. They're economic hostages. Think about this.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): They might even get cheaper rent.

Ms Lankin: Oh, the member says, "They may get cheaper rents." In a dream -- in a dream. Mr Speaker, I know. You always remind me to keep my remarks directed to you. Mr Speaker, this kind of wish and hope does not comfort the senior who is in their home now protected by rent controls knowing what will happen with their rents.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Protected by Big Brother. More government control.

Ms Lankin: I'm just listening over here to the member who is saying, "Oh, yes, government should be Big Brother and control everything and protect everything."

Mr Murdoch: It shouldn't be. That is what you want.

Ms Lankin: You know what? When it comes to a senior who's living on a fixed income, I want my government to protect that senior.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, the member for Grey-Owen Sound. There's a period afterwards where you can pass all your questions and all your comments. Wait for that period.

Mr Murdoch: Tell her to keep her finger to herself. Don't point your finger.

Ms Lankin: The member has counselled me not to point my finger. If he remains quiet and doesn't provoke me, I won't turn to him and point my finger. We have a deal. It's an easy deal to strike.

The point I'm making is, I want my government to play a role in protecting that senior. I want my government to work with the private sector to create employment opportunities, to create economic growth, but government's role is to curb the excesses of unbridled capitalism.

That's what these folks have forgotten. They're sort of saying, "Take the reins off." Government has a role to step in and provide that balance on behalf of people. I want the seniors who live in my riding and across this province to have a government that cares enough about them to protect them, to make sure they have a home and don't become part of the homeless. I care about that and you should too.

1150

I care about the students who have gone off to university or college and who come home to a home community in the summer and then go off again for a school year. If they leave the apartment and come home for the summer or go to another community for a job, they've lost their rent control protection. Think about this. Think about the economic hostages you are creating in this province.

That was one thing that was done this week. What's another thing?

Within a couple of days we will see the legislation that was passed come to fruition and we will have user fees, new user fees on drugs for senior citizens in this province. The Minister of Health stands in his place and says: "Seniors are very supportive of this. Seniors know that in other provinces we have copayments." Is that the test? With the changes that are necessary in the health care system, with the changes that those who have a vision for health care reform believe in and argue for, which are the changes that take our system and spend more of our resources out of the institution and in the community, out of illness treatment and more on illness prevention, on health and wellness promotion, pharmacological treatment, prescription drug treatment is a very important part of quality health care nowadays.

It's taken on more of a role with the advances in science and the development of new products and new drugs that can treat conditions, that can keep people stable or help people become healthy without having to go for more intrusive types of treatment, surgery or into hospital. It's an important part of the shift of what has to happen in the health care system. We should be looking at other provinces moving to the Ontario situation where there is not a user fee, not the other way around.

This just speaks to your total lack of vision of what needs to happen in health care to preserve quality health care, to preserve medicare. If I sound passionate when I talk about medicare, any New Democrat would be. It's part of our heritage. We speak of medicare with burning, fierce pride. It doesn't mean we defend the status quo. It doesn't mean we don't believe there are changes and natural evolutions, and we're absolutely willing participants in seeing those changes brought forward.

But that's not what's happening here with this government. There isn't a vision for the protection of medicare. Of course not. Just look at Bill 26. Just look at all the changes which open the door for the Americanization and privatization of our Canadian health care system. Let me tell you that I and my colleagues will fight you every step of the way on that, because medicare is important. Medicare provides the best system we know anywhere in the world for people's health, for the quality of health. Just look at the population statistics in terms of our quality of health in this country. Look at all the measures. We will fight you and your destruction of this important national heritage of medicare. We know where you're headed, but we know you will meet great resistance along that path. That's another thing that's happening this week in Ontario.

Another really good example: With this government, bottom line means everything, privatization, giving over chunks of work to your friends in the private sector. Let's just talk about the 22 men and women who are out the door tomorrow from this building, who work here, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in the food and beverage services. The public might not know a lot about that, but there is a dining room downstairs and there's a cafeteria downstairs. The men and the women who work there are waiters, waitresses, servers, cashiers, cooks, short-order cook, chef, people who work in the beverage services, people who do some of the minor catering work to some of the meetings that happen in the building.

These are folks who have worked here for a long time. The government comes in and says, "Oh, my gosh, there's a deficit problem here in that we don't take in as much money in the food and beverage services as we pay out in salaries, so we've got to solve this problem."

You know what? I can agree with you. Okay, let's solve the problem. What's the solution? You could put up the prices. Why should the taxpayers of Ontario subsidize the cost of your lunch or my lunch or any other member of provincial Parliament's lunch? So let's put up the prices. Why is that such a stupid response to this problem of a deficit in the food and beverage services? Why wasn't that a possible solution? Ideologically, of course, this is in the public sector, this must be bad, so therefore the only solution is to hand it off to your buddies in the private sector. So who's coming in? Marriott's coming in to run this.

How are they going to deal with this deficit problem? Well, two things to it --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): How much was the staff making?

Ms Lankin: Mr Wettlaufer, I'm going to get to that, so you can wait for that point.

Marriott comes in. How do they solve this problem? They're going to do two --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Ms Lankin: Marriott's going to come in and solve this problem in two ways. First of all, I predict that in fact the prices will go up anyway. Fine. So what else is going to be part of the solution, because it's not just breaking even that is their goal? Would a private sector business come here just to break even? Of course not. We know that as part of the business world, a very admirable motive in business, there is a profit to be made. Investments and return on investments are an important part of what goes on out there in the business world.

But my friends, how they're going to do that, how they're going to achieve that, is by dramatically slashing the wages and benefits and hours of workers, of servers, of cashiers. Think about the people we're talking about here.

Mr Wettlaufer said to tell the public how much these people made. Yes, you're right, about $17 an hour these people made. Some of them, like Anna, after 18 years of work in this place and seniority, made $17 an hour. I'm assuming the member wanted me to tell the public that because they should be outraged that someone as lowly as a waitress or who works behind a food counter could make that kind of money. How indignant we should all be on behalf of the taxpayers that there's a decent wage being paid to this woman who worked for 18 years, who is 57 years old and who is on her way out this door with an offer of one-year bridging to a pension at 60 so she will have two years plus with no income, her husband on a disability pension; no way to support her and her husband through that. Where do you think she's going to get a job?

I hope people are indignant that she was getting that kind of money. I suspect people will feel a real sense of sympathy when they realize that she's not employable, has nowhere to go and is out the door so that your business friends, your buddies, can make a profit off this operation by screwing workers, because that's what it comes down to.

There's another woman who works down there, eight years' seniority. Her situation is she's going to go from $16, $17 an hour down to just over $7 an hour -- that's what's been offered -- no benefits, and no guarantee of hours. Currently I think her situation is 35 hours a week, 35 or 37 regularly -- no guarantee of hours. How does she make this decision about her child in child care, to pay for the child care, when she's got no guarantee she's going to be able to pay for it out of her paycheque because there no guarantee of hours? What are you doing to her? Forcing her into a situation without work, where she has to keep her child at home and an inability to put a child in child care, and perhaps ending up on social assistance. Does this make sense?

These are 22 people. I understand from the attitudes in this place and some of the things that I've heard, like, "Tell the people how outrageously much these people earned," that you don't care about the 22 people. Well, some of us do. Some of us know them personally and feel deep in our hearts their pain.

1200

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent of the House that we continue to meet from 12 to 1 o'clock for the purpose of continuing consideration of government business and that at 1:30 we proceed to consideration of routine proceedings as prescribed in the order of the House, June 26.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Lankin: The point is not just that some of us care about these 22 people, because we do, but that this is such an illustrative example of this government's approach to the people of Ontario, its cavalier approach of dividing people into the haves and have-nots, of dehumanizing anyone who has a legitimate complaint about this government. Just the example of saying, "Tell the public how much these workers were paid." It's the workers' fault? Come on.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): How long are you going to speak?

Ms Lankin: Not long. There's a question about how much longer I'm going to speak. Probably a few more minutes -- it won't be long -- just to facilitate the members in terms of their participation so that they know.

I think often of the way in which this government plays the politics of blame and the politics of division. I think often of the way in which this government responds to anyone who has a criticism of it as a special-interest group. There are two moments in time that I think of.

One was before the Quebec referendum. Do you remember, on the Friday or the Saturday, the big demonstration that was held of people from all across Canada going to Montreal to talk about their support and their belief in the unity of our country and the importance of Quebec being part of our country? An outpouring of genuine emotion on the part of ordinary people being there. I remember the Premier of our province, having gone there with his son, who said -- it wasn't a big fanfare or anything -- "I'm here as an ordinary citizen to make my point of view known. There are 100,000 people here today and that's got to say something to the government of Canada and to the government of Quebec about the wishes and the desires of ordinary Canadians. What a proud moment."

A couple of months later in Hamilton, when he was sitting in his big, cushy hotel room at the Tory convention and 125,000 Ontarians were in the street ringing that hotel, calling on this government to wake up and to understand that the devastation it was bringing to this province was hurting real people, our Premier proudly stood and said, "Special-interest groups."

Oh, the double standards are amazing. The politics of blame, the politics of division are amazing. Once again, let me tell you that is not my vision of the community I want to live in, one where it is "us" and "them"; one where there are haves and have-nots; one where it's okay for a member of provincial Parliament, with disdain, to talk about ordinary working people behind a cash register or serving tables earning $17 an hour. That's not my vision of my Ontario and I'm going to fight for my vision of my Ontario, as will many Ontarians, in response to the ongoing onslaught from this government of decisions which serve --

Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine stated that the members of the government spoke with disdain. That's a question of motive, which is not allowed. We were not speaking with disdain on what the average worker --

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat. That's not a point of order.

Ms Lankin: Far be it for me to impute motive, so let me speak of my own motive. I speak with disdain for the comments that the member made. I speak with disdain for the direction of this government, which is hurting real people, people whom I represent in my constituency; families who don't know whether they're going to be able to keep a job; kids who don't know whether they're ever going to have a job; seniors who are going to feel like economic hostages in their apartments because if they move their rents will go up; youth who have invested energy and vigour and idealism into obtaining an education and who have no confidence or hope that they'll ever be able to use it or apply it to the development of a career in their lives.

I want a different kind of Ontario. I will fight for a different kind of Ontario. I believe the people of Ontario, as they start to feel, day after day, the effects of the decisions of this government, which are made every day on the basis of who benefits -- when it's your friends who benefit, when it's the landlords who benefit, when it's the sharks on Bay Street who are circling around just sniffing the blood money that will come from the privatization of so many public-owned assets, when they benefit, your decisions are clear. When it's a decision to cut to pay for this tax giveaway to the wealthiest in our province, your decisions are clear. We know whose side you're on, and the public will understand soon whose side you're on.

My friends, when it comes to being a representative of the people in your riding, at some point in time those people will demand of you that you bring to the debate, bring to the discussion, bring to the decisions of your government a sense of their interests, a sense that you're on their side. If you fail to do that, the consequences will be only too obvious at that time.

I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on this important bill coming out of the finance minister's budget. It's clear that I and my colleagues are very concerned about the direction of the government. As we head into a period of reflection, when the Legislature is not sitting over the next couple of months, back into our constituencies, I hope the public will make clear to all of us in our riding offices their points of view so that it's not only members of the New Democratic Party and members of the official opposition who speak on behalf of those views, but perhaps some of the members of the Tory caucus will begin to bring those points of view back to the discussions in the government and we might see a different approach. One can always live in hope.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Baird: The member for Beaches-Woodbine talks about the lack of hope and opportunity out there. That's exactly the message that those of us on this side of the House heard during the election campaign -- that there was no hope and no opportunity for a better future, particularly for young people in this province. That's why we know that if we continue to go down the same road we were going down we would get the same results. That's why the problems and challenges facing the province required a real change in direction, and that's the change the people of Ontario voted for. That's important to get on the record.

I am concerned with the member's discussion about how the tax cut will only affect the most wealthy in society. That's class warfare. We know that the tax cut to create jobs introduced by this government will benefit all income taxpayers in the province; it will benefit those families making $30,000 and $40,000 a year. That's good news, because with an increasing debt burden and declining income, they don't have the resources to raise their family they used to have.

The member talks about the lack of hope and opportunity among youth. That's something that's built up over recent years. It didn't stop them, when she was in government, from raising tuition for university students. They promised to eliminate tuition, and they raised it. With great respect, where was the hope and opportunity for young people then?

She talks about the reality of the restructuring going on here at Queen's Park with respect to foodservices. I don't think any one of us is pleased that this is going on. I don't think any one of us takes any pride in what's going on. The reality is that we cannot spend $800,000 as a subsidy for a restaurant, for a dining room.

Ms Lankin: So raise the price of your tuna sandwich.

Mr Baird: I went there for breakfast last week and paid $9 for bacon and eggs. Regrettably, we can't afford that $800,000 subsidy. But it's very important to put our motive. No one takes any pleasure in this. No one is happy about it. For the member to stand there and assume that this is somehow a joyful occasion is regrettable.

1210

Mr Conway: I want to commend the member for Beaches-Woodbine for her remarks this afternoon. I don't, obviously, agree with all that she said. She reminds us, however, that there are a lot of people in the community who are not sharing in the cornucopia of economic good news that seems to encourage the young Turks of the government bench. The previous speaker reminds me that so much of this is about faith and ideology, and I'm quite prepared to say let's give some benefit of the doubt.

Quite frankly, when I hear some of what I've heard in this place in the last six or eight months -- and I understand what the voters were saying in Ontario a year ago -- this "Let's just open the place for business; let's just settle some accounts," it reminds me of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan in 1982. The last time I checked, half that government was either under indictment or in jail. I know that's not going to happen in Ontario, but boy, does some of the speechmaking remind me of the kind of wonder that rigorous, right-wing conservatism was going to provide to the people of Saskatchewan under the Devine administration. Ten years later we have an opportunity to assess performance against promise. I don't know whether I'm the only one who notices how many in that government and caucus have gone to jail or are under indictment for some really interesting behaviour.

Much has been said here this morning about the situation downstairs in the dining room -- Herr Wettlaufer was interjecting enthusiastically during Ms Lankin's speech -- but I just make this point: 20 years ago, if I remember correctly, long before the socialist hordes ran the place or the Liberals were in charge, we were paying to a private operator something like three quarters of a million or a million dollars in subsidy. Mr Dineley comes to mind. What goes around, comes around, and I guess we're on that carousel again.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I enjoyed the member's speech very much. I was observing it in my office and then later on in here. It really makes me wonder how the New Democratic Party could have chosen anyone other than the member for Beaches-Woodbine for leader, because of the points that she made so eloquently and with so much conviction. I want to commend her on that. I think she outlined very well the general direction in which we're moving.

I wish I had an American flag with me today, as my friend the former member for Mississauga West used to have, because that is clearly the direction in which this government is moving, the American model, particularly some of the states that have widened the gap between those at the bottom rung and the top end of the economic ladder. I find it unfortunate that this government is allowing it to move in that direction.

I don't know if the member had a chance to mention the need for the appropriate provincial funding for the environmental cleanup of Martindale Pond, because I know there was a time limitation, and the appropriate funding of --

Ms Lankin: For the MRI, the magnetic resonance imager, for St Catharines?

Mr Bradley: We have the MRI in St Catharines now. I've mentioned that many times.

Ms Lankin: Thanks to the work I did when I was minister.

Mr Bradley: Thanks to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who gave that approval.

Subsequent to that, I was wondering whether the member will be commenting further on the need for funding for the 1999 World Rowing Championships to be held in St Catharines, which will generate all kinds of funds for the provincial government, funds which I hope they would apply eventually to assisting those who are most in need and who require the intervention of government, as opposed to those who certainly do not require that assistance from government.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Let me say to the member for St Catharines that no, I didn't have a chance to mention those very important things, although when I did have an opportunity in government to serve in the portfolio of economic development and trade and work on community economic development initiatives, the beginning work on attracting the rowing championship was a very important project, along with enhancement of the rowing lanes in Welland. It's a very important tourist and economic stimulus project and I hope the government will look seriously at it, although I know they cancelled all of the community economic development program I put in place so I'm not sure whether you should hold out much hope for that.

Mr Conway: It would make a great movie: On Martindale Pond.

Ms Lankin: On Martindale Pond, right. In any event, let me say to the member for Nepean, you say you don't take any joy in 22 people going out the door from the foodservices. Fair enough. We have an opportunity this afternoon. The Legislative Assembly committee is now going to sit to hear from the Speaker and to hold the Speaker accountable for some of these decisions. Join with us then in asking for a review of the alternatives, the alternatives that were never seriously considered by the Board of Internal Economy because the direction had come from the front benches to the board members, from your caucus, with respect to what should happen, and that was the course of privatization.

Join with us this afternoon to search for an alternative and, most importantly, to ensure that for those people who are most harshly treated in this, the Annas and the other examples we've brought forward, there are some individual solutions that are found if you refuse to join with us in the support for overall review.

I just want to say, when it comes to youth and it comes to hope, I just saw a friend of mine, a young woman sitting here. She is our hope. Not our future; our present. I'm pleased she's been here to hear this today.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: I'm delighted to speak on Bill 47, the budget bill, and I'm delighted to comment on this government's outlook and vision for Ontario because this budget in effect determines where we're going for the years to come before us. This one budget, the first budget this government has brought down, will cement the fate of this government and set a course for all Ontarians which I think will be difficult to deal with in the years to come down the road.

For those of us who do not agree with the budgetary measures that are outlined, those of us who strongly feel that this budget will set a course that will be destructive, that will be very painful for the people of this province, we lament the fact that this government has taken these initiatives.

Let me deal with some of the myths contained in this budget, because I think there are many. One of the myths is essentially that this budget, through its tax-cutting measure, the income tax reduction that has been proposed by this government, will result in real net job creation amounting to 725,000 new jobs for Ontario.

Well, if we look at the government's own projections contained in the budget, this fiscal year, 1995-96, the unemployment rate will go up as a result of the introduction of this budget. If you further factor in the projections made by this government contained in its own forecasts in the budget, there will not be the kind of job creation that this government stated would be the case in the Common Sense Revolution document that was put forward in the last election campaign.

I do not believe this government was being straightforward and coming clean with respect to its job creation numbers when it stated so in the budget and, prior to that, in the election campaign. We know that's going to be one of the first promises that will not be kept. We can't see that today, but I think in three years' time it will become evident that this government is bankrupt of ideas when it comes to ensuring that job creation is taking place. They will simply rely on what will happen out there in the private sector; that is to say that suddenly there will be a tremendous influx of investment, suddenly there will be a tremendous increase in job creation, when the opposite is taking place. A number of jobs are disappearing out there in the corporate sector. Every day we hear an announcement whereby jobs are being lost.

Yes, there is some job creation going on. I read today in one of the clippings that 200,000 new jobs were created across the country this year and that only 48,000 of these were created in Ontario. Now that's an interesting figure because, as everyone knows, Ontario accounts for almost 40% of the GNP of this country, yet when you look at those 48,000 new jobs that are being created in Ontario compared to the 200,000 across the country, that's less than 25%. That's approaching somewhere between 20% and 25%.

1220

We are certainly not getting the kind of job creation numbers we should be getting in this province of ours to keep up with the number of new entrants into the labour force. In fact, the number of people who are still unemployed in this province approaches half a million. Let's not mention the fact that there are half a million others on social assistance who are able-bodied adults who could be working. Together, that is one million people who could be working in this province and do not have the opportunity to do so because there are not the jobs.

That is one of the first myths created by this government in its budgetary policy and its proclamations through its budgetary statements.

The second myth has to do with the fact that the consumer will benefit, the mythical one taxpayer will see an increase in purchasing power as a result of this government's budgetary measures. The income tax cut which was put in place through the budget will kick in at some point during the summer, and then following that there will be additional cuts made. If we examine the logic of what the government is saying with respect to its tax-cutting stimulus program, follow it through, on the one hand you have income tax cuts which are designed to put more money in the pockets of consumers so that in effect consumers will go out and spend, thus creating jobs in Ontario.

One wonders where those consumers will spend their money and if it will be on goods that are made in Ontario. We know there are many goods that come into Ontario from all over the world. Furthermore, those same people could pay down their mortgages, which is a good thing because it's adding to savings, but it does not stimulate the consumer-driven economy, which this government was banking on to create jobs. Furthermore, those same consumers could purchase a vacation in Florida, and that money leaves the country with no net impact in Ontario in terms of job creation.

Even if you concede that to the government, following through with their logic that you cut income taxes to individuals so that they can have more purchasing power, follow that through, but then how do you explain that on the other hand you're imposing, as a result of all the cutbacks that have been undertaken by this government, additional user fees? What do those user fees represent to that one mythical taxpayer? Well, add it together. You're not going to have any additional purchasing power on the part of that one taxpayer because those user fees eat away at any savings that might have accrued to that person by way of an income tax cut.

What you're left with is really no stimulus. Even following the logic of this government's plan, that mythical one taxpayer does not even get the benefit of that tax cut in the end, because the very purchasing power that this government likes to speak about going up will not be there, in effect because it will be taken away by user fees. What kind of user fees? All kinds: property tax increases, increases that will be imposed by municipalities for recreational services, other types of municipal services, other types of provincial services. There is a plethora of additional user fees that will be imposed on the one mythical taxpayer. So, following through on the logic, the government defeats itself with an illogical plan that on the one hand talks about having consumer purchasing power going up and on the other strips away that very consumer purchasing power that was supposed to create the jobs. So you have these myths contained within the budget.

I thought about this budget and the direction that this government is taking us in and the vision set forward by this government, and it goes well beyond that. The vision that this government has laid before the people of this province and the undertakings of this government will lead to the kind of society which ultimately we won't be able to recognize once this government gets through. It will be a pale version of what Ontario was throughout its glorious past and history.

When I think of this great province, the thing that comes to my mind are its people, the people around this province. I've been travelling this province for a number of years now, and more recently in the last number of months I have visited many communities across the province. What I've understood about the strength of this province are its people, their dedication, their commitment, their perseverance, their spirit, and this government is violating that very spirit, that very essence of what made Ontario great.

There is no consideration for people, as befits any government in this province, to undertake a commitment to ensure that we view people in this province as the assets of our economy, of our society, not its liabilities, and that's precisely what this government has done with those one million people who are sitting on the sidelines, who are unemployed or on social assistance. They have basically discounted those people as liabilities to all of us, and you cannot have that in a society that is successful. The most successful jurisdictions in the future will be those that invest in their people and those that make those people who are not now productive more productive in the future because we cannot sustain this kind of society, a society which is bent on having two types of lives, two types of worlds: one world, one society where people are well-off, well-educated, highly trained and earning the kind of dollars that most people could only dream of. That's a minority. And all the while there are many, many -- too many -- people who are unskilled, untrained, uneducated, lagging far behind.

That is the circumstance we face in our province and it is a malady that is inflicted upon many societies today in the industrialized world. I understand that. But the solutions being proposed by this government, the new directions, the vision that has been set forward by this government, is the wrong course of action to take. It will propel this province further and further behind. It will not take us forward into the future, will not allow this province its true destiny, will not allow us to move boldly into the future to realize a future that is full of potential and far greater than what it is today. This government is shortchanging the people of this province as a result.

1230

I started to think about what is the true description of this budget and what is the true image that comes to mind when this government puts forward this vision in its budgetary policy. How does the government view Ontario? I started to think about it, and what I came up with is this: This government views an Ontario where there's no room for exceptions, there's no room for people who don't fit in. It's almost an idyllic kind of outlook that this government has of a world that no longer exists, of a province that no longer exists, of a province that hearkens back to an era when people lived in a single-family dwelling, there were two cars in the garage, women stayed home, looked after their children, were by and large housekeepers, didn't work, and husbands went off and earned a living. They were the sole breadwinners.

Those are the policies that this points to as put forward by this government. It's almost an imaginary world. It's almost like looking at a bunch of plastic dolls and this government's saying, "This is what we want." I have two young children, two daughters. What do they play with? They play with Barbie dolls. This government looks upon this province almost in the way that those children look upon their dolls -- they're playthings. They've imagined a province, a society, where everyone perfectly fits into these slots, where it's an imaginary world. That's the only way you can describe it because there are no exceptions for people who can't fit in, through no fault of their own.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. I raised in this House the issue around a constituent of mine, a Mr Jim Wade, who is a disabled person who had been working for this provincial government of ours for the last 22 years. He had been given that opportunity by the Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis through a vocational rehabilitation program. I take this as an example of what this government is doing to many, many people across this province. They've simply said, "Well, Mr Wade, you no longer fit in." "How so?" Mr Wade asked. "I had done my work diligently; I had all kinds of good performance records. How can you tell me I don't fit in? I've been a very productive member of the Ontario civil service and now you're telling me I don't belong, there's no room for me here."

That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable to me, it's not acceptable to the members of my party, I'm sure, and I hope that it is not acceptable to members of the government. I can only hope that. I don't see any evidence that that will change.

I say to the members opposite, you are sacrificing too many people, and I give you that as an example: Mr Jim Wade, who now is forced into a situation where he and his family may be on social assistance, welfare. They're being forced on to the welfare rolls because Mr Wade no longer has the option of going to work and continuing to sustain his family. I cannot see how that makes common sense. I just cannot see how taking a productive member of our society, throwing him out of work and now forcing him and his family on to social assistance -- I just do not understand how there could be any common sense in that. What's the logic in that? I don't see it.

So looking at what this government has proposed, its view of the world -- again, going back to the Barbie dolls, a perfect image of who they're speaking to. This is their core vote. This is the kind of person: idyllic setting in Ontario, a suburban kind of setting where people are living in homes which are quite nice, where people are doing reasonably well; they're employed. That's fine, that's your core vote, but those same people could be next to lose their jobs and suddenly that idyllic state no longer exists. We're all vulnerable regardless of where we live, and our circumstances in most cases are very temporary.

We're all dependent on each other, and that's what this government has failed to realize, that each and every one of us is vulnerable and dependent in more ways than we realize on each other and that the strength we all have comes from depending on each other. This government has failed to recognize the basic tenet that a truly successful, truly civil and truly powerful society can have. The power comes from understanding that. We are powerless if we fail to understand that. We simply will be a lot less than we could be in this government's vision of the future.

I find that disturbing because we are giving up our true potential. We are not moving forward to grab hold of what our true destiny ought to be in this province. We could be so much more than we are and than we should be. This government is reducing what we are doing to its minimalist state and says, "We are going to become a lot less than what we are," first by dismantling government operations and second by moving forward with its agenda to make all its efforts come to a lot less. The government no longer represents the entity it used to, the positive force it can be in bringing forward the good things we've seen in our society.

Yes, we've gone through difficulties; yes, we have deficits we must deal with, but there's another myth about this government. It had claimed: "We must do this. We must cut severely. We must cut back on everything we do because we have a very serious deficit problem." That's fine and good, but there's no evidence contained in this budget that an urgency exists within these budgetary measures, because ultimately, to accommodate the $5 billion in a tax cut, this government has to borrow an additional $20 billion so that the accumulated debt of this province by the end of this government's mandate will have increased by $20 billion simply as a result of accommodating that tax cut. I find that unacceptable, and this government is perpetrating a myth about the urgency with which it wants to fight the deficit problem in this province.

One looks at the budget and asks, what is contained in this budget that is a true measure that will take us forward? I point out again that there is no principle underlying this budget which puts the interests of people at the forefront: a government that understands that to succeed economically in the future we have to invest in our people.

There's but one mention of training in the entire budget speech, very little reference to any kind of training initiatives. We don't want the kinds of initiatives we used to have that were highly bureaucratic. There are problems, to be sure, but there's nothing innovative contained in this budget with respect to training. There's no recognition of the fact that in the future training and education will be the cornerstone, the hallmark of truly successful economies around the world and that investing in our people is the best thing we could do, not only socially but economically. This government fails to realize that, and it is a true indictment of this government, its bankruptcy of ideas with respect to what's really necessary.

1240

This government has moved to dismantle the operations of government. Time and again we saw announcements during the last number of months which would see the reduction of government in its importance and size. No one is saying we shouldn't have reductions in the government's operations in terms of making things much more efficient, but there is a way to go about doing this. There's a way that would speak to the need to restructure in an efficient manner.

This government has taken a cut and said, "We're going to do it right across the board," with no prioritizing of what's important, no understanding, no direction about what is truly essential within the operations of government, what is truly essential about moving forward in our society and taking the economy forward. Ultimately, this government is forsaking the very idea that government has a positive role to play in the economy.

Government can play a role that enhances and facilitates the private sector. That's what Ontario has always been about. Enlightened governments have always played a role in our economy, enhancing and facilitating and making possible the kind of standard of living that we have in this province. Successive governments, government after government, understood that the true role of the province was to enhance and facilitate the engine of growth, the private sector.

The industrial infrastructure that was built in this province was second to none after the Second World War. And they were good Tory administrations that understood this, Progressive Conservative governments, right up until Bill Davis's time. This government has forsaken that tradition, that history, has forsaken it for all time and is moving forward with the kind of vision that will reject history, reject our past, and take us into the unknown abyss, to my way of thinking, the unknown, a place that's dark and fearful and filled with anxiety and uncertainty for many people across this province.

I've talked to many people across this province, students who've said, "Why should I continue with my education?" They're doubting their future. "There isn't going to be a job when I graduate," and there's a government that simply doesn't understand this. I've talked to seniors who've paid for benefits all their lives only to see them eroded and in some cases taken away entirely now. I've talked to people aged 50-plus who have lost their jobs and have been told: "Don't bother re-entering the workforce. You're simply too old. You're not going to get another job." There are hardworking people, as I said earlier, who have jobs and fear they may be the next to lose their jobs, their benefits and their family security.

All this uncertainty is taking too great a toll on the people of this province, and you have a government that foments that uncertainty and that anxiety by pitting one group against another and by forsaking the one million people in this province who are not working and are not contributing and not participating in a future that's more promising for them.

That's unacceptable, and this government has to do a lot of rethinking. Give up this brutal notion of the world that's being put forward by this government. Give up that vision, and start to realize that we can all be better, that we can be a much better society, a much more efficient economy, if we work together, if we invest in people, if we begin to realize that our true potential lies in investing in people and viewing them as the assets of our economy and our society and not as liabilities. Therefore, I cannot support the government in any of its budgetary measures, because they have failed to realize that fundamental aspect of what makes our society what it is, what it was, and they've forsaken the future for all of us, for all those students out there, for all those young people and for all those people who are not participating, who do not have the same opportunities. They have forsaken the future. They have sold the future away for those people, and I oppose what this government is doing in every way possible.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? If not, further debate.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am happy to speak today to the budget bill and, more specifically, to give examples to the people at home where I come from of what the kind of budget that was brought down by government means to people in Windsor-Sandwich. There has been a number of issues, particularly related to health and education, that are a direct result of and will continue to be the outcome of the kind of budget the provincial government, the Conservatives, insist on bringing down.

The government has always said, even while it was campaigning, that they would never cut health care. We've always begged to differ, and now we have proof that in fact that's what they have been doing. There have been many examples, especially recently, about the outcomes of the cuts, in particular those to health care.

To start with, the government is going to have to meet its financial targets, and the only way it can do that is if it finds ways and means to cut, and they have been doing that. In some areas, many people in my community would agree, it was probably a long time coming that we should look at some areas where government has likely gotten carried away over the last several decades, and it's always time to revisit archaic rules, archaic bureaucracy, look at agencies and make them work better, look at agencies whose time really has come and maybe should pass on.

Specifically, the government was elected on a couple of premises, and people felt secure, while they were elected in a majority government, that their health care would be secure, that education for children would be secure.

With the budget the government is bringing forward, neither of those two things is true. In the area of health, particularly in an area like Windsor-Essex county where we have seen significant changes in our community with the amalgamation of four hospitals into two and massive layoffs, particularly at the nursing level, the people in my community are asking, if we haven't had cuts to health care, why are these nurses being laid off? Why are people being forced out after having been there for so many years? Why are there changes in the dialysis unit where people are receiving treatment, where they're moving full-time staff and bringing in part-time staff? Our dialysis patients in Windsor are worried that as they bring in new nursing people without the experience at first, they are not knowing how to deal with those huge needles dialysis patients need to deal with.

When the government first started in their first year, they cut $1.3 billion from hospitals, yet they continue to say they didn't cut health care. In my community, they made huge health care cuts, particularly to our hospitals. Hospitals across Ontario, many of whom I've spoken to, simply cannot take the 18% cuts across the board.

The government must have seen that indeed they had perhaps gone too far in some instances, and they released a paper, A Fund to Aid Hospitals in High-Growth Areas. After their significant cut of $1.3 billion, they reinvested a mere $25 million to those high-growth areas, and they'll continue to talk about the reinvestment of health dollars. I will tell you, with the significant cuts in the billions of dollars, the sprinkling of reinvestment of a few million here and there has nothing to do with maintaining the health care budget.

We want you to talk to the nurses who are losing their jobs in my community, and instead of addressing the seniors where I come from, where there is a high level of discomfort now about how their health care is going -- last week and the weekend before, I spent some time canvassing in my own riding. I went to the people of Windsor-Sandwich with a survey. I said: "I need to know your opinion and make sure I'm on the right track with what the government's doing. Let's talk about some of the changes since the Harris government began its work." There were some areas that our constituents in Windsor-Sandwich agreed with outright: "We're glad the government is having a look at areas that in the past may have been sacred cows."

1250

But I was in a seniors' neighbourhood and there was particular concern about health care. People were worried. At every door I knocked on, people said, "My friend," "my relative," "my mother," "my family member" -- someone had had some interaction with the local hospital or with the local health care system and did not have a good experience. Now, this didn't just happen overnight. The minister, as he is well aware, as health critic in the five years before he became minister, knew what the impending problems were in health care, which really doesn't excuse the kind of behaviour he has done since becoming minister. He knew that when you threw the kinds of things he did, as he did to our doctors, in particular the obstetricians, it was going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. It certainly happened in my community, and our people are worried about it.

When the seniors heard they were going to be paying a user fee for drugs, I'd say "going ballistic" might be too kind. They were furious because seniors were told across Ontario by Mike Harris, "No new user fees" and that their health care costs would remain the same, that they were going to get the kind of service they always got. Well, talk to the people, many of whom are at that fixed income level who indeed will be paying fees. I'll tell you, they're not appreciative at all.

It was interesting that while I was at the door, one of the most common issues that came up was the issue of youth unemployment. At almost every door I went to, they said to me, "My son," "my grandson," "our 30-year-old," can't find that first job. I found that striking because that wasn't even a question on the survey, and yet all of them said in general comments, "We've got a real problem with jobs." I said, "You know, I'm glad to hear you say that, because as opposition members we've been saying that from the beginning."

The Harris government has been very quiet since the day they were elected. They have not mentioned their promise of 725,000 jobs in Ontario, and if we push them on that we want to say: What kind of jobs are those jobs going to be, at what level, at what level of pay? What kind of services are we bringing in in the privatization of Ontario government services, that will hire people in the private sector and will be low-paying jobs, where we're just making a shift from middle-class levels to lower than that? Are our people going to be any better off? I would say they're not.

Another example in terms of what's happening in my community that's just infuriating to parents is the issue of portables in schools. Many members in the House have heard this issue before about Sacred Heart/Sacré-Coeur in LaSalle. We've got a terrible problem with portables. But the Minister of Education insists there are no cuts in education that will affect the classroom. Well, we have a school in LaSalle, Sacred Heart/Sacré-Coeur, and the Catholic school board out there was forced to spend $200,000 to replace an aging, condemned portable that was in the most dismal condition, that the children were using right up until class let out yesterday. And we say this isn't affecting the classroom?

Let's go back for a moment to about what the Minister of Education did do. The Ministry of Education too has to play its part at the cabinet table to determine how much it is cutting because our budget allows for a tax cut. I'm sure the Minister of Education jumped with glee and said: "Yes, me too. I'll find millions in the education system because there are millions of dollars of waste." I'm sure that's what he said. He has a zeal about him, frankly, with this kind of cutting in education, but always with the premise that it was not going to affect the classroom. If that's true, that's a noble goal. I don't think he's getting to that end, though.

Let's talk not only about LaSalle; I don't want people to think I'm focusing on portables in LaSalle only. Let's talk about what's happening around Ontario with portables. In fact, over the course of the last five years or more, there has been a significant growth in portables across Ontario. Let's look at the Minister of Education and Training's own riding. It might be Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Almost 1,100 portables in his riding alone. This is growth, because portables are growing in Ontario by about 350 portables a year.

Let's look at how much that's costing us. I know in Windsor and LaSalle the Catholic board in the county spent $200,000 because they had to purchase a new one. We're having a growth rate of 350 portables a year across Ontario.

School boards are being forced to spend that kind of money, of which they have hardly any, frankly, because they've all been cut, and unreasonably so, and yet they're being forced to do that. Why? Because in March the Minister of Education and Training called a moratorium on all capital expenditure across Ontario. How clever was this? A moratorium on all capital expenditure. Let's see how clever it was.

Today, in the Toronto Sun -- I didn't say Star, I said Sun so you'd have a better appreciation of it -- the "New School Ban Is Illegal." "Education minister John Snobelen's blanket ban on new school construction breaks the law." Thank you, Minister. Thank you. This a member of the crown who's breaking the law. Let's find out why: Justice Bruce Hawkins refuses to rule out the entire new-school freeze, but chooses instead to order the ministry to give immediate final approval to the $10-million francophone high school that indeed had challenged the ban. The lawyers for that case said "because the clearly inadequate facilities of the school had not been taken into account when the ban was" first put in place.

You don't think that a minister of the crown, whose job it is to ensure quality education at a premium level in Ontario, would have known that the actions taken by his ministry were going to be deemed illegal in a court of law? Well, that is the fact. I think you've got to read your clippings first thing when you come in in the morning.

Really, this isn't new for the minister because he received a letter from me, to which I have not received a response although I've asked for a response repeatedly. But I said to the minister, one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Canada is LaSalle, expanding at an extraordinary rate, housing starts increased by more than 62%; there's phenomenal growth in LaSalle, but LaSalle is not the only area.

There are high-growth areas across Ontario, and all of these areas are experiencing significant problems, not just in education but also in health. So much so that the health ministry had to throw their paltry sums of $25 million to the hospitals in the high-growth areas because that ministry recognized -- and I'm sure the bureaucrats have to take the credit for this because they must have just stayed on and on the minister making him realize that the 18% cuts to the hospitals were absolutely untenable. They simply could not make do. They were simply cutting service to these high-growth areas. So they listed 25 high-growth communities that needed special funding because the 18% cut to hospitals in those high-growth areas was simply unbearable. So the Ministry of Health acknowledged that we have a significant problem in high-growth areas.

Having said that, let's get the Minister of Health to talk to our Minister of Education and Training, to say our high-growth areas in Ontario are having a terrible problem with portables. The most frustrating part of all is that you are forcing school boards in these areas to double-spend what precious little money they are receiving -- in my case, $200,000 on a portable. You know they're going to have to spend the money again when they build the school. Why would you make these people double-spend their money, especially when you're cutting back to the extent you are?

In many counties across the board, when they took the education cuts to begin with, there was no recognition given for the fact that transportation, for example, within boards in my community had already merged; their services were already joined. They had already found significant savings years ago. So we're not talking about a body that's got a lot of fat that needs to be cut from it. We're talking about some very lean organizations across Ontario that really should have been given special consideration and simply not cut across the board.

I attended a trustees meeting with this school board and I sat among the parents and the trustees in a discussion regarding what they were going to do (1) about the portables, but (2) where they were going to find for their cuts, in order to fund the $200,000 for the new portable. How many resource teachers were we now going to let go and were we going to be able to keep the music program? And you're telling me the cuts to education are not affecting the classroom? In this particular school we have a significant ratio of children with disabilities, students who attend this school board. You cannot tell me that these cuts have not affected the classroom, in particular for these children. Those are the decisions that are happening at a local level.

The members opposite are going to say, "Oh, it must be the school board." No. Where the government has been very clever is that the people at home and the parents say, "Yes, it's the school board, that darned school board." I say no, because the provincial government has specified where those cuts would happen, that they would happen in transportation, even though there are instances across Ontario where the transportation savings were found years ago. That's foolish; that is simply foolish. People have not thought this out.

Let's look at enrolment trends. This is the same across the board, not just in LaSalle, not just in Windsor, but at Sacré-Coeur/Sacred Heart. This is a pretty easy graph to see, nice colours and all, but it's clear that this enrolment trend is going up. In LaSalle we're expecting populations to continue to grow. So in discussions about that, the problem is not going to go away. We know that the schools are going to have to be built, and we're going to have to address the issue.

The minister has often talked about new financial approaches. In fact, when he talked about the moratorium to begin with, he said that boards are advised that work on approved projects still in the planning and design stages is to be suspended. He said that a number of innovative approaches, such as shared facilities and leasebacks from --

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat, please. Following the instructions that you have given me, the House will adjourn until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1302 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Last evening I hosted a forum on rent control in my riding. Over 200 people turned out to hear for themselves how changes in the current rent control legislation will affect their lives. I would like to thank all the people who attended last night's meeting, especially Mr Alvin Curling, Ms Annamarie Castrilli, the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations and the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly.

What became obvious during last night's discussion was that people, especially seniors, are very apprehensive about the current reforms put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Some of the most vulnerable people in Ontario -- and I'm referring to single mothers on social assistance, the disabled and seniors on fixed incomes -- are all very concerned about the rent increases they will almost certainly get hit with if the government's legislation passes.

What the Premier and the Minister of Housing fail to understand is that in Metro Toronto the occupancy rate is already close to zero. Rents will soar, and caught in the middle will be the countless seniors and others on social assistance who are dependent on rent-controlled housing.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to acknowledge that this is the last day of our session here. As we head off into the summer to spend time with our family and friends, we should recognize that there are thousands and thousands of workers and their families who will not be having an enjoyable summer. As a result of this government's anti-worker Bill 7 and its privatization plans, there are workers and their families who have no idea what the future holds for them.

We've seen the example of OPSEU members who have had rights taken away from them under Bill 7, which this government did not run on in terms of getting a mandate, rights that led to a very bloody, bitter and divisive strike which still leaves thousands of public sector workers not knowing what the future holds for them.

We've seen the example of the cleaning staff over in the Macdonald Block who, again directly as a result of this government's Bill 7 taking away their successor rights, were asked to start doing the same job they'd always been performing but for half the pay and with fewer benefits.

In my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth there may be another example of this happening to cleaning staff at the Hamilton-Wentworth police services. It looks like the opportunity under Bill 7 to strip workers of their rights to unions and contracts could affect their ability to have a wage and see their current standard of living drop below.

Of course there are the staff downstairs in the foodservices, the latest example, one we're still dealing with, where people are being asked to come back in a few weeks, working for half the wages they'd earned before, no benefits and absolutely no gain other than to see this government's mean-spirited agenda of privatization at work as it lowers the value of labour in this province.

For that, this government will pay a price.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to extend an invitation to all the members of this assembly, their families and friends, and the people of Ontario to attend the Haldimand-Norfolk International Plowing Match and Country Festival, September 17 to 21. This year marks the second time in a row that my riding of Brant-Haldimand has been fortunate to play host to Canada's, if not the world's, largest outdoor agricultural show. Previously the match had been held in Haldimand-Norfolk region in 1935, in the town of Caledonia; in 1957, in the town of Norfolk; and in 1971, in the town of Nanticoke.

Plowing matches have been a part of Ontario farm life for well over a century, with the Ontario Plowmen's Association holding its first provincial match in 1913. Except for the period during the Second World War, the plan of holding a plowing match each fall in a new location has been maintained by the association ever since.

This year's theme summarizes the community pride and hospitality that make Haldimand-Norfolk one of the richest areas in North America, inviting everyone to come "Share Our Fields of Friendship."

In closing, I'd like to extend the warmest of welcomes on behalf of the organizers of this year's international plowing match: Mr Sandy Clay, our ambassador; Mr Craig Yeager --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

ANNIVERSAIRE DU VILLAGE D'ALFRED

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Au nom des citoyens de Prescott et Russell, je désire rendre un hommage tout particulier à la communauté du village d'Alfred, qui fête cette année le 125^e anniversaire de la paroisse Saint-Victor.

Dans le cadre des activités du 125^e anniversaire, le village d'Alfred a présenté dimanche dernier le défilé traditionnel de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Ce village de 1200 habitants a reçu près de 10 000 visiteurs, et encore une fois Alfred a fait honneur aux comtés de Prescott et Russell en présentant un défilé de 154 chars allégoriques dans l'harmonie et la joie.

Je voudrais transmettre mes félicitations à toute la population du village d'Alfred, aux bénévoles qui ont fait un travail exceptionnel dimanche et au cours des différentes activités du 125^e anniversaire, ainsi que des mentions toutes spéciales au président du comité du défilé, Richard Chartrand, à la présidente du comité du 125^e anniversaire, Claire Péladeau, et au président du comité de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Rolland Péladeau.

FOODSERVICES STAFF

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Earlier today I called upon people watching the legislative broadcast channel to come down here to Queen's Park to meet the victims of Mike Harris and his economic violence, those 22 workers downstairs in the restaurant and cafeteria who as of Friday have no jobs, no jobs to come to Monday. These $80,000-a-year-plus Tory backbenchers, while they're still going to get a paycheque next week, the foodservice workers aren't. Notwithstanding short notice, some 20 people showed up here at noon today wanting to stand in the cafeteria and in the restaurant in support and in solidarity with those victims of Mike Harris's violence. Some of them have joined us here today in the members' gallery.

I tell you, these Tory members have nothing but shame, nothing but the most extreme shame to feel about their victimization of little people, people who have worked hard day in and day out here at Queen's Park, people who have offered -- catch this, Speaker -- to accept wage concessions, people who have offered to develop a plan whereby prices can be increased. But, oh, no. Do these Tory hacks with their $80,000-plus incomes want to pay what's fair for the foodservices they receive from those workers? No. They've slashed 22 jobs, sending 22 working women and men into poverty and despair, and I tell you, this violence is only just beginning. We're going to be witnesses to more of it. I can't wait until this afternoon when you're being grilled at Legislative Assembly committee, Speaker, to answer for this foul deed.

ASTHMA CLINIC

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Earlier this week it was my privilege to take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremonies of a new state-of-the-art asthma clinic at Centenary Health Centre in my riding of Scarborough East. The clinic opened through a joint venture between Centenary and Glaxo Wellcome, a major pharmaceutical manufacturer. Centenary was selected as a partner from 37 potential hospital sites across Canada. This clinic will offer a full range of diagnostic, treatment and education services to help asthma sufferers manage their condition better and improve their quality of life.

Centenary Health Centre is providing space to establish the clinic, while Glaxo Wellcome is providing the infrastructure, including construction of the clinic, diagnostic equipment and furnishings. Glaxo Wellcome will manage the clinic, conduct testing, and implement treatment protocols and education programs to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Asthma patients who come to the clinic will learn how to manage their own condition, leading to an improved quality of life. The clinic will provide regular updates of progress to the patient's physician and will also maintain close contact with Centenary Health Centre staff.

Centenary will be able to provide a valuable service to the community it serves and save money based on fewer asthma-related emergency room visits and hospital admissions, which numbered over 600 last year alone, the second most commonly diagnosed condition at Centenary. In fact, this new clinic expects to serve 3,000 patients in its first year.

Glaxo Wellcome and Centenary Health Centre have shown what it takes to provide top quality health care to Scarborough residents. Through a unique partnership between the public and private sectors, with no taxpayer funding required, this new asthma clinic shows a creative approach to managing the escalating costs of asthma treatment which I hope will become --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

1340

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Today at their policy development conference, the Ontario Nurses' Association released their vision for Ontario's health delivery system. Their publicly funded and community governed reorganization model is called an integrated delivery system.

The ONA is to be congratulated. By concentrating on providing quality, appropriate, consumer-oriented and cost-effective care while strictly adhering to the principles of the Canada Health Act, the integrated delivery system, or IDS, is a comprehensive and seamless system of health and health-related social services.

As I've said, the IDS is truly a single, comprehensive health delivery system, including primary, acute and long-term care. Furthermore, the proposed IDS boards would manage the funding envelope for the Ontario drug benefit program, nursing homes and assistive devices for their rostered members. The IDS would be a flexible model, allowing individual communities to decide what type of services they will provide and how they choose to deliver those services.

Funding for health services will be based on a capitation system. Both salary and fee-for-service payment systems will ensure fair compensation options to providers while ensuring the highest quality care for patients.

The Ontario Nurses' Association has put forth a model that should be seriously considered by the Ministry of Health for all Ontario. I ask the minister to stop his piecemeal approach to hospital restructuring such as the madness he's proposed for Thunder Bay. Listen to the Ontario nurses and others who believe --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On Monday I met with two physically disabled constituents who have received layoff notices from the Ontario public service. One was a permanent employee and the other is a contract employee who is the only full-time workplace discrimination and harassment prevention adviser with the equal opportunity unit at Management Board Secretariat.

Both of these constituents are visually impaired and can anticipate a great deal more difficulty in finding employment than their able-bodied colleagues. Over a year ago, Management Board signed an agreement with OPSEU mandating an enhanced accountability framework to provide safeguards for persons with disabilities in order to prevent the adverse discriminatory impact that would otherwise be caused by downsizing. Ten deputy ministers advised the OPS advisory group on equal opportunity for persons with disabilities that they would voluntarily apply the framework to all OPS employees, not just those within OPSEU.

My constituent has now been advised that the voluntary enhanced employment equity accountability measures were discontinued by the repeal of the Employment Equity Act.

If these measures were voluntary, there would be no need to discontinue them because the act was repealed. If this government has any commitment at all to fair treatment of its employees, as they claim, they should do them justice and apply the accountability framework to those employees.

BELLEVILLE WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I rise today to inform the House of the annual Belleville Waterfront Festival and Folklorama, which will run the weekend of July 12, 13 and 14. The festival takes place in the harbour area of the beautiful Bay of Quinte and draws 125,000 people during the three-day event. This year highlights of the festival include a beach volleyball tournament, waterski show, parade of boats, the ever popular bellyflop contest, and musical headliners Burton Cummings and Colin James.

All of this is included in the price of your shore pass button, which is just $3 before the festival and $5 during the weekend. The three sites of the festival will once again be Meyers Pier, Victoria Park and Zwick's Island. All three areas will feature continuous food and entertainment. Zwick's Island will include a special children's village for the kids with a midway and some of the best children's entertainment available.

I would like to congratulate the Belleville Waterfront Festival committee for their efforts to ensure the success of this year's event, and I would like to invite all members of the Legislature, as well as those people watching at home, to come down to Belleville July 12, 13 and 14 and share in the festivities of the Belleville Waterfront Festival and Folklorama.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Midwestern Higher Education Commission, led by the Honourable Dick Schafrath, the Honourable Brian Rude and the Honourable LeRoy Stumpf. Welcome to our guests.

Please welcome the Leader of the Opposition of the National Assembly of the Republic of El Salvador, the Honourable David Acuna, accompanied by Consul General Boris Sandoual. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

I would also like to inform the members that we have in the other Speaker's gallery today an Italian delegation led by Mr Giofranco Fini, leader of the National Alliance Party, accompanied by Mr Marco Zacchera and Mr Gino Malgierii. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to also inform the members that this is the last day in the House for our current group of pages. I know all members will join with me in thanking these pages for their hard work in the chamber and wish them all the best in their future endeavours. Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I am delighted to tell you today that this government has just taken steps to make it easier to encourage volunteerism and promote charities. As you know, encouraging volunteerism is something this government feels very strongly about. We have appointed Durham-York MPP Julia Munro, who is also parliamentary assistant to the Premier, to lead an initiative to support the spirit of volunteerism in the province.

Today I am introducing the Courts Improvement Act. It includes amendments to the Charities Accounting Act that will eliminate the requirement for charities to go to court for technical matters, including the permission to use charitable funds to purchase directors' liability insurance.

The current process requires court approval in issues where there's no serious dispute. This results in wasteful expenditures to charities and the unnecessary use of court resources.

Currently the law does not address the business problems charities face in the 1990s of operating their organizations according to modern business principles and continuing to attract qualified volunteer directors. For example, the purchase of liability insurance is considered to be a direct benefit to directors and must be approved by the courts. This has created a barrier for charities and, more importantly, has discouraged qualified individuals from volunteering to sit on boards of charitable organizations.

Courts normally authorize these requests. We are eliminating this costly and time-consuming hurdle. Today we are taking steps to eliminate red tape. As part of the amendments, regulations will clarify the law to enable charities to employ modern business practices and avoid the need to go to court for approval for many technical matters.

We are improving the ability of charities to operate without seeking court approval by allowing, by regulation:

A person who uses a charity's service to sit on its board of directors.

A director to provide his or her service to the charity.

Charities to administer and manage special-purpose or restricted funds for charitable purposes.

Charities to adopt more modern recordkeeping requirements for charitable property and assets.

These changes will facilitate and encourage volunteerism in our province and allow charities to continue to attract qualified people to volunteer to sit on their boards. These amendments to the Charities Accounting Act are part of the courts improvement bill, which contains other initiatives designed to improve court operations.

Earlier today I announced the consolidation, at 393 University Avenue, of the six civil court sites currently scattered throughout Toronto. This represents a capital investment in the justice system of $12 million. By fall of 1996, 23 additional courtrooms will be completed. The consolidation will provide faster, more affordable and accessible service to the public.

In addition, the new Windsor justice facility is the result of an innovative partnership with the city of Windsor to construct a Provincial Division courthouse and city police headquarters.

These changes are aimed at improving operation of the courts. They are consistent with the government's overall goals to reduce red tape for our business and charitable partners. But most of all, the changes will assist in nurturing the spirit of volunteerism in Ontario, and from that we all benefit.

1350

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): The Attorney General has made two very interesting announcements today. Particularly with respect to the announcement with regard to charities, the change is welcome. It has indeed been a bureaucratic nightmare for charities and has created a great deal of delay in providing assistance to the charities.

I also applaud the consolidation of the courts. May I say at this point as well that I applaud the efforts of the mayor and the city council of Windsor, who have been participating diligently in making sure that this came about. Any efficiencies are welcome, and when those appear, we certainly take notice of them.

But the Attorney General knows that a great number of problems still remain, and this does not address that. We've seen recently that criminal charges are being thrown out of court. I've had occasion to speak with numerous crown attorneys, to travel throughout the province talking to crown attorneys, even to be in my own courthouse, and what is happening there is quite scary. Some 470 crown attorneys have what is an unmanageable caseload and are being funded at the lowest level in Canada, yet with the highest caseload in Canada. Their jobs are now in danger.

The investment fund that was promised in order to deal with the numerous crimes has not taken place. The Association of Law Officers of the Crown still don't have an agreement. They're the only group that does not yet have a bargaining agreement with you, Minister.

You have indicated on more than one occasion that now we won't prosecute certain crimes; that break and enters will not be prosecuted; that threats will not be prosecuted; that fraud will not be prosecuted.

While these changes are welcome, there is the serious issue of public safety here which this announcement does not address and which continues for the people of Ontario. It continues primarily for vulnerable people, for seniors, for women, for those who have least recourse to the justice system. Those are the very people who, when attacked, will not have any recourse in the courts. That is a system which isn't fair. That's a system that leads to a two-tier level of justice. Nothing in this statement changes that fact, that you are creating a two-tier system of justice. Those who cannot afford to have a lawyer and continue to prosecute will find themselves in considerable difficulty.

Minister, while I say to you again that the consolidation is a good thing and helping charities do their work more efficiently is a good thing, there are so many issues that you are ignoring, whether wilfully or not, and it is something that you must pay particular attention to, because the people of Ontario will hold you accountable if you do not look after these very serious concerns. I urge you to look at these matters. They're very urgent matters. It is your responsibility to ensure that the people of Ontario are safe and secure in their own homes, in their own communities.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Unfortunately, what the minister has announced is not sufficient to solve the problems that we have in the system, as the members from Windsor would tell you and have told many people on these occasions. What is particularly concerning to people across the province is this understanding that some cases are going to be put way at the bottom of the priority list, and we could have a situation where if the police don't feel that they have the best possible case or if the prosecution believes they don't have the best possible case -- in other words, don't have a good chance of winning -- we're going to see those moved to the sideline.

Senior citizens in this province and others who feel particularly vulnerable are going to want to encourage the Treasurer to give the Attorney General sufficient funds to be able to carry out his responsibilities, because they've already watched how in Metropolitan Toronto they have lost 1,000 police officers. They're down 1,000 from five years ago.

We want to ensure that the appropriate law enforcement opportunities are there, and unfortunately this announcement does not address that.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased about some of the things in this announcement and need to congratulate the minister on taking the next steps necessary in terms of the volunteer sector, in terms of the charities act.

This was certainly part of the recommendations and the discussion that went around the Civil Justice Review, getting some of these issues out of the courts where they don't properly or necessarily have to belong and making it more possible for those many organizations across the province that do fine work within our communities to attract people who can contribute a great deal to the development of public policy and act in the public interest across the province. That part of the act the minister is introducing today, the Courts Improvement Act, I think he will find garners nothing but praise from the charitable sector, and I think he will find that is a very important change to be made.

I would say to the minister that I'm a bit more apprehensive about what might be in the rest of the bill, because there's only one little paragraph in his announcement which says, "These amendments to the Charities Accounting Act are part of the courts improvement bill which contains other initiatives designed to improve court operations." I will look with great interest at the bill and at the compendium of the bill, because with the work that's been done through both the Martin commission on the criminal side and through the Civil Justice Review, there are many suggestions that have been made about streamlining court procedure.

The other day in this House, in response to a member of his own party, the Attorney General talked about the technology changes that are necessary in order to streamline some of the procedures. I think you will find that if that is what is being allowed for within the Courts Improvement Act, you will get a great deal of respect and response from the legal community and from the public at large, because we know that the antiquated system, which is maybe a little advanced from a quill pen, is still very antiquated in terms of actually doing those procedures.

I fully congratulate the minister for the consolidation of the civil courts. This is something that has been a dream within the legal profession within Metro Toronto for a long time, to see those court sites consolidated, to improve the efficiency of the management of the courts and the case management of the courts, and it is certainly good that you are able to do that. I look forward to understanding how you can do that with only a capital investment of $12 million. I think it is very interesting that you have managed that.

With respect to Windsor, it's a great relief to the people in the Windsor area to know there will be new court facilities. What is not happy for them is the reduction of those courtrooms to 10, which is a bit of a problem. Certainly we had gone through a long process of public discussion --

Hon Mr Harnick: Wrong.

Mrs Boyd: Wrong? Why? That is what the announcement was, a 10-courtroom kind of situation.

Hon Mr Harnick: Twenty courtrooms in Windsor.

Mrs Boyd: A 20-courtroom situation? That is wonderful to hear.

Hon Mr Harnick: Twenty courtrooms in all situations.

Mrs Boyd: That is great. I am very pleased to hear that the public announcement of this was correct, because that is essential.

I should say to the minister very clearly that we understand these are only first steps and that within those first steps you will face some opposition. There will be those who resist the kinds of changes you are proposing to streamline the courts. I think it is important for you to recognize the real fear that was expressed by my colleague in the opposition around a two-tiered level of justice. It is going to be extraordinarily important for us in this province to make sure that those who have are not the only ones who have access to justice; that those who do not have physical resources, who do not have monetary resources enjoy the full benefit of equity before and under the law in this province.

I look forward to reading the rest of the bill, and can tell the minister that his biggest task at this point is to keep those who are engaged in the whole business, from the beginning to the end, of bringing justice to the people of Ontario in this process, because that is essential. It cannot happen where there is uncertainty, where there are job fears. It is going to be extraordinarily important for these changes to be made in a sensitive way that does not embroil the minister in the kinds of controversies that have been hinted at by my honourable colleague, so I encourage the minister to take that under advisement.

1400

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's actually a point of personal privilege, if I may, because I'm feeling at this moment in time that my privilege as an elected representative for Fort William and of the broader community of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario has been violated in such a way that it's hard for me to express it, by the fact that the Minister of Health is not here today to speak to the very disastrous decisions that his first restructuring commission report will bring to bear on my community.

After having delegated his authority to this commission, having allowed this commission to make decisions behind closed doors, with no input, with no information even provided to elected representatives, let alone to hospital board members, it seems that at the very least the Minister of Health should have been here to speak and to answer for the kinds of decisions his commission is imposing on my community and on the residents of northwestern Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC INQUIRIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have questions today for the Attorney General. There's a new pattern of law enforcement since your colleague Bob Runciman took over as top cop and chief jailer here in Ontario. Within the first year of the Harris government there has been a more violent and aggressive tone to how the police and corrections officials have reacted to disruptions across this province.

From Ipperwash to the riot squad response to the strike situation here at Queen's Park and to the Elgin-Middlesex alleged beating incident that happened on March 1, your government has established a very new standard of law enforcement here. I think it would be fair to say that under Runciman's leadership, law enforcement today in Ontario is in chaos. There is a new and disturbing pattern of law enforcement in this province.

Today the public service union in corrections has called for an independent investigation of how corrections officials have handled the investigation since the alleged beatings. I've stood in this place for over the last four weeks and I've called for, in turn, a legislative inquiry, a public inquiry, or at the very least to bring in an outside, independent police force to investigate how corrections officials have handled this. Minister, you have the power to announce a public inquiry. Will you do the right thing and do that today?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Solicitor General has very adequately answered this question on numerous occasions. He's outlined to this House the very comprehensive investigatory procedures that he's now taking, and that is certainly the right direction to go in. That's what he's doing and he's been very clear about that.

Mr Ramsay: I beg to differ with the minister because what he's talked about is an incestuous investigation. It's family investigating family, and we'll never get to the truth unless you bring an outside, independent investigator into this.

Since these allegations of beatings on March 1 and since June 5 when the minister said he first learned about this, we have had charges made about how the evidence has been handled and the way officials in that ministry have handled this investigation. Today the union has brought forward letters that were sent to the investigator that weren't responded to by the investigator to the complainant. This is standard procedure in any investigation and it did not happen.

The minister has stated that as part of his internal review he sent in his own officials to the institution a few weekends ago. This happened before the police got in to see the evidence. From that we have allegations of shredding of evidence and we know the officials accused of these beatings have seen the complete child advocate's report, a report the minister won't make public, despite my urging over the last few weeks.

Like Ipperwash, like the dramatic picket line incident here at Queen's Park, this situation also appears to be out of control. Minister, I again ask you to clear the air. We've got to get to the truth. Will you today call for a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member indicates very strongly and emphasizes the word "allegations," and that's exactly what they are. That's exactly why the Solicitor General has taken the steps he has taken to properly investigate into these matters. That is being done and it's absolutely the correct thing to be done. There's no question that it's moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Final supplementary.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The situation at Elgin-Middlesex and Judge Estey's report on the March 18 riot are not the only issues that will continue to confront you and your colleagues and your government over the course of this summer. The circumstances surrounding the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash almost a year ago are going to have to be addressed this summer. A host of unanswered questions continue to swirl around this tragic incident: Who was aware that the OPP were amassing hundreds of officers at Ipperwash? Who knew that the OPP were preparing to use force to clear the park? Who gave the directives for this to occur? Who was informed of these directives?

Minister, you have repeatedly told this House that you can't call a public inquiry into this matter because it is still before the SIU, even though these specific questions are not matters that the SIU will investigate. The SIU report, shamefully and inexcusably late, will be out this summer. Your excuse for not having a public inquiry will be gone.

Will you commit today, before this House recesses, to setting up a public inquiry as soon as the SIU report has come?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member knows full well that the SIU report is pending. She also knows that in October, I believe on October 20 or 21, some 22 criminal cases will be heard as a result of charges laid pertaining to this issue. She as much as anyone in this Legislature would not like to see the government do anything that would jeopardize the fair prosecution of those charges or that would impact in any negative way on what the SIU findings might or might not be.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I repeat that the questions that we believe need to be addressed in public inquiry are not questions the SIU can address.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will address my second question to the Minister of Housing. Earlier this week you and your government broke your promise to tenants and you killed rent control. What you have presented is not a tenant protection package, as you like to pretend it is; it is a tenant rejection package. You have sentenced tenants to their apartments because if they dare to move, they are going to have to pay higher rents.

Minister, will you admit what everybody else knows, that your decision to kill rent control will cause rents to go up, not down, as you once promised?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Today I repeat that what we brought in as far as rent control is concerned is a fair and balanced package. It's fair to tenants. They have an opportunity to stay under rent control as long as they're in their units. They have an opportunity to sit down with a landlord and negotiate a new rent, should they decide to select a new place to live. It's balanced and fair for landlords because it gives them an opportunity to get a fair return on their investment for new apartments that will be built. It also gives them an opportunity to negotiate a new rent with a new tenant when a unit becomes vacant.

Mrs McLeod: Very clearly this minister does not know what he's talking about, but unfortunately his continued pretence to knowledge of what is not reality is really going to hurt people if these proposals go ahead.

It is so evident, simple from your proposals that once a tenant moves, every protection on that apartment is gone; rent control on that apartment is gone. Your scheme punishes everyone except landlords, and there is one group that my colleagues already have raised in this House this week that is going to be particularly hard hit, the most obvious of all: students in this province.

You keep saying that as long as somebody stays in their apartment, they don't need to worry. Students are worried. It's the very nature of students that they do not stay long in their apartments. They move every year. I've been out talking to students who are already worried about the high cost of tuition they're facing this September. Now they have to worry about drastically increased rents.

Minister, how do you justify the economic hardship that your decision to gut rent control is going to have on students in this province?

Hon Mr Leach: I totally disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. I don't think that our policies will have any effect on students whatsoever, because it's the market that will set rents. In most university towns, those locations where students stay are very competitive. They're going to rent them out to students at what the market will bear. That's what's happening now and that is what will continue to happen in the future.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Try telling that to students who are looking at going to the University of Toronto, right next door to us, in September. It's not a question of what you believe, what you would like to think is out there. It's a question of reality and it's a question of what your policies are actually going to do to people.

Your tactics are going to encourage landlords to gouge tenants who are desperate for housing. Your scheme is going to lead to a drastic increase in the number of evictions because the evictions are already skyrocketing because people already cannot afford their rents. Your policies are going to reward landlords when those tenants move out. It rewards them with higher rent. So there will be no incentive to improve the rental accommodation to keep tenants. There will be every incentive to force them out. There'll be no incentive for people who are already facing eviction because they can't afford their rents to negotiate lower rents. There is every incentive to let apartments deteriorate so tenants will be forced to move so that they can raise the rent or convert to condominiums.

How can you possibly deny that your plan is going to encourage landlord harassment of tenants? How can you deny that unfair evictions and harassment are indeed going to occur?

Hon Mr Leach: We didn't make any changes in the eviction procedures whatsoever. We have exactly the same type of legislation that was there in the NDP rent control package.

I have to repeat this -- I have discussed this with tenant groups, I have discussed this with landlord groups. We have incorporated the suggestions from both of those groups and put forward a package that is very fair and very balanced. We plan to take it out to the people of Ontario over the summer to give them the opportunity to comment and have further input into our package, which I believe is very good now. If there are ways and means of making it even better, we would encourage that.

The other thing I can't understand is that the Leader of the Opposition sits there and praises the existing rent control system as if it was perfect, when her whole party voted against it when the NDP brought it in.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Premier. On this last day of the Legislature, it's rather disturbing and perhaps suggestive, to say the least, that the Solicitor General will not be here in question period as he has been the prime focus of public concern for the last two weeks.

Premier, last week in a media scrum when you were asked about the very serious allegations made by young people within the care of your government, you said, "I don't even have enough information to know whether I should be disturbed about that or not, but we'll get to the bottom of it all." Well, over a week has passed since you made that statement. Have you met with the Solicitor General? What have you done in the last week to satisfy yourself and rebuild public confidence that the member of your cabinet, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, is dealing with this situation in an appropriate and open manner?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me, first of all, say that the question is premised that this has been the overriding concern of the public for the last few weeks. It has not been the overriding concern of the public for the last few weeks. In fact it's been the lowest of all the significant issues on the list of letters, of phone calls in to me. That doesn't mean, though, that it isn't an important issue -- I just want to set the record straight -- that it has been at the top of your list and it has been a very important issue for us and for the Solicitor General.

My staff have had several discussions with staff at the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I have talked to the Solicitor General and I am satisfied that this matter is being handled by the Solicitor General with the utmost of confidence, given the circumstances and everything that have been involved. The Solicitor General has been available I don't know how many days in a row for the past number of weeks to answer those questions and with what information that can be made public. I don't think there is anything additional than can be proffered today.

Mrs Boyd: You stood here in this House and defended the minister's action, and yet you admitted immediately afterwards in a scrum that you didn't know enough about the situation to know if you should be disturbed. Quite frankly, that raises very serious questions in the minds of parents whose children may be in the care of this government.

There have been very serious and disturbing allegations made, and it is very distressing that a week ago you told this province that you didn't know enough about it to even comment. It's been all over the papers. It's been reported in the press, on television. We've raised the question here week after week now, and I find it hard to believe that you as Premier would not have bothered to inform yourself of these very disturbing allegations and exactly what has been done to counter the lack of confidence that is building in your minister's ability to deal with this very serious issue.

The minister pretends ignorance or is ignorant; it really matters not which it is because the fact of the matter is he's out of control of what's going on in his ministry and there are young people, vulnerable young people, who are in the care of this government and who themselves and their parents no longer have any faith in the ability of this minister to protect the safety and security of their person as they're guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mrs Boyd: Before further investigations are jeopardized -- and you have heard through our questions why there is concern that these investigations may have been jeopardized -- will you recognize the incompetence that your minister has showed and demand his resignation?

Hon Mr Harris: No.

Mrs Boyd: Then, Premier, it calls into question your ability to guarantee that the public has reason to have confidence in your ability to lead this province and ensure the safety of young people in the care of your government.

What you tell us is that it's okay for a minister not to know for three months about a serious issue like this that happened within his ministry. What you're telling us is it's okay with you that an acting deputy minister and two deputy ministers, who report directly to you, didn't make sure you knew about this issue. You're telling us it's okay that managers, who themselves are under a cloud of suspicion because of the allegations, are carrying out investigations, are having access to possible evidence and are making statements to the detriment of the child advocate, who brought these issues to the attention of the public and indeed to the government.

I want you to know that as first minister, you are responsible, ultimately, for whether this government is seen to be acting competently in protection of young people in its care. The public and the staff of the ministry do not have confidence in your ability to ensure that the minister is acting appropriately. How many examples, Premier, of the incompetence of this minister do you need to have brought to your attention before you demand his resignation? Are you not embarrassed by the whole thing that has happened since March 1? If you're not, you should be. It has embarrassed everybody in this province that this government doesn't have control over this kind of issue when it involves young people.

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, the member says that I am telling people that a number of these things are okay. I'm not telling the people that at all. You've been telling them that. Most of it is untrue. Most of it is false, and for you to attribute your allegations as saying that is what I am saying is not only erroneous but to impugn what I am saying or my motive is actually quite false. I think you might want to reflect on what it was you said and probably withdraw it.

Secondly, let me assure you that I have taken what steps I believe are appropriate to ensure that the safety of the children is utmost in our minds. I think the parents can have utmost confidence in that.

Thirdly, you allege that we say it's okay that the minister didn't know for a period of months. It's not okay. The minister said it's not okay and I said it's not okay, and that is part of the review the minister has told you has taken place. Why did this happen? Let's make sure that part never happens again as well.

I say to you that the appropriate steps are being taken, both as far as the internal review from the ministry point of view is concerned as well as the investigation into what occurred. I am satisfied of that, as I believe are the vast majority of the public. You, I understand, are not satisfied, but I doubt, given your partisanship, that we'll ever satisfy your expectations or at least what you will publicly say are your expectations, which is why you are over there.

1420

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Environment. Today the International Joint Commission released the eighth biannual report on Great Lakes water quality. The commission in its report warns that cutbacks in environmental regulations, enforcement and funding will jeopardize protection of the environment. It also offers numerous recommendations. The report raises concerns about your government's proposals to deregulate environmental protection and compliance requirements. You have already gutted your ministry and your next move will be yet another attack by your government on our ecosystems and on human health.

In view of today's IJC report, will you stop your deregulation plans that are nothing more than an attempt to appease your corporate friends and will you guarantee that you will implement the recommendations of the IJC report? Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would just like to say that this government is committed to continuing to work on the cleanup of the Great Lakes. We consider the water quality of the Great Lakes to be very important to the citizens of this province, to the wellbeing of this province.

There are economic challenges facing not only this government but facing the federal government. I say to my colleague across the way, yes, it's true we're undergoing a regulatory review in our ministry. I say to my colleague across the way that this government knows the difference between process and prevention. We know that needless process spoils prevention in this province and leads to inaction and inactivity and we're not going to allow it.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting to match the words of the Minister of Environment with the words of the critics. The IJC says that the existing regulatory framework needs to be maintained if we are going to restore and protect the Great Lakes. What has this minister done? Well, this minister has weakened Ontario's clean water regulations, and the effect of that will allow more toxic pollution to enter our lakes and rivers. This minister said a few weeks ago that air is a problem. Under this minister I suspect that water is going to become a problem as well.

Minister, you are, in effect, clear-cutting environmental regulations that protect human health. That's what you're doing. You're going through the ministry, you're going through the regulations; anything that is designed to protect environmental quality, anything that is designed in the long term to protect human health you are gutting or getting rid of.

The IJC is an independent body. They're giving you some recommendations. Tell us, do you intend to implement the recommendations of the IJC?

Hon Mrs Elliott: We are working closely to implement the recommendations of the International Joint Commission. For the first time the joint commission began to talk about air issues. Let me tell you what we're doing in the province of Ontario. We have just initiated a comprehensive smog strategy to actually find solutions to the air problems, not just to talk about them any more. We're working towards a 45% reduction in emissions in this province by the year 2015. We are going to see results from a multi-stakeholder comprehensive approach that will work.

I can tell you that we've undertaken in our ministry a groundwater strategy that hasn't been undertaken for years and years and years.

Yes, we're working on regulatory review because we understand that every dollar that's wasted on process is a dollar that doesn't get invested in real protection, in abatement, in conservation, and we need to do those things. We are going to see results from the changes that are happening in the Ministry of Environment and they are going to present real protection to the air and the water quality of this province.

Mr Hampton: It's important that people understand what the minister calls "process." These regulations are laws. They're laws designed to protect the environment, and now we have a Minister of Environment who's going to do away with those laws, the very laws designed to protect the environment, and she says it's just process.

Let me tell you what's happening in this process. Corporate polluters are going to have a heyday. They're going to have great fun. They're going to be able to produce toxic pollutants, put them in the water, in the lakes, in the rivers, and you won't do a damned thing about it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Back to the 1950s.

Mr Hampton: That's where we're heading, back to the 1950s.

In view of the fact that you're gutting our environmental laws, how are you going to live up to our obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement once you deregulate our environmental standards? How are you going to meet those international obligations?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I don't think my colleague understands what we're actually doing in the ministry. Yes, we're looking at regulations, but we're not looking at deregulation. We are not looking at a diminishment of standards. We're looking at getting rid of the kinds of regulations that are needless and drive people insane in this province.

Do you know there was a regulation in this province that required people to bury pesticide containers, required them to do that? Those are the kinds of regulations that we are getting rid of.

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will place a question to the Premier.

Premier, the first report of your hospital restructuring commission has just hit our community, and I'm aware that since this report has just come out you will not be aware of the specific contents; I would not expect you to comment on specifics. But I think you should know that this set of recommendations will be absolutely devastating to health care in my community and I believe to the residents of northwestern Ontario, as our community serves the entire regional needs of northwestern Ontario.

I think you should know, Premier, that this commission appointed by your minister spent less than a month, parachuted into our community, coming and going on a periodic basis. They held their meetings behind closed doors. They held their meetings with no permission of public hearings or any kind of public consultation. In less than one month they have rejected out of hand the plan for health care that our community had agreed to, a plan our community had worked towards literally for years. Premier, I tell you that this first report of the hospital restructuring commission is the worst nightmare of Bill 26, hitting with the full force of reality.

I have to tell you that one of the most amazing things is the way in which this report not only directs the future of health care in our community but directs your own minister and your own government, and I read you just one way in which this report is stated.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I am, Mr Speaker.

The report says, "The Health Services Restructuring Commission directs the Minister of Health to implement the following directions."

Premier, do you really condone that kind of dictatorship by an appointed commission? Do you really believe that your Minister of Health can get away with having no responsibility for these disastrous decisions? Do you not believe that you and your government must take responsibility and cannot be directed by a commission that your minister has appointed?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate and have noted the member's concerns. I also heard the point of privilege at the start. As you know, the Minister of Health is one of the most regular attenders at question period, but he is at a federal-provincial meeting on seniors' issues. This government takes those issues very seriously, as I know all members will agree, as evidenced by the very strong support we've given to seniors in the province.

I want to say there has been a lot of studies, as the member has indicated, but what there has not been over the last 10 years is any action. The goal of this government is to assemble all the information and studies and actually take action. If you look at the number of beds that have been closed by both your government and the predecessor government, it was the equivalent of some 33 hospitals, but there were no administrative savings really achieved in any of those actions.

1430

The second goal of the government was to say these decisions ought not to be political but ought to be made in the best interests of quality service by those who have expertise in these areas, and I think the quality of the restructuring commission was one that has been accepted by the professionals throughout the province.

However, I understand that if all of a sudden somebody disagrees with a decision, one wants to challenge that and have political interference and political intervention. I think the methodology has been the correct one to try and deal with very difficult situations. You're quite right, I've not seen the report. In fact, I don't think it's been received yet, technically, by the ministry, and there'll be an appropriate response --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, with what you've just said, I sincerely hope you will look at this report and review the process as well as the recommendations that are here.

The reason the health restructuring commission came into my community first was because they understood that a great deal of progress had already been made; that there was -- and I think it is unique in the province -- an amalgamated regional hospital board; that there was an agreement on the restructuring of acute care services; that there has been a progressive rationalization, with the most recent decisions being made no less than a week ago.

There was clearly not enough money. The lack of commitment of funds to what our community believed was in its best interests is the real issue here, and I ask you to look at that. I can tell you that this will be seen as a cost-cutting agenda that has gone absolutely wild. It is cost-cutting by your government at the expense of the health care of the residents of my community and the residents of northwestern Ontario, and we will find that unacceptable.

Premier, I draw this to your attention in my supplementary question. There was certainly an area on which there was not consensus in our community. There was agreement on acute care and its direction. There was not consensus on mental health services and the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. Yet in this report -- and I tell you, it is shocking -- the psychiatric hospital is to be closed. This is not even advice, it is a direction of your commission to close our psychiatric hospital by March 1997.

I don't know where the psychiatric patients are going to go in my community. They are certainly not going to be accommodated in our acute care hospital, as we go from three acute care hospitals to one and 611 beds to 301 beds. They are not going to be able to be accommodated in psychogeriatric units, which will be dumped out of the psychiatric hospital as you close one of our chronic care hospitals. They will be on the streets of our community, Premier.

What happened to the moratorium your own Minister of Health just recently placed on the closure of any psychiatric beds? Where do you think that psychiatric patients in my community are going to go? Will you please review what I believe is not only a disastrous set of recommendations for our community but is the beginning of war on the issue of health care with every community in this province.

Hon Mr Harris: I am certain, because of the delay of action by the two former governments and just compounding the problem, that we know the reason. These are not easy decisions, and parochial vested interests come into play. I haven't seen the report. I understand what everybody was in consensus about: Let's have a new $200-million or $300-million hospital and have somebody else pay for it. I understand that's an easy thing to come to consensus about, and I'm gathering from what you're saying that the restructuring commission has suggested that that perhaps is not the most efficient way to proceed. But we'll see when we have a look at the report. If that's what you're suggesting, I accept the advice and input that I assume you want me to pass on to the Minister of Health.

I think one of the other allegations was that regardless of how professional and non-partisan we are in this, the government at the end of the day will be held accountable. We accept that. We'll be held accountable for all the decisions we make and the processes we put in place, just as you were held accountable in 1990 for doing nothing and just as the NDP were held accountable in 1995 for doing nothing.

All I can tell you is, the status quo and doing nothing is not acceptable. If you are arguing for the status quo and doing nothing, that's fine, but I can tell you that the people of Ontario voted for an action-oriented government that would stop delays in the types of decisions that were made. That was our mandate, and we intend to proceed with that mandate.

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General. This is the report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. The report makes a number of very helpful recommendations for the justice system.

It's been six months now since the commission reported, and at the time that you received the report you said you would "review the recommendations carefully." Can you tell us what you and your government have done to implement the recommendations of the commission?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The government is concerned about any aspect of the justice system that does not treat all Ontarians fairly and with dignity. The ministry takes the recommendations of the report very seriously and is committed to making the justice system fairer and more accessible to all Ontarians.

As I've indicated, we are reviewing the recommendations in detail. That report took three or four years to complete. It is a voluminous report and a great deal of study went into it. We are reviewing, for instance, all crown procedures that are followed in the context of the report and evaluating the procedures to follow in the context of that report, and that review is ongoing.

Mr Hampton: I think what I heard is that the government is studying the report.

The Attorney General will know, for example, that chapter 10 is an excellent chapter on community policing. It lays out a number of recommendations. Chapter 11, "Systemic Response to Police Shootings"; chapter 12, "An Equality Strategy for Justice" -- some very specific and concrete recommendations.

While the Attorney General has been studying this, six people have been shot by police this year. All of them have been men of colour, every one of them. Can the Attorney General assure people that if you had taken the commission's report seriously and started implementing the report, some of those might not have happened?

Hon Mr Harnick: I think the leader of the third party should think about what he's just alleged. He should also understand that the report deals with a lot more than just the things he selectively wants to pull out of the air and wants to misconstrue and mislead people about.

This report deals with crown attorneys, with the judiciary, with the Law Society of Upper Canada, with the legal aid plan, with the federal government and the way it handles federal prosecutions, with drug charges, all in the context of minorities and people of colour. I think the leader of the third party should read Hansard, read what he just said, read what he's alleging and take a long, hard thought about it.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The honourable member used the word "mislead." That's not acceptable. I would ask him to now withdraw it. Minister, would you withdraw that word.

Hon Mr Harnick: If I've said anything to offend, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

1440

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a question for the Premier. Recent reports indicate that there may be another trade mission to East Asia early in 1997. Given that prospect, could you inform the House as to what benefits Ontario achieves by participating in such trade missions and what message you will take on your next trade mission to East Asia.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me first of all congratulate the member. I think it's the first backbench member's question that has come my way to hold the government accountable for the things we do and the programs we participate in, and I appreciate that, as we should be held accountable.

If the trade mission we are planning to take in East Asia in 1997 has near the success of the Team Canada trade mission we took last year or the one we took in January, then it will indeed be worthwhile. Companies like Monenco Agra of Toronto have signed a number of deals in India for engineering and for recruitment in construction projects; Armtec of Guelph signed an MOU in Jakarta, joint venture; Soheil Mosun, a metal fabricating company in the member's own riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, a letter of intent with a company in Malaysia could lead to $40 million worth of business; MDS Laboratories are in your riding and interested in going on the next one; Lovat Tunnel is there; and perhaps the biggest export facilitator of all, Pearson International Airport, I might add, is in the member's riding, so they're great.

The message I take is, Ontario is open for business. The old days where government threw up all these barriers are gone, and these markets are poised to come to Ontario. We are going to get them.

Mr Hastings: Mr Premier, based on your experience on your first trade mission to the Far East and other areas last year, what potential changes do you think foreign investors are looking for in Ontario before they direct their scarce capital here that wasn't coming here when the NDP claimed it was in 1994?

Hon Mr Harris: Quite right that the member is trying to get an accounting. Wherever I go they want to know: Are we undoing the damage of the previous government? Are we removing those barriers they know that had existed in Ontario? Have we brought balance to labour legislation? Are we getting taxes under control? Are we getting our deficit under control? I am able to respond that indeed we are undoing 10 years worth of damage.

They ask about the WCB and the neglect of that. Governments have just kind of waltzed along and avoided the tough decisions to get our economic affairs in order.

These are the kinds of questions I am asked. It's a full-time job, and we need to do more of it. I invite every member of the Legislature -- Mr Bradley looks up, wondering whether we're going to charter our own 727 like the feds do -- at every opportunity to remind potential investors that the old days are gone and the new days are here and that we're open for business.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is to the Attorney General. I rise on a very serious matter. You will be aware that four suspected drug traffickers yesterday had their charges stayed because of backlogs in the court system.

It is reported that this situation could occur in other parts of the province because of similar delays. In fact, Mr Justice Ted Matlow stated in the case before him yesterday that it was not that of a single trial getting bogged down. "Rather, it is part of a systemic problem that threatens to shake public confidence in the criminal justice system."

Your government has already broken its promise not to reduce spending on law enforcement. I ask you, Minister, in view of this situation, will you make a commitment that there will be no cuts in your ministry until this very serious problem with backlogs is resolved?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This is a follow-up to a question I was asked by the same member the other day, who was criticizing me for not having a strategy or because she didn't like the strategy we were developing to ensure that no serious cases would be compromised in their prosecutions. Now I'm being asked, "Why are you developing this?"

This case is the perfect example. We are trying to deal with the intake of cases in the criminal justice system so that we can realistically deal with less serious cases by ensuring that they receive appropriate penalties, either by diversion, community service or payback to the victim. At the same time, we are trying to develop strategies that I was being criticized for by this very member the other day so that we can ensure that we can always prosecute serious crime so this doesn't happen.

This is a throwback of the system that they created when they threw money at it, 50% increases in the criminal justice system in terms of this government's reaction to the same problem and 70,000 cases being thrown out of court because they wouldn't develop strategies. I suggest that you stop criticizing the strategies that we're trying to develop and work with us to ensure that all serious crime is always prosecuted, that there is no compromise in that prosecution and that we continue to deal with less serious crimes in appropriate ways.

Ms Castrilli: I hope the minister isn't saying that from here on he is prepared not to prosecute drug pushers; I hope that's not what he's saying. What we have here is a situation within your control which you are not dealing with, and it's a very serious situation. The problem is that your government has reduced funds to law enforcement. That's the real problem. You had an investment strategy to try to deal with the backlog which in fact you have not put in place. The result is that we now have alleged drug pushers back on the street. The reason you've cut funding to law enforcement, as we all very well know, is because you have chosen to give a tax cut to the very wealthy. That's what's at issue here, Minister.

Isn't it true that these four suspected drug pushers are back on the street because of your budget cuts? What do you say to Ontarians who now find themselves with four more alleged criminals in their midst?

Hon Mr Harnick: When you were the government, you put 50% more funds into the criminal justice system, and 70,000 cases got thrown out of the system. You don't understand that throwing money at problems doesn't solve the problems. You deal with input, you deal with managing the system; you don't throw money at it. That's the Liberal way, that's the old way to do things; we don't do that in Ontario any more. We fix it so it's fixed properly.

We started to do that today. We announced a consolidation of courts today that will make more criminal courts available. We are spending money in priority areas. We're doing everything but reducing funding in criminal areas. We've announced $90 million worth of expenditures for courthouses in the last three weeks, for victims' services. We're developing proper techniques to deal with the input of cases. We're not doing what you did, that caused 70,000 cases to be thrown out. We're going to deal with the problem and find permanent solutions.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'd say to the Attorney General that the only permanent result we've seen is more criminals out on the street.

1450

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Premier, and it concerns air service for northern Ontario. Earlier this year when your government killed norOntair, you said that the private sector would pick up the service and everything would be fine. We said that the private sector would only be there for a while and then it would exit. We asked you to look at allowing the employees to buy norOntair and allowing the employees to operate it. Your government said no. You sold the planes, you sold the assets, you put the employees out of work. You abandoned the service to northern Ontario.

Now what do we see? Air Creebec has pulled out of Kirkland Lake and Earlton; Bearskin Airlines announced it's pulling out of Elliot Lake; Commercial Aviation is pulling out of Hearst, leaving all those communities without air service.

Premier, I wonder if you could tell us and tell the people in northern Ontario how your government's policy of privatization is improving their air service and improving their lives.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Clearly there are some routes in northern Ontario that the private sector have had difficulty making money in, and then there are others they can serve quite well. During the transition from a totally government-run and -subsidized -- and in order to reduce the subsidy actually out there, using government tax dollars to compete, thereby wasting those dollars as far as air service was concerned, was the status quo.

The transition to a private sector system will take a little bit of time, which is why we've offered to mitigate in those cases where there is legitimate lack of competition or service by the private sector, and clearly everything will be fine.

Our commitment is to provide air service to those communities in northern Ontario. You would know that there were a couple of communities that lost their service that you wouldn't even restore it to because it was so expensive. By channelling the resources into those areas -- and obviously we're going to have to look at where the private sector is saying, "We can't make a buck; there's not enough traffic." We'll have to look in those areas, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I can assure all the members from northern Ontario that we will be able to do it more efficiently and at less cost to taxpayers and still ensure air service in northern Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Maybe the Premier has forgotten this, but the principle that norOntair worked on was this: There were some routes you could make money on. There were other routes in other communities you couldn't make money on. What norOntair tried to do was to offer services for all and basically cover the costs.

The Premier said he didn't want that. His minister for northern development said, "No, we don't want that." What's happening is that a whole bunch of communities no longer have service. What's going to happen if that situation continues is they are going to lose their airport service altogether, which means they start losing things like air ambulance, which affects health care.

I want to ask the Premier: In view of the fact that your great privatization experiment hasn't worked -- all it's done is resulted in a whole bunch of people losing their jobs and a whole bunch of people losing their air service -- what are you going to do to fix the mess you've created now across northern Ontario in terms of air service?

Hon Mr Harris: Our commitment is that those communities in northern Ontario, including Kirkland Lake and Earlton, will have air service. As you know, we're working with the communities now where the current carrier says they're having difficulty. There may be other carriers; I want to assure you of that. But if we take your position and just automatically subsidize right off, then we're not sure we get the most efficient use of tax dollars.

As you know, we've used government aircraft to provide interim service in a number of areas. I want to assure you that with the millions of dollars we saved by getting out of the lucrative routes and not having to provide subsidized service from some of those areas that didn't need any subsidy, we have more than enough dollars to make sure that we can subsidize, if we have to, those other areas.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I thank you for your response the other day regarding gang violence in schools. However, I do have a couple of other concerns regarding school safety.

A student in my area who had a prior history of behavioural problems broke the arm of a younger pupil in the school yard. The school principal, having attempted to move this student to a special, more supervised class, could not get parental agreement for the move. The principal had to have an IPRC review. The principal expressed grave concerns to me over the slowness of the identification and placement review committee process.

I know that violent incidents involving exceptional students are rare. However, what assurance can I give to students, parents and staff in my area that situations like this will not be repeated?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I know that we all regret when any child in our school system is injured, and I think everyone in the chamber today would agree with me it's the first responsibility of our school system and all connected to it to make sure that children are safe and children can avoid injury.

After extensive consultation, we are revising regulation 305, which is the identification and placement review committees that were referred to earlier that make the decisions and determinations on children with special needs. Included in these revisions will be clearer definitions of time lines, which I think will address the concern of the honourable member. The Advisory Council on Special Education reviewed the drafts of these regulatory changes and has made some revisions which I think improve them. So that is coming forward now to address the very concerns the member has raised today.

Mr Jim Brown: A supplementary to the minister of education on a related topic: A number of young people convicted under the Young Offenders Act are required to attend school as a condition of their release. In the past, teachers with such students in their classroom were not only kept in the dark as to the identity of the young offender, but were unaware of sentencing conditions established by the court or even to whom they would report any infraction like truancy.

Minister, what response can I give to those who say we are putting staff and students in an impossible situation by keeping them in the dark about the history and circumstances of young offenders placed in our province's classrooms?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know there are members opposite who apparently don't consider violence in schools to be an urgent or critical issue, but I can assure you it's an issue that's of concern to our government. As I'm sure the honourable member knows, there have been violence-free school policies in place for schools since 1994, and these are under ongoing revision to address problems as they are created in different school environments and to take a very constructive approach to ending school violence.

I recently attended a conference designed to involve students in the reporting of violence and crime in schools, to work with the police authorities and the teachers involved.

I'd like to advise the honourable member that in February 1995 there were amendments made to the Young Offenders Act that will allow school boards to access the records of young offenders where that's appropriate to protect the safety of all the people involved in the school system. We're looking forward to more involvement of students and parent councils in the upcoming years to make sure our schools are a safe environment to learn.

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Transportion. Tens of thousands of Ontarians are becoming painfully aware that driver exam centres are being closed in their area. Hamilton, Welland, Niagara Falls, Leamington, Cambridge, Trenton, Port Hope, all of these places are having their driver exam centres closed. Over the past two weeks I've sent you hundreds of letters and petitions with regard, as an example, to the driver exam centre in Leamington. In fact, for the folks from Pelee Island, it would take them all day to get an examination if they had to go to Windsor, because they have to come over on the boat and drive to Windsor and back.

Minister, is your decision to close these centres final?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I think it's an excellent question and certainly one that has to be addressed. I would like to answer you in this manner: The ministry's main objective is to reduce costs while maintaining our licence services and actually improving on front-line delivery. Restructuring is consistent with our government's objective to ensure public services are delivered in a customer-friendly and most cost-efficient way.

One of the things that was the parameter, I guess, that made us take a look at how we can do the closures without affecting front-line delivery of services in smaller communities is we took a look at a parameter of around 45 to 50 or 55 kilometres. This is the guide that we took a look at.

In terms of the question the member is asking -- has a decision been made, have we finalized it? -- no, we have not really finalized it. We are going to take a look at it to make sure that we are going to do the right thing. We certainly want to make sure that the services to Ontarians are going to be delivered in a customer-friendly way, but again, keeping cost-effectiveness in mind.

1500

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Supplementary.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The question is to the Minister of Transportation. In a statement yesterday, I again outlined to the House the dangers inherent to and with Highway 69. We are entering into the Canada Day long weekend, a time of danger for all drivers using Highway 69.

Minister, at a meeting held on May 29 in your office, with your staff, the region of Sudbury staff, the regional chair, Councillor Jim Ilnitski and myself, you committed to making an announcement with regard to the environmental assessment between French River and Sudbury within the next short while.

For the record, to ease the fears and to give hope to those people who will be travelling on Highway 69 this weekend, can you inform the House and the region of Sudbury what you have decided to do with regard to that portion of highway between Sudbury and French River?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'd like to thank the member for the question. I thought we had a very productive meeting with the people from Sudbury. I certainly tried to reiterate our government's position based on priorities. Highway 69 is a major highway in the province of Ontario and it is one that we are going to be addressing.

As far as the four-laning of Highway 69, I believe we've already invested somewhere in the vicinity of $60 million in four-laning certain areas of it, and we are going to continue to do that. We are committed to taking a look at how we can deliver the four-laning, if necessary. There are alternatives.

As far as the environmental assessment that the member has asked about, again I thought the meeting was somewhat positive in our intention of revisiting the environmental assessment to see if we can bring it back on board and scatter it over a period of two or three years. I want to tell the member that it's being looked at.

The Speaker: We have two deferred votes that were carried over from the sitting yesterday.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Speaker, on a point of order: We understood yesterday from the government House leader that the Legislative Assembly committee was going to sit today to examine some of the issues around why people who work in the dining room and the cafeteria here are having their wages reduced from $15, $16 an hour down to $7 and $8 an hour, and we've just been informed now by the government House leader that that is not the case.

Since it did create a great deal of frustration and anger in this place yesterday, I wonder if we could have some explanation as to what has happened. It was our understanding yesterday, as I'm sure it was your understanding, that the Legislative Assembly committee was going to sit; that you were going to come and you were going to establish for the record what has happened, how it has happened, the background behind the loss of jobs and so on. I wonder if we can have some explanation before the Premier leaves on what's happened.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I haven't got an explanation. Perhaps the House leader may have one, but I haven't.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: We did indicate to the third party House leader yesterday that we indeed were prepared to look at the Legislative Assembly committee looking at this issue. However, as you well know, this is an issue within the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, and of course the third party, as indeed the official opposition does, has a member on that particular board. We do not see any need for a Legislative Assembly committee to look at making decisions that are within the purview of the Board of Internal Economy. I might point out the leader of the third party that his own member on the Board of Internal Economy seconded the motion on February 29 this year to issue a request for proposals with respect to the dining room and cafeteria staff.

Mr Speaker, this matter is entirely, as you know, within the purview of the Board of Internal Economy. They have made a decision on this matter, and that is where it should rest.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To this point, Speaker: We sat in this House yesterday and listened to commitments being made by the government. Thousands of people -- wait a minute, Speaker -- across the province heard the very same thing, that the crisis that was generated yesterday by the job loss for 22 hardworking women and men was going to be addressed because of the government's promise to have the Legislative Assembly committee meet this afternoon. You, Speaker, as you will recall, volunteered to attend if called upon, and it was indicated you would be.

Downstairs in this building, 22 working women and men are counting on the government to keep its promise. Thousands of people across Ontario who heard that promise being made are counting on this government to keep its promise. This is either a serious breach of the government's responsibility to uphold the position that it took in the first place or else the government never meant what it said when it said what it said yesterday, and you know what it's called then. To call it what it ought to be called would be unparliamentary. This is a serious affront.

The Speaker: Order. I've heard the member's point of order. He does not have a point of order. We'll proceed with the business of the House, and the business of the House is deferred votes. We'll have two deferred votes.

Mr Kormos: Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On a point of privilege, Speaker: Read the standing orders.

The Speaker: I've heard your point of order. I've heard it and --

Mr Kormos: Now I've got a point of privilege, Speaker.

The Speaker: No. I've heard your point of privilege and your point of order. There's no point of privilege.

Mr Kormos: Get out of the back pocket of the government. Get out of their back pocket for once.

The Speaker: Order. The member take his seat. I've heard your point of order. You do not have a point of order.

Mr Kormos: On a point of privilege, Speaker: Wow, it's not a two by four; it's a two by eight. I've got to tell you, as a matter of privilege, I relied upon the government's promise yesterday to permit a sitting of the Legislative Assembly committee so that I could attend and exercise my rights as a --

The Speaker: Order. If your privileges have been --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1509 to 1514.

The Speaker: Will the members take their seats, please. We're dealing with third reading of Bill 36, standing in the name of Mr Hodgson. All those in favour will please rise one at a time until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Gilchrist, Steve	Preston, Peter
Baird, John R.	Grimmett, Bill	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Barrett, Toby	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ross, Lillian
Bassett, Isabel	Hardeman, Ernie	Sampson, Rob
Beaubien, Marcel	Harnick, Charles	Saunderson, William
Boushy, Dave	Harris, Michael D.	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Hastings, John	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Hudak, Tim	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Jackson, Cameron	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Johnson, Bert	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Johnson, David	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Johnson, Ron	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Jordan, W. Leo	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Klees, Frank	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Leach, Al	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Marland, Margaret	Tsubouchi, David H.
Elliott, Brenda	Martiniuk, Gerry	Turnbull, David
Eves, Ernie L.	Maves, Bart	Vankoughnet, Bill
Fisher, Barbara	Munro, Julia	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Ford, Douglas B.	Newman, Dan	Witmer, Elizabeth
Fox, Gary	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wood, Bob
Froese, Tom	Palladini, Al	Young, Terence H.
Galt, Doug	Parker, John L.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Gravelle, Michael	Morin, Gilles E.
Bisson, Gilles	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Bradley, James J.	Kennedy, Gerard	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kormos, Peter	Pupatello, Sandra
Christopherson, David	Kwinter, Monte	Ruprecht, Tony
Churley, Marilyn	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Sergio, Mario
Colle, Mike	Lankin, Frances	Silipo, Tony
Conway, Sean G.	Laughren, Floyd	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Marchese, Rosario
Curling, Alvin	McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 68; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend or revoke various statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and to enact other statutes administered by the Ministry / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois appliquées par le ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ou qui touchent ce ministère, et visant à édicter d'autres lois appliquées par le ministère.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Same vote? No? There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1522.

The Speaker: Third reading of Bill 46, standing in the name of Mr Villeneuve. All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Grimmett, Bill	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Baird, John R.	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ross, Lillian
Barrett, Toby	Hardeman, Ernie	Sampson, Rob
Bassett, Isabel	Harnick, Charles	Saunderson, William
Beaubien, Marcel	Harris, Michael D.	Shea, Derwyn
Boushy, Dave	Hastings, John	Sheehan, Frank
Brown, Jim	Hudak, Tim	Skarica, Toni
Carr, Gary	Jackson, Cameron	Smith, Bruce
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Bert	Snobelen, John
Chudleigh, Ted	Johnson, David	Spina, Joseph
Clement, Tony	Johnson, Ron	Sterling, Norman W.
Cunningham, Dianne	Jordan, W. Leo	Stewart, R. Gary
Danford, Harry	Klees, Frank	Stockwell, Chris
DeFaria, Carl	Leach, Al	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Elliott, Brenda	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Eves, Ernie L.	Munro, Julia	Vankoughnet, Bill
Fisher, Barbara	Murdoch, Bill	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Ford, Douglas B.	Newman, Dan	Witmer, Elizabeth
Fox, Gary	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wood, Bob
Froese, Tom	Palladini, Al	Young, Terence H.
Galt, Doug	Parker, John L.
Gilchrist, Steve	Preston, Peter

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Hoy, Pat	Morin, Gilles E.
Bisson, Gilles	Kennedy, Gerard	Phillips, Gerry
Bradley, James J.	Kormos, Peter	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Christopherson, David	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ruprecht, Tony
Churley, Marilyn	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Conway, Sean G.	Laughren, Floyd	Silipo, Tony
Crozier, Bruce	Marchese, Rosario	Wood, Len
Curling, Alvin	Martel, Shelley
Gravelle, Michael	McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rose yesterday on a matter of privilege and asked you to do what you could to ensure that my rights were protected. I believe you did that as best you could, because certainly ultimately the government House leader announced that they indeed would hold Legislative Assembly committee hearings today on the issue that we raised, my colleagues and I. Now, of course, the government has betrayed that understanding because we stopped raising a fuss here yesterday when we had that assurance and commitment from the government. Now we find the government has reneged on that promise and said, "No, we're not going to have it," and obviously they're trying to steamroller through to get through to the last hours of today, because then the session's gone.

Speaker, I return to you once again, sir. It's a matter of privilege of the members of the opposition to have an opportunity to question these government policies. You now have, Speaker, the added problem that you have a House that is divided because this government has turned their back and reneged on a deal. Let's not lose sight -- this is all about those workers downstairs who are being shafted, Speaker. I ask you again, please take a recess, meet with the table officers, ask the government again. Point out that they control the Board of Internal Economy. For God's sake, Speaker, do something. This government is steamrollering our rights, and I'm asking you to protect them.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member does not have a point of privilege. We dealt with the issue yesterday. I made a ruling on it, and we cannot continue on the same points of order when I've already made my ruling on that very issue.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You ruled on it and the government committed itself to leg assembly meeting. Now today they are saying no, they are changing their position.

The Speaker: If the House leaders want to meet to come to some decision, that will be up to the House leaders. It's not up to me.

Ms Lankin: You call them together, Mr Speaker. You call the leaders together.

The Speaker: New order of business.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There are two points of privilege that I want to make that are interconnected. You would know that yesterday there was very vociferous discussion in this House in regard to what is happening with the food workers in this Legislature. Yesterday afternoon, prior to question period, I tried on a number of occasions to be recognized by you, as the Speaker of this assembly, to rise on a point of privilege that I thought was happening in regard to my rights and the rights of other members in this assembly, both in regard to the government's actions and the actions that you took yesterday as Speaker.

I review the Hansard. Just so we know what happened here, up to the point of, "I rise on a point of privilege," I had not interjected in this House -- or Hansard never recorded any interjections on my point -- and I had been watching and listening to the debate up to that point fairly quietly. I rose on a point of privilege, and on the point of privilege when I rose I was received by the Speaker by being named and being asked to leave the chamber.

Further, the member for Welland-Thorold tried to get up on a point of privilege again this afternoon and you would not recognize the member for Welland-Thorold on his point of privilege. Speaker, I know you know these standing orders well, but I draw your attention to them all the same. Under standing order 21(a) it says, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom"; and it says under 21(b), "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

1530

On a number of occasions in this House I have risen on a matter of privilege, the member for Welland-Thorold has risen on a point of privilege and you, Speaker, have not deemed it appropriate to recognize those members on a point of privilege. I think it is your responsibility to first hear the point of privilege, as spelled out in the standing orders, and if you feel that the point of privilege is not warranted, then you ask the member to sit down.

I ask you two things, Speaker. First of all, I ask that you take a look at the question of the government not giving us, as opposition members and other members of this assembly, the right to bring public the matters that are before the House today in regard to the cafeteria workers; but more important and equal to that are the rights of us as members. When I stand in this House I'm here to represent the constituents of my riding --

The Speaker: Order. When the Speaker stands, the members are to take their seats. Yesterday that was not the case. There was a problem yesterday. The member would continuously stand and not take his seat, and therefore he was named.

Points of privilege in this House should be short and to the point. If any member has a point of personal privilege -- points of order are different, I understand that, but if your rights are being infringed on a point of personal privilege, then I'd like to see it in writing if it's possible, and if not that, with a very short statement.

Mr Bisson: On a point of privilege, Speaker --

The Speaker: I've heard your point of privilege. You went on and on.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Sit down and listen to him.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege. I have heard it and he does not have a point.

Mr Bisson: Speaker, you haven't heard it.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of personal privilege. His privileges in this House are not being infringed upon as far as I can see. We'll go on to the next order of business.

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Une question de privilège, Monsieur le Président : Je voudrais avec grand respect attirer votre attention sur l'article 21 à la page 14 du Règlement, qui se lit comme suit :

«(a) Les privilèges sont les droits dont jouissent les membres de l'Assemblée législative, collectivement et individuellement, en vertu de la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et d'autres lois, ou en vertu de la pratique, des précédents et des usages.

«(b) Quand la question de privilège est posée, elle est immédiatement prise en considération.»

Those are my privileges as a member, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, the government, the official opposition and the third party reached an agreement that a certain order of business would take place. As a member, I am planning meticulously and I need your help --

The Speaker: Order. The member take his seat, please. I've heard your point of privilege. You're reading the rules to me. I don't think that's in order. I think we know what the rules are. Will the member take his seat.

Mr Pouliot: I don't know how to play games, sir. I'm asking for your advice.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. The next item of business is motions.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It says in the standing orders that whenever a member rises on a point of privilege it shall be taken immediately into consideration. Yesterday, I explained to you what happened -- one second, Speaker. Let me finish what I'm about to say. When I went to speak to you just shortly, a little while ago, to discuss this matter privately with you, when I asked you, "What does it take for the Speaker to recognize a member on a point of privilege?" you said, "Take it up with our House leaders." I ask you, is it the House leaders or is the Speaker who is responsible for interpreting the rules of this House?

The Speaker: Order. I suggest you should have a chat with the Clerk with regard to the rule for the order. It says if a matter of privilege arises, it is to be taken up immediately. There has not been a matter of privilege that has arisen.

The next item of business is petitions.

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, I appreciate that you recognize the seriousness of this petition which comes from the residents of Parkdale. It reads:

"Whereas the Dellcrest Children's Centre is planning to open a 10-bed open custody residence for troubled children...in south Parkdale; and

"Whereas the residence is an inappropriate site for the rehabilitation of troubled children because it is within walking distance to illicit drug and prostitution activities; a large number of unsupervised and supervised rooming houses that are home to ex-psychiatric patients, parolees and our society's most vulnerable and ostracized members; and a number of licensed establishments that have been charged with various liquor infractions; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Dellcrest Children's Centre have decided not to hold open discussions with our community prior to the purchase of this house; and

"Whereas the decision to relocate also expresses a total lack of disregard towards our community's consistent and well-documented wishes for the Ontario government to stop the creation or relocation of additional social service programs...in an area that is already oversaturated with health and social services...;

"We, the undersigned, urge the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to suspend plans to relocate this open custody residence until a full review of the Dellcrest Children's Centre's decision can be conducted, and explore, with us, alternative locations...."

I have signed my name to this document.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? The Chair recognizes the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1538 to 1608.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopherson has moved adjournment of the House.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 8; the nays are 71.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

The Chair recognizes the member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I move that we now proceed to introduction of bills.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that Mr Turnbull's motion to move to introduction of bills carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1611 to 1641.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Turnbull has moved that we move to the introduction of bills.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 58; the nays are 15.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

Mr Eves, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to improve Ontario's court system, to respond to concerns raised by charities and their volunteers and to improve various statutes relating to the administration of justice / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à améliorer le système judiciaire de l'Ontario, à répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par les oeuvres de bienfaisance et leurs bénévoles, et à améliorer diverses lois relatives à l'administration de la justice.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1644 to 1649.

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

All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.	Galt, Doug	Pupatello, Sandra
Barrett, Toby	Gilchrist, Steve	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Bartolucci, Rick	Grimmett, Bill	Ross, Lillian
Beaubien, Marcel	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ruprecht, Tony
Bisson, Gilles	Hastings, John	Sampson, Rob
Boushy, Dave	Hudak, Tim	Saunderson, William
Bradley, James J.	Johnson, David	Sergio, Mario
Brown, Jim	Johnson, Ron	Shea, Derwyn
Caplan, Elinor	Jordan, W. Leo	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Kennedy, Gerard	Silipo, Tony
Carroll, Jack	Kormos, Peter	Skarica, Toni
Christopherson, David	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Leach, Al	Snobelen, John
Churley, Marilyn	Marchese, Rosario	Spina, Joseph
Clement, Tony	Marland, Margaret	Sterling, Norman W.
Colle, Mike	Martel, Shelley	Stewart, R. Gary
Cunningham, Dianne	Martiniuk, Gerry	Stockwell, Chris
Danford, Harry	Maves, Bart	Tascona, Joseph N.
DeFaria, Carl	Munro, Julia	Tilson, David
Doyle, Ed	Murdoch, Bill	Turnbull, David
Ecker, Janet	Newman, Dan	Vankoughnet, Bill
Elliott, Brenda	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Eves, Ernie L.	Parker, John L.	Wood, Bob
Fisher, Barbara	Phillips, Gerry	Wood, Len
Ford, Douglas B.	Pouliot, Gilles	Young, Terence H.
Froese, Tom	Preston, Peter

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80, An Act to curtail Repeat Offences by Juvenile Delinquents / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à inciter les jeunes délinquants à ne pas récidiver.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It is the wish of this House that this motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There will be a five-minute bell. Please call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1653 to 1658.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.	Gilchrist, Steve	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Barrett, Toby	Grimmett, Bill	Ross, Lillian
Beaubien, Marcel	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ruprecht, Tony
Boushy, Dave	Hardeman, Ernie	Sampson, Rob
Bradley, James J.	Hastings, John	Saunderson, William
Brown, Jim	Hudak, Tim	Sergio, Mario
Caplan, Elinor	Johnson, David	Shea, Derwyn
Carr, Gary	Johnson, Ron	Sheehan, Frank
Carroll, Jack	Jordan, W. Leo	Skarica, Toni
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Smith, Bruce
Clement, Tony	Kennedy, Gerard	Snobelen, John
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Marland, Margaret	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Martiniuk, Gerry	Stockwell, Chris
Doyle, Ed	Maves, Bart	Tascona, Joseph N.
Ecker, Janet	Munro, Julia	Tilson, David
Elliott, Brenda	Murdoch, Bill	Turnbull, David
Eves, Ernie L.	Newman, Dan	Vankoughnet, Bill
Fisher, Barbara	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Ford, Douglas B.	Parker, John L.	Wood, Bob
Fox, Gary	Phillips, Gerry	Young, Terence H.
Froese, Tom	Preston, Peter
Galt, Doug	Pupatello, Sandra

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles	Marchese, Rosario	Silipo, Tony
Christopherson, David	Martel, Shelley
Kormos, Peter	Pouliot, Gilles

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70; the nays are 7.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

1700

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 47, An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm very happy to continue debate on this budget bill and I hope somehow we can get the members opposite revved up to the point we had before lunch today.

In any event, we were talking earlier about portables in schools and relating that to the budget bill. I will digress just for a moment to speak to the constituents in Windsor-Sandwich and tell them that I would like to bring forward the thoughts I got from them during my latest canvassing expedition in the riding of Windsor-Sandwich and express to the House the concerns they've had so far relating to this government's budget.

The government certainly is driven by an economic agenda of finding cuts because it needs to finance a tax cut. What has that affected in the riding I come from? It's affected health care, it's affected education, it will affect roads, and there are a number of other areas. Today, of course, we're reminded by the Attorney General how bad the crime issue is across Ontario, and I'd like to speak to that as well.

To reiterate, if we speak about education and what is happening, we have to remember that the Conservative government was elected on a platform that cuts to education would not affect the classroom. What's happened is that they are affecting classrooms across Ontario, and one small area of this in terms of what policies the government has come forward with is the moratorium on capital expansions in schools across Ontario. The school boards across Ontario have been put in the position of having to deal with the moratorium on capital expense, and in some areas, in particular high-growth areas, they've been severely affected by, firstly, the significant cuts to their school board and, secondly, the moratorium on capital. What it's forced them to do in many instances is go out and make huge purchases of hundreds of thousands of dollars in portables in which to put more students, because these places are in high-growth areas.

I gave some examples earlier. It was actually surprising to see that in the Minister of Education's own riding, his own backyard, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic board has 1,016 portables that he deals with; here in Metropolitan Toronto, the separate school board dealing with 820 portables; the Peel Board of Education, 659 portables; York region, 789 -- and the list goes on. The most impressive figure, I guess, from all this is that the total number of portables in Ontario is now on an increase thanks to the moratorium on capital expense, the total in Ontario being 11,738. That is a lot, hundreds of thousands of dollars that school boards are being forced to spend only to have to, further down the road, spend the money again and build the schools in those high-growth areas.

If we speak to our good member for Nepean, he will tell us as well that he's had to have town hall meetings on education, town hall meetings with parents and teachers and school boards, because there are two high schools that were given approvals that should have been built, because the growth is unbelievable in that Nepean area, but they've been put on hold. Yes, they have portables in Nepean. How does the member for Nepean deal with it? He doesn't have an answer for the people.

I submit that it's a lot like driving your car. If you don't change the oil when you're supposed to, eventually you'll ruin the engine. I give you that example, having experienced that personally. My husband would be pleased to hear that I've admitted that.

In any event, we've got to say that where the boards of education are concerned, in particular the Essex county Catholic school board -- they've just recently approved a $200,000 expense for a portable at Sacred Heart / Sacré-Coeur school. They know that they'll eventually have a school built there. They have to. They have some 500 students attending -- 250 inside the school; 220 outside the school. The situation is just ridiculous.

That is just one reason that I've got to say the budget really isn't appropriate for what Ontario needs, and it's not appropriate for what Ontarians expected from the government when it was elected on the promise of no cuts to education that affect the classroom.

They were also elected on no cuts to health care. I mentioned earlier that we would be having cuts to health care, and we're feeling them already. The nurses in my riding who are now on the street thanks to the changes at local levels in hospitals are indicative of cuts that are affecting people, and ultimately seniors and children, in the area of Windsor-Sandwich.

I would like to wrap up by saying that we're disappointed so far in the progression of the government and what it's chosen to do. My people in Windsor-Sandwich feel betrayed by them, and we know that it's only a matter of time before that feeling starts to settle in in all of the areas, including the member for Nepean's.

In any event, thank you. I'll look forward to further debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I enjoyed the speech of the member for Windsor-Sandwich very much. She brought to the attention of the House many of the problems that are confronting a lot of communities in Ontario right now, particularly with the freeze we have on the capital expenditures right across the province, even in areas where there's a dire need for those capital expenditures to be made.

We can certainly understand that there would be some postponements. That's acceptable; that's what we would expect is going to happen. But in this case she has a dire circumstance facing her in LaSalle. I certainly am glad she was able to share that with the House.

Another problem she mentioned was the manner in which obstetricians have been treated in the province. Certainly in the Niagara region, obstetricians have been quite unhappy with their treatment by the provincial government, and as a result we have a diminished number of individuals who will be delivering babies in the Niagara region. Family physicians have not shown enthusiasm for this, particularly in light of the fact that we have premiums for malpractice insurance that are very high.

1710

While the minister moved partway to solve this problem, it's my understanding from further discussions with obstetricians in our part of the province that they are still unhappy with the Minister of Health and the general policy of the government as it relates to the treatment of members of the medical profession. I hope the government will review its policies in this regard and endeavour to come to an amicable and mutually acceptable agreement with members of the medical profession who for so long have delivered services in such an exemplary fashion in Ontario.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The member for Windsor-Sandwich talked about the impact of this government on her own community and on education, to the point where young children cannot get proper accommodation in terms of their educational facilities. They can see the impact in real terms on the classroom physically and in terms of instruction.

In my own community in Metro, what really concerns us is that this government has also passed a bill, Bill 34, which is going to take up to $65 million of property taxes right out of Metro. This is $65 million that would have gone to the schools in Metro.

Mr Bradley: Does that include Etobicoke?

Mr Colle: This means Etobicoke, Scarborough, York, East York, North York and Toronto. It's the first time in the history of this province that a provincial government has gone into the property tax base to pay for the mistakes and cutbacks they've made in education.

All the teachers and school boards and parents and students across Metro are concerned about what's going to happen to their schools as a result of the tax grab the provincial government has undertaken. Just like our confrère here in Windsor-Sandwich is worried about what kinds of schools we're going to have for children in LaSalle, people right across Metro wonder how much money they'll have for their school system when this government is going to take -- who knows? -- $65 million-plus out of the schools, out of Metro without any kind of assent. It's a grab right out of the property tax which supposedly is to be used for local purposes. What are they doing with that $65 million? They're taking it out of Metro.

Mrs Pupatello: In wrapping up I congratulate the Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board because they announced that they have found financing and they're doing a private investment to build a school in Waterloo. The question we have to ask the ministry is, why is it good that today Waterloo will be able to build the school they're looking for, but we can't build the schools we need in other places, especially in fast-growing places across Ontario?

We congratulate Waterloo on some exceptional work. They've resorted to putting together a consortium, the Infrastructure Capital Corp, to build St Benedict's school under a leaseback arrangement. While the minister concedes this is the type of financing that happens in other jurisdictions, I suggest that the minister look in his own province, where he is the Minister of Education, to see that there are some very good examples of financial arrangements happening right here. All we can say is, make sure that the private developers who are involved in these kinds of deals are not making more money than would have been the case if the provincial government were borrowing the funding to finance the building of the school.

We congratulate Waterloo. Perhaps it's because Waterloo has a cabinet minister in the area that they managed to escape the moratorium on capital, but the needs are no greater in Waterloo than they are in LaSalle or Nepean.

Having said that, again to the people of Windsor-Sandwich, the Liberal Party will continue to speak out on issues that affect us every day and the government is going to have to be accountable for all its actions.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm really disappointed with the content of Bill 47.

Je suis vraiment déçu et inquiet du contenu du projet de loi. Les conséquences se feront sentir dans nos familles. Nos familles, nos étudiants, nos garderies vont vraiment en souffrir.

Our day care centres won't be able to operate because at the present time low-income families won't be able to afford to send their children to day care. In turn, even the people who are well off won't be able to have day care services because they won't be in existence any more in rural areas.

Our senior people are going to be affected. Our municipalities are getting a cut of 40%. This would mean in my own region alone, in the riding of Prescott and Russell, there's a reduction of $6 million in transfers. Libraries are going to be affected; recreation centres and cultural centres are affected.

Everybody is in agreement to reduce the deficit. At the present time we're trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of poor people.

La réduction du déficit, tout le monde est d'accord dans le moment. Mais le fait que nous essayons de réduire les impôts en même temps, c'est une chose qui ne se fait pas. Actuellement, nous allons prendre les argents des pauvres pour bénéficier le retour d'impôts des personnes qui ont les moyens.

Even though the deficit at the present time is $89 billion, in the year 2000 it will reach either $117 billion or $119 billion.

Municipalities are going to be hit with police services which will in turn have user fees. We had the experience in Ottawa.

La police d'Ottawa a demandé un montant de 15 000 $ pour poursuivre une enquête qui a été débutée. Sans ce 15 000 $, on ne pouvait pas continuer avec l'étude qu'il a fallu faire, ou les recherches.

This bill forced the cutting of some programs. The new ventures loan program was cut completely. This gave people a chance to start new businesses. I have a person in Cumberland by the name of Tim McNeely who was registered and had received the okay from the bank; he went to take a course at Algonquin College. On March 21, 1996, he was advised by the bank that the loan was not available any more. This loan would permit these people to start a business which would create some employment, but the contents of Bill 47 will eliminate the program that was put in place a few years ago to help start up businesses.

Ce projet de loi n'aidera certainement pas les familles à faible revenu. Si nous regardons à l'intérieur de ce projet de loi-là, ça nous permettra aussi de mettre sur pied les appareils de loterie vidéo. Ces appareils vont prendre l'argent des poches des pauvres pour bénéficier aux riches qui vraiment vont retirer un retour d'impôts additionnels. Je regarde les revenus des personnes de l'Orignal, de Hawkesbury, de St-Eugène ; le revenu moyen pour une dame dans ce secteur est de l'ordre de 19 000 $. Ces personnes vont bénéficier d'une réduction d'impôts d'environ 1,25 $ par semaine. Est-ce que c'est ça vraiment, l'encouragement de mettre sur pied des programmes et retourner les personnes au travail ?

On dit que la réduction d'impôts a été mise sur pied pour créer de l'emploi. Je ne crois pas que ça va créer de l'emploi. Il a été prouvé dans le passé qu'avec cette réduction d'impôts, les personnes vont bénéficier de voyages à l'extérieur du pays. Donc, ça va définitivement améliorer l'économie dans les autres pays et non ici-même au Canada.

1720

Since I'm limited in the time that I have today because some of my colleagues want to speak on that, I'd just like to say that definitely I will be voting against Bill 47 because it gives nothing to poor people in our province and absolutely nothing to the municipalities of Prescott and Russell.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 47 and to say to the people of Ontario that the cornerstone of this bill is the cornerstone of the government's fiscal plan, and that is to cut services in the province and then to cut taxes. The plan is to cut provincial income taxes by 30%.

I would say that even many of my Conservative friends, when I say to them, "You realize that this government, over the next four years, is going to increase the debt of the province by $22 billion," they say, "That can't be; that's impossible."

For every family in the province of Ontario, this government plans to add about $8,000 of debt to the province's books. It's all spelled out on page 43 in the budget, where the debt will go up by $22 billion. I might add that over that period of time the interest, just the interest, that the people of Ontario will have to pay on the added debt is $5 billion. Why is that the case? Why are we going to go out and borrow $22 billion? It's because a majority, over half, of that increase in the debt is because of the tax cut.

What the government has said to people in Ontario, to teachers, is: "We cannot afford any longer to fund education the way that you might like. We're going to have to cut educational spending."

Two weeks from now seniors in this province in our nursing homes are going to be asked -- not asked; told -- to pay $2 for each prescription. By the way, that is completely contradictory to the promises made in their campaign document, the Common Sense Revolution. But seniors are going to have to pay $2.

I was in a nursing home two nights ago, and there on the desk when I went in was this pamphlet about paying the fee. I gave a little talk, and one of the seniors said: "Listen, Mr Phillips, you're being too kind to the government. You go down there and you tell them what we think about this fee. They promised in the election campaign no new user fees, and July 15 we're facing new user fees."

Our law enforcement organizations right across this province are facing significant cutbacks. Our hospitals: My leader today pointed out that just today at noon there was a directive -- and by the way, it wasn't a recommendation of the government; it was a directive from the government -- to completely contradict many of the wishes in Thunder Bay around health care.

Why are all those cuts going on? It's because over half of this increase in the debt is to fund the tax cut. The government itself -- I always use the government figures so that we don't get into an argument about blah, blah, blah, "You're using this figure" -- says the tax cut, in this year's dollars, is $5 billion. When we talked to the officials and said, "Well, yes, it's $5 billion right now; what will it be three and four years from now?" they said, "Well, it's substantially higher than that."

So we have this extraordinary fiscal plan where the government says: "We are so desperate to get our fiscal house in order that everybody has got to tighten their belts. We've got to cut our educational spending. Municipalities, we're going to cut your support from the province in half. University students, you're going to have to pay 20% more in tuition fees; come this September, 20% more. College students, you're going to have to pay 15% more."

Furthermore, you're saying that may not be the end of it. There's going to be more cuts coming.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Phillips: Now the member for Nepean is starting to bark, but you made a promise to the students in the campaign: "We will take the cost of education that you pay up to 25%." That was your promise. Well, then you published a document showing the students already are funding more than 25%. Furthermore, you said there will be a "slight increase" in tuition fees. You got a lot of students voting for you.

What happens? The very first time that you have an impact on them, their tuition fee goes up by 20%. And why? It is because this government has decided that it wants to implement a tax cut of 30% that will cost -- every penny of it, by the way, borrowed money. Again, I point out that these aren't my numbers; these are the government's numbers, the direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution. It points out the revenue lost by the tax cut, and it is, over the next four years, about $12 billion while you take the debt of the province up by $22 billion.

So I say to the government, yes, people in this province are prepared to do their bit to get the deficit under control. They are prepared to sacrifice to get our deficit eliminated. But they have an awful lot of difficulty, when they're being asked to make major sacrifices -- if we have to do those enormous cuts in the interest of getting the deficit under control, tell me again how we can afford a tax cut that if you're making $150,000 in this province you're going to get $5,000 more a year in take-home pay. How can we afford that?

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The member across -- one of them is barracking. Those again are not my numbers; they're the government numbers.

So that's the first thing about Bill 47 that I think the people of Ontario have a right to be aware of, that the government over the next four years is going to add $22 billion to the debt of this province -- $8,000 a household -- a dramatic increase in interest costs to pay for that debt, and a majority of that deficit is accounted for by the tax cut.

I know the tax cut's very popular. As I said, I don't think there's a service club in Ontario that the Conservative members haven't phoned and said, "I want to come and talk to you." When you get there, they'll give you the big pat on the back, "Thank you very much for the tax cut," but the penalty that the people of Ontario are paying right now is severe. I guarantee you, I absolutely guarantee you that people won't forgive you.

When you said you wouldn't introduce new user fees, and then less than a year into your mandate new user fees; when you said you wouldn't touch health care and 20% of the hospital funding is gone; when you said you would guarantee classroom education funding, and we now find for students enormous tuition fee increases, and for classrooms across this province they are being either larger classes, junior kindergarten's eliminated, our education for our adults has been eliminated -- things that the government said it wouldn't touch.

The second thing about this budget bill is this. The government promised us during the campaign -- and in my opinion, this is probably the most important promise the government made, and it wasn't a general promise and it wasn't a hazy promise; it was very specific -- "this plan will create 725,000 new jobs over the next five years starting January 1, 1996." And yet the budget that this bill is implementing points out, strangely enough, on page 39 in the budget -- and the people of Ontario, I think, will want to look at this document -- it points out that in 1996 there are going to be -- these are the government numbers -- more people out of work than there were in 1995. And then it goes on to point out that in 1997 there will be more people out of work than there were in 1995, and in 1998 more people out of work than there were in 1995. Not my numbers. These are the government's own predictions about unemployment.

1730

So we find the Common Sense Revolution is well under way, it's sweeping the land, and what's happening? Here's what's happening. I happened to look at the most recent government release on jobs. Yes, it's just a year into their mandate and I don't blame them for all the employment problems, although I must say I was surprised that when there was a good month for employment, February, the government took credit for it and said, "Look, the Common Sense Revolution is working."

The report cards are beginning to come in. Employment in Ontario decreased 17,000 in May. The release goes on to point out in table 12 that there were actually 10,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than there were three months ago. We find that on January 1 there were 489,000 people unemployed in Ontario. What is it now? It's 526,000, almost 40,000 more people out of work in Ontario than there were on the first of the year.

I agree it is early in the mandate, but perhaps the most important promise this government made was its jobs promise, yet I could scarcely believe it when I got the budget. The government itself is predicting there will be more people out of work in 1996, 1997 and 1998 than when the government came into office. I add, and I think this is strange, that in 1994 the gross domestic product growth in Ontario was 5.5%; in 1995 it was 3.1%. Those were the final years of the NDP government, the one the current government rails against. What are they predicting? The government is predicting for 1996 real growth of 1.9%; in 1997 real growth of 2.8%.

What do we have now? First we have the government's fiscal plan with the debt going up $22 billion over the next four years. Every family in this province will owe $8,000 more four years from now than it does right now, and we'll be paying interest on that. Why? It is because a majority of that increased debt is a result of the tax cut. Who benefits by the tax cut? Those best off in our province. The more you make, the bigger the cut.

We're finding that people who are most vulnerable -- the unemployed, people whose incomes are small -- get very little of the tax break, obviously, if they're unemployed, but they are facing user fee after user fee, including a user fee on drugs, something this government gave a solemn promise on. It couldn't have been clearer in the Common Sense Revolution: "no new user fees; no new copayments."

Why is that? The public should understand very clearly that this government is going to implement the tax cut; I have no question of that. It is a fundamental belief of the true believers in the Common Sense Revolution, the core belief. They won't back off that.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: Mr Jordan is barking over there, but as I go to my seniors' homes and what not I'll say, "Mr Jordan ran on a campaign where he went around the nursing and seniors' homes in his riding and said, `Elect me, trust me, I won't introduce any new user fees.'" Now we're exactly a year into the mandate, and what is Mr Jordan doing? He's got a new user fee for seniors and he is seeing hospitals close across the province, and OPP detachments being closed when he ran on a campaign of law and order. It will be very interesting.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Again they're barking across the way because they don't like to hear that the people of Ontario are beginning to wake up to the fact that you promised a lot of jobs and you're not delivering them. You promised you would not introduce new user fees and you've introduced new user fees. You promised you would maintain classroom spending and you're not. Why is all that happening? Because you want to give a tax break to the best off, the richest in this province, and every penny of that is borrowed money.

This is voodoo economics. It's like saying to somebody, "We finally earned enough money we can declare a dividend," when you're losing money and you can't afford a dividend, but "We're going to declare it anyway." This budget bill begins the implementation of that. I assure you three years from now, as the quality of life in this province is suffering, we will find that those who are best able to deal with it are also the ones who are getting the big tax break.

I also say that I was mildly surprised by the elimination of the employer health tax in this bill on the first $400,000 of payroll. This was going to be the big -- the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you went and ran with all the small business people and said: "Listen, elect me. I'm going to get rid of this."

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): You weren't even there. You don't know what I said.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Well, he's barking. I assume you ran on this campaign. If you didn't, then you can correct the record later tonight. But I assume you ran on this.

Mr Hastings: Don't assume anything.

Mr Phillips: The member from Etobicoke is saying perhaps he didn't run on this campaign. This is what you promised. This is what the people of Ontario assumed you were running on. You promised that you were going to eliminate the employer health tax on the first $400,000 of payroll and you were going to do it immediately. This was the big engine, the job-creating engine. Strangely enough, the big job-creating engine isn't being eliminated. As a matter of fact, the government said: "This is the thing that will create all these jobs. This is the one thing that will get things going."

What have you done? You got elected a year ago. Nothing's happened on the employer health tax. You've been in office for a year. Nothing's happened. Furthermore, nothing is going to happen at all in 1996 on the employer health tax, your big job-creating engine, the thing you said you would move on quickly -- nothing. Then we find that you're going to implement it not quickly; it will be 1998 before you implement your promise on the employer health tax.

Amazingly enough to me, on the bill that deals with the details of the employer health tax, the very first thing you actually do instead of reducing the employer health tax is you increase the tax by eliminating what used to be a holiday. Right now, if you hire someone in the province of Ontario, you don't pay the employer health tax on the first year of that employee. But the very first thing you have in your bill here is, "Let's terminate the one-year tax holiday on increases in payroll, effective the end of 1996." Not only have you decided to delay the implementation of the elimination of the employer health tax on the first $400,000 of payroll -- delay it dramatically -- you've actually increased the taxes for small business.

Why is all that happening? It is happening to fund the tax cut and it is happening by the government deciding to violate the principles it ran on. Certainly you ran a great campaign; certainly the people of Ontario bought it. They bought this: "This plan guarantees full funding for health care, law enforcement, and education spending in the classroom."

We now find school board after school board, college after college, university after university, having to cut classrooms. We now find our law enforcement organizations actually cutting staff. Why? Because they rely on government funding from the government to municipalities, and you've cut that funding literally in half.

In the health care area, I repeat that on July 15, as people in this province go to get their needed prescriptions, as people who are in nursing homes find that before they can get their prescription they've got to lay out $2 -- and that's a clear violation of a very specific promise you made here.

1740

You're now saying, "It exists in other provinces." Yes, but that isn't what you said during the campaign. You said during the campaign that you looked at other provinces, you looked at these copayments, you looked at user fees in other provinces -- "We looked at those kinds of options, but we decided on something different." Now we find that you didn't decide on something different; you just decided not to tell anybody before the election that you were going to bring in these user fees.

It's the second part of Bill 47 that is questionable at best, and that is the job-creating potential of the Common Sense Revolution, and we already find that the government itself, rather than seeing the numbers of people out of work dropping, is predicting more people out of work. There are actually more people out of work in the province of Ontario today than when you came into office a year ago. You came into office a year ago saying, "Finally there's a breath of fresh air in the province." A year ago, at the end of May, there were 504,000 people out of work, and here we find 526,000 people out of work. These are your own Ministry of Finance numbers. At the end of May last year, 504,000 people; at the end of May this year, 526,000 people. As I say, I don't blame the government or hold it accountable for all the problems of the province at this stage, but it's a year into the mandate and now people are beginning to ask the tough questions.

We find that this bill will add dramatically to the deficit and the debt of the province; it will dramatically reward the best-off in our province; it will drive cuts in expenditures in areas you said you would never cut, and so I think the people of Ontario -- and I accept they still are supportive of this government -- are beginning to ask the right questions, including, I might add, the right questions about the style.

One of the things that concerns me most about this government is its approach to dealing with the problems. I'm very disturbed about what I've seen coming out of the Solicitor General's office and I'm very disturbed about the way the situation developed at Ipperwash. I'm very disturbed about the way the response took place here in the Legislature when the Legislature opened on March 18 and I'm very disturbed about the alleged beatings at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. It's all part of a pattern. I think people will begin to recognize that what we have is a government that will look after those who are best able to look after themselves and will punish the most vulnerable. We've got a mean-spirited government, and this bill is the start of implementing that mean-spirited approach.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): It seems that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has clearly stated that the realities of June 1995 are now about to sink in. Personally, I'm not surprised that the people of Ontario bought their story. The story at that point in 1995 juxtaposed their plan with what had happened previously with the NDP. Of course, they'd lost all credibility. Can you imagine -- Madam Speaker, you would know about that; you would appreciate that actually -- within a few short years, less than five years, the debt of Ontario doubled? I'm almost flabbergasted to have some of them stand up and righteously proclaim that they still have the best intentions at heart and have the best plan for Ontarians. What a story.

I am consequently not shocked that the Progressive Conservatives came to office because they had another story. It sounded great in 1995, but today we know that what sounded great in 1995 is not necessarily great in 1996. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt indicated, the debt we will have to get into, the money we will have to borrow, especially when we look at Bill 47, will be $22 billion. The interest rate alone on that is very massive, consequently we do not really understand why you would insist on a 30% tax reduction when the numbers are so massive and staring you in the face and you will have to pay an exorbitant amount of interest.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, would you like to sum up?

Mr Phillips: The concern I have fundamentally is about the job situation and my overriding concern is particularly about jobs for our young people. I don't think there's any question that the unemployment rate among our young people, ages 15 to 24, is well above 25%. It's officially reported at somewhere around 16%, but about 120,000 or 130,000 of them dropped right out of the labour force. We are finding and I think increasingly will find our young people extremely alienated.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Fearmongering.

Mr Phillips: Mr Jordan said, "Fearmongering." Let me tell you that if you don't begin in your caucus, as we do in our caucus and I'm sure the NDP do in their caucus, to start talking about the despair our young people face, you are going to sow the seeds of a dramatic problem; I absolutely guarantee it. If we don't recognize that our young people are bearing the brunt of what's going on out there right now, the unemployment rate well above 25%, the tuition fee increases of 20% and 15%, the desperate job situation they face --

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It happened in one year, did it?

Mr Phillips: The member said, "Did it happen in one year?" No, it didn't happen in one year, and if you'd listen, you would recognize I say that.

Mr Preston: It happened in the past 10 years.

Mr Phillips: But to say "fearmongering," I say to Mr Jordan, wake up, because if you and your caucus don't wake up to this being a significant problem, I guarantee you we are looking for trouble in Ontario. I say to all of us that I attempted to make it a non-partisan issue, but Mr Jordan chose to say it's fearmongering.

Mr Jordan: You're not only fearmongering, you lack status.

Mr Phillips: If it's fearmongering, I don't care, because it's time you woke up.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time is up. Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaking to Bill 47, I want to tell you in advance that I'm going to be voting against it, as is every New Democrat here in the Legislature. I'll be focusing in the discussion on Bill 47 as providing that phenomenal election promise of a tax break, an election promise that was hammered away at during the course of last year's election here in Ontario, that had, as has been noted by any number of people, more than a little bit of appeal to a whole lot of voters, no two ways about it.

But we recognize, as we become exposed day after day to what's happening in this new Tory Ontario, and we understand that somebody's got to pay for that tax break. Somebody's got to pay so that the promise of a tax break to the very richest in our society can be fulfilled.

One of the reasons we're here at a quarter to 6 on June 27, the last day the House is sitting in this session, still debating bills and not having planned things so that we can even be close to wrapping up events for the day and for this session, is that much of yesterday and today was very much focused on who's paying for the tax break.

You're going to recall that yesterday and the day before in my private member's statement the issue of the attack on the 22 foodservice workers downstairs in this very Legislative Assembly was raised here in the chamber. We witnessed the destruction that this tax break for the very rich is causing, because we saw who is paying for it. It's those 22 women and men for whom there's no job come Monday -- finished. It's gone; it's over. Every one of the members of this Legislative Assembly making $78,000-plus a year is going to get a paycheque next week.

Twenty-two women and men working downstairs, some for as long as 18 years: Anna -- we talked about her with her permission -- 56, 57 years old now, is not going to find work anywhere else. There are no other jobs for her; we know that. We're not talking about reducing the deficit or reducing the debt; we're talking about giving a tax break to the very richest that's going to cost the people of Ontario an additional $20 billion in borrowed money. This government is going to have to borrow up to $22 billion just to pay for the tax break. That's in addition to all the victims it leaves behind, the human debris, the human flotsam it leaves behind as it pursues this break for the very richest. The folks downstairs in the Legislative Assembly foodservices department, they're the kind of folks this province is made up of.

1750

Things seemed to a whole lot of Ontarians to be relatively fine as long as it was, oh, single mothers who were being beaten up on. They were told to take the hit, the 21%, 22% reduction in support for themselves and their children, and live as often as not in far less than suitable accommodations but try to survive through these incredibly difficult times of high unemployment and no jobs.

If the Tories are going to keep their promise, why don't they keep their promise to create 725,000 new jobs? Please, I say to Mike Harris, if you're going to keep a promise, back off on the tax break for your rich friends but keep your promise to create 725,000 new jobs.

That's what people here in the province and folks down in Welland-Thorold are telling me with sincerity and with more than a little bit of desperation. They haven't got a whole lot of confidence in their future and in the future of their children with this government's policies that favour very much the rich and the powerful wherein big banks, making billions of dollars of profit a year, last year and this year once again record profits, in a society in which they flourish at the expense of little people, of working people and retirees and pensioners and students and the sick, a society in which big corporations -- this is Harris's Tory Ontario -- like General Motors, with its record profits last year of $1.4 billion, flourish with massive, new, unprecedented record profits but little people keep taking the hit, like the folks in Welland-Thorold, like the folks in every community across this province, like the folks downstairs, the foodservice workers here at Queen's Park.

There's going to be a one-week shutdown, and then who moves in but another big corporate friend of the Tories. Marriott -- I know you're familiar with them, Speaker -- moves in with a sweetheart deal, a sweetheart contract with his friends wherein they're guaranteed profits. What's going to happen is that even if they don't make a profit, out of general revenues the Legislative Assembly has to piece them off, do the grease, the payola, because that's the kind of contract big corporations are able to negotiate with this government, with people of this ilk, these Tories. Again, 22 committed, dedicated, long-serving workers downstairs are being sent home and told, "Don't bother to come in on Monday."

Let's take a look at some of the people we're talking about. These people are characteristic of the victims we're witnessing across Ontario. This government was okay to the middle class and to working people as long as the victims were the other, as long as it was single mothers, as long as it was the poor who were being told to live on 22% less of what was already a modest income. Now we're seeing the real thrust of it, the real issue here, and it's an outright attack on working people.

The foodservices workers' roles used to be done, in the past, by a private contracting service. The government took it over, because of the problems that existed with that private corporation and the contract, in 1978. One woman downstairs has been working there not just since 1978, but for the two years prior when there was still the old private contractor. She's now got 18 years of service. She's got two kids; they're six and 11 years old. She only works a 30-hour week; she's only allowed to work a 30-hour week. Understand that.

Last Thursday she was given a written offer by Marriott of $7.25 an hour. That's what Marriott proposed to pay her, with no guarantee of a job beyond even that first day. There were no benefits and there was certainly not even an indication of the 30 hours a week she works now. It can't be done. That's not an alternative. That doesn't constitute a choice.

As she points out to us, she could end up with just two hours' work. There's no way. Two hours a day -- that's what they could do to her. There's no way she could put her child in child care and come to work with only two hours' work a day, not at $7.25 an hour, not here in downtown Toronto.

One man downstairs has got seven years' experience. He's got a diploma in hotel management. He's got a wife and two kids, and he's got a mortgage to pay. If he chooses to take this job with no security whatsoever, he's being offered a crummy $9 an hour. He just can't do it. He points out to us that because of the reduction in staff already from 30-plus down to 22, he's already doing the workload of five people. There's no way he can survive with his family on what's being proposed. His job's gone.

A 57-year-old woman downstairs with 18 years of service, and her husband's on disability, is being offered so-called bridging to retirement. Sounds good. It does sound good at first, this concept of bridging so she can collect a pension, a very modest pension. But after exhausting her package she's going to have no pay for the two years before this meagre pension kicks in. She points out to us, "Look, I've got to get through two years with no money" -- none, no income. She asks, "Who's going to feed me for two years?"

Another woman working a 32-hour week: She's been offered $8.50 an hour should she choose to come on with Marriott, with no guarantee of that job lasting beyond one day and with no guarantee of the number of hours a week she's going to be permitted to work, and no benefits. She's got kids and the oldest child was planning to go to university come September of this year. It's just not going to happen now. Mike Harris and the Tories took away this woman's job; they're taking away her child's future, because there's a youngster who's being told, "No, In Mike Harris's Ontario there's no room for you in Ontario's universities or colleges."

That's what happens when we see the sort of job destruction that the Harris government, the Tories here, are intent on carrying on.

One of the other workers downstairs, an experienced cook with four years' service, is making what is now a reasonable income. He was offered a fraction of that to work elsewhere -- elsewhere -- in the Marriott system, not even here at Queen's Park. But he's got no guaranteed hours, no guaranteed minimum number of hours, no guarantee that new job placement is going to last more than even one day. He's got two kids and a wife who's seven months pregnant.

He had been a faithful employee. He had worked hard. He had done everything he was supposed to do. He thought he could trust the Harris Tories. He's learned better. He's learned better because he's learned that there's really no choice. He hasn't been given options. He's been told: "There's the door. To hell with you." In Mike Harris's Ontario the fact that this is a skilled, trained worker, the fact that he's being sent out the door --

Interjections.

1800

Mr Kormos: Look, we've got members opposite laughing. The minimum wage here inside the Legislative Assembly is $78,000 a year. That's the minimum wage. A whole lot of members of this assembly make a lot more than that and they're telling little people making $14 and $15 and $16 an hour and working only 30- and 32-hour weeks: "Sorry, Jack, you're on your own. The game's over. See, we've got to piece off our rich friends. We've got to enhance the environment that nurtures the big banks," with their enormous profits and their daily abuses of little people like the folks watching this right now. These Tories are saying, "We've got to nurture an economy in which the big corporations can make bigger and bigger profits and where workers are going to be forced to earn less and less." That's exactly what the 30% tax break is all about.

For a year and change now we've been watching this government, these Tories, slash public services, wipe out thousands of jobs for hardworking, committed people in the public service, in the public sector, people whose jobs are relevant to the daily lives of each and every one in each of our communities. We've seen them chop social assistance payments, and in the course of doing that rolling up billions of dollars in cuts, all for the tax break, all to be handed over, to be stuffed into the pockets of the richest and the most powerful in this society.

Now we've got Bill 47 in front of us. Is it going to pass? You know what? I suspect so. I suspect Bill 47 is going to pass because the Tories are going to use their majority here to ram through a piece of legislation that does nothing for the lives of working people, nothing for the poor, nothing for the sick and the elderly or for young people who aspire to get an education in our colleges and universities. Well, they used to be our colleges and universities. They've being taken away from us too.

Bill 47 wraps up all this money being taken from working people in Ontario and delivers it in a neatly wrapped package, bow-tied, to the wealthiest and most powerful. It's not the kind of Ontario that Ontarians where I come from want.

There are some revelations inherent in this, because finally this government, these Harris Tories have been forced to acknowledge that their tax break for the richest and the most powerful is going to cost money. Somebody's got to pay. It's the sick, the elderly, the youthful students, the poor and the working people in the province who are going to be paying and paying and paying. It's going to cost lots of money. You heard me mention earlier that they're going to have to borrow some $20 billion to $22 billion over the course of the term of this government, adding to the provincial debt. That's in addition to the $5 billion they pulled out of workers' pockets this year by virtue of their attack on public sector workers.

We're seeing it in every community in this province. We're seeing the attacks on public services. Down in Niagara region we're undergoing real crises. We're undergoing crises in education. We finally have one. The minister promised a crisis in education. Well, by God, the minister delivered because at the end of the day, sure enough, he did create one.

We've got a crisis in Niagara. We've got children out there in portables when they should be in real schools. We've got children out there who are being denied junior kindergarten because this government doesn't think it's good to educate our youngest people, doesn't think it's good to lay a foundation for a healthy, strong education with junior kindergarten.

If you're rich you're okay because you can go to a private school. That's part of the mechanism; that's part of the scheme. The richest get the good education and your children, my friends, do without. Your littlest kids are paying among the biggest prices so this government can make the wealthy yet richer and can make the profitable corporations yet wealthier. That's what the equation is all about.

Let's talk about what this tax break means in real terms if you aren't rich, if you aren't one of the wealthy and the powerful, if you aren't Frank Stronach. You know Frank Stronach, don't you? The guy who owns Magna Corp. This guy last year had a take-home paycheque, a personal paycheque of over $40 million here in the province of Ontario. We've got double-digit unemployment down in Niagara region and Frank Stronach could take home a personal paycheque last year generated by hundreds of thousands of workers, most of them non-union, who struggle along in the most difficult of workplaces.

We've got Conrad Black --

Mr Ruprecht: Conrad who?

Mr Kormos: Tubby Black as he's known to many -- buying up the press across this province; Conrad and Babs seizing control of small-town media and imposing their editorial will on those small-town journalists so that folks in the small town will never get any real insight into what's happening in the world outside their community.

How come this government wants to steal from the working folks of Ontario, from the poor and the sick and the elderly, from our parents and our grandparents? So that Tubby Black can get a bigger piece of the action? Tubby Black needs a tax break? Give me a break.

Let's see what the break means. Let's talk about real people. Let's not talk about Conrad and Babs Black. Let's talk about a couple with two kids, like a whole lot of families down where I come from, with an income of, let's say, $25,000 or $26,000. Believe it or not, Speaker, because I know you're from Toronto, there are a whole lot of families, working families, hard-working families that have been coping, struggling to raise two kids on an income of $25,000 a year down where I come from, and that's if they're fortunate enough to be employed in Mike Harris's Tory Ontario.

Let's talk about what the tax break is going to mean for a couple with two kids and an income of $25,000 to $26,000 a year. Do you know what Harris's tax break is going to do for them for the whole tax year of 1996? The tax break for these hard-working folks in Welland-Thorold, like so many of them, will be $22 -- not a month, but a year. That 22 bucks is going to be used up in short order by the new user fees that are being imposed at every level, on everything: user fees if you're a victim of crime, because we know that's coming down the road, coming down the tubes; user fees if you want to access a library: user fees if you've got to go to get a prescription filled down at Vasko's Pharmacy on Ontario Road; user fees that are coming down the pike for things like garbage pickup, increased user fees for water services to households.

1810

The prospect of privatization: Look, we see this government, the Harris Tories, in this orgy of privatization, privatizing things like our foodservice workers down here in the Legislative Assembly so that 22 hard-working women and men are sent out the door with no so much as a "How do you do?" or a "Thank you kindly."

We know now that there are plans to facilitate the privatization of water and sewer systems in each and every community across this province, in each and every regional municipality. There are companies out there -- one from France that has a whole lot of experience doing this in France set up office right here in Toronto and is ready to lay out hard cash on the barrelhead to municipalities and regional municipalities to buy their water and sewer systems. Because of the incredible attack on municipalities and on the public sector by the Harris Tories, these communities are becoming increasingly anxious to raise money any way and wherever and whenever they can.

Once those municipalities have been forced to sell off their water and sewer systems, control over the delivery -- that private company owns the pipe, owns the line under the ground, just like Rogers and your cable. Nobody's doing you any favours there; they're motivated by the desire to make profits. When they've got the monopoly, when they've got the only water and sewage line in town, you've got no choice but to pay what they tell you to. Ontarians are going to pay and pay.

You don't like the figure of a $25,000 income and what that does for a family of four in terms of a tax break? With $25,000 you get a crummy $22 tax break, every penny of which plus is going to be used up in the new user fees the Harris Tories are forcing on families and on individuals and on the sick and the elderly and students here in the province.

Let's talk about somebody who's a little more upscale, somebody getting into the middle-income earners, like around $35,000. Let's talk about those folks because we've got folks down in Welland-Thorold in that income range as well. Let's say it's a single person with no dependants earning $35,000 a year. The tax break for that person is $105 for the whole tax year. Once again, we're talking about $2 a week. We're talking about money that's going to be used up in short order by the increased transit fees.

That's happening in every municipality in the province -- increased transit fees to take a bus or public transit. Mind you, take it now, because there won't be public transit much longer. Increased user fees, whether it's for garbage pickup, to use the swimming pool in the summertime, to use the public library or, as we're going to be seeing in short order, to have you sewage hauled away or your water shipped into your house.

We all know there's a deficit. We all know there's a debt. We know that. There's probably no single issue over which there is less of a secret. The fact is, with the $5 billion in cuts, this government is going to reduce this year's deficit by less than $1 billion in contrast with last year.

This is flim-flammery at its height. This is the escalation of the disparity between the wealthiest and the most powerful and the working people of this province and their retired parents and their youngsters who would aspire to do a little better for themselves than maybe their parents could. That used to be a dream. It used to be an aspiration of a whole lot of families that your children would do better for themselves than you were able to do. That's why a whole lot of parents over the course of years sacrificed and made commitments and invested in their future and in their children's future, but that opportunity's being seized from you now because the things you invested in, the things you built, the things you sacrificed for are being taken away from you so that Mike Harris and the Tories can deliver their tax break to the very richest, so that the rich can become even richer and so that the powerful can acquire yet more power.

Earlier today when I was speaking here in the assembly this morning -- it was around 11:15 am -- I mentioned while I was speaking that folks in Toronto might want to come down to Queen's Park and meet some of the 22 working women and men whose lives are being destroyed, whose futures are being dashed by Harris Tories. Lo and behold, if by noontime there weren't some 20 people down in the cafeteria, people from all walks of life here in the province.

These folks who came in from all parts of Toronto went to the cafeteria and to the little dining room and met the workers and saw the Tory hacks, the Tory politicians down there wining and dining and, by God, having a good old time at the expense of these working people. They were anxious enough and concerned enough that the people who visited here today drafted a petition. The petition was drafted somewhat informally. The petition, drafted informally, says:

"To the Speaker:

"We, the undersigned, demand that you revoke the decision to put the 22 foodservice workers in the Legislative dining room and cafeteria out of work."

I've got to tell you, earlier today New Democrats went down to the cafeteria and gave each of the cafeteria and foodservice workers a pink rose. The reason why was out of a modest gesture of solidarity with these victims of the Harris Tories. It's a rose just like this. It was pink because it symbolized, among other things, the pink slips that Harris gave those people.

Why are we here at 6:15 at night instead of wrapping this up? Because there was some gross dishonesty engaged in over the course of the last 24 hours, because the government had promised that it would compel you to appear before the legislative assembly committee to answer for your decision, Speaker Al McLean, to answer for your decision to carry out the government's political agenda when you ought to be committed to performing an independent role.

There was a promise to have the Speaker, Al McLean, appear before that assembly to explain why he, in his capacity, would want to destroy these people's lives downstairs, but the government reneged. They flipped, they flopped, they prevaricated --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Questions or comments? Further debate? The member for Parkdale, go ahead.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me.

First, I would like to congratulate the Progressive Conservatives for doing some things right. For instance, the Red Tape Review Commission, finding ways to eliminate unnecessary regulations, is one thing that was done the right way. I hope you will continue in that direction.

But we're here today also to look at some things where we could make some improvements. Let's look at some of them. What are the consequences of the Common Sense Revolution that you are now subjecting Ontarians to and how can we improve on your original documents? First, you've made some promises that we're going to hold you accountable for. There are, of course, the guarantees that the Minister of Education and Training would not cut classroom education funding. We know now that junior kindergarten and other problems will arise because of the cuts. I'm thinking about English as a second language, and there will be a number of other massive cuts that will affect education detrimentally.

Of course, you will have to do some of these cuts because you're going to have to borrow $22 billion over the next four years, and consequently the axe will fall in an even more severe fashion. That will mean, obviously, that you will even have to increase tuition fees. They're high enough now; you've increased them dramatically over this last year, and I suppose they might even go higher next year.

1820

Then you promised also to Ontarians that you would not introduce user fees. I know that right now as we speak, some of your bureaucrats are operating to impose these user fees on July 15. In two short weeks the axe will fall and every senior, when he or she wants his or her prescriptions filled, will have to pay a $2 user fee.

In addition to that, you've done even worse, without real renegotiation or reconsideration. For instance, you're going to charge everyone a $2 user fee, especially the most vulnerable of our population, namely the ex-psychiatric population. We know there won't be any savings. In fact, do you want to save any money? Is that the goal of the budget of 1996? It said here, your budget, your future, "We want to save." In fact, you're saying: "We want to do better than you've done in the past. We want to do better than the NDP has done." Are you doing better right now?

Do you want to save some money? Look outside right now. Mr Leach, I want to tell you that right now when you walk out these doors in front, there is a limo running, there's a man inside. It's 23 degrees outside, he's got the windows closed, the limo is running. Do you want to save some money? Either cut some limos, cut some services, cut some gas or tell them, like we used to do: "For God's sake, when you're outside, it's 23 degrees, it's summer in Ontario. You've got no business running these cars outside." Have a look right now.

I'll tell you one more thing. I don't want to use them publicly, but I've got the plate numbers right here. Do you want to save some money? Do something about it. It's small, but it's significant. It's symbolic and it will set an example.

Madam Speaker, do you want to save some money? Look at our government buildings right across Ontario. We're spending millions upon millions of dollars in hydro costs. Our hydro rates are increasing. Every government building is lit up like a Christmas tree. Do you want to save money? Cut down on the hydro in our own buildings. You walk by here about 11 o'clock at night, what do you see? Has this Conservative government made a promise to save some money? I look at the budget speech of 1996, the example is right here, what we're doing about it. Cut the hydro rates. Cut the hydro bill and save the province millions of dollars in rates. It's small, it's an example, but it's important because the rest of Ontarians have to live by their income and so do you.

Do you want to make some promises? You've made promises here. Premier Mike Harris has made some promises here and we're asking you today to improve upon these promises; if nothing else, at least to keep them.

What are they? Look what happens in our own area in Parkdale. By golly, there's a good example. You've got the psychiatric population. They're going to have to pay two bucks for a user fee for every prescription filled. Do you think they're going to do that? Do you think they're going to go to the drugstore and pay two bucks for their prescriptions, or are they going to use those $2 and buy cigarettes?

What about the safety of the health care workers and what about the saving of the money? The two bucks you're imposing is going to cost you thousands. Why? We know what's going to happen out there. There are going to be more police calls, there are going to be more emergency services in hospitals, their staff will cost a lot more, and we will have to pay more than this $2 user fee can possibly bring in. Police services, hospital services -- everywhere we see across Ontario it's going to cost us money. It's not going to save us money.

What do we do? We're now bringing it to your attention and we are asking you, if you're interested in saving money, don't throw people away. The hurt and the suffering of our residents in Ontario and the west end of Toronto where I come from will be greater than your saving of the money. In fact, there won't be any savings; it's going to cost us more. What do you do? We're bringing these issues to your attention today.

Mr Minister, I'm asking you, will you take it to the cabinet table? Will you stand up and fight for all those who are going to save us money because they don't have to pay the user fees? Every senior in Ontario is going to talk to you. We want you to make a commitment today. What's that commitment? We want you to raise it in cabinet. Are you going to make that promise today? Are you going to be brave enough to stand up and really save Ontarians money? Are you going to talk about reducing the user fee? Are you going to cut it down because it isn't saving us money? You want to save money? Do that. It's one step in the right direction. Not only that, it is the right thing for you to do.

You know what? You come to Parkdale. Have a look. I'm asking you right now, each one of you, who comes to Parkdale today? Who are those people who come to Parkdale? Who wants to visit Parkdale?

Mr Laughren: We know.

Mr Ruprecht: Yes, we know. We know. We want you to come and have a look. We want you to come and have a look at what happens in our downtown streets in terms of safety, in terms of what our own police personnel have to put up with. They're out there trying to protect the residents and our citizens at night. They're trying to protect women. They're trying to give us back the safety of our streets.

Are we saving money? It's going to cost us more because you're asking us, in terms of user fees, to pay for police services. You're going to be asking us for user fees to pay even to take out a simple book from our libraries. You're asking us also to pay more and more instead of saving money. You want to save money? Look at some of these suggestions. I know. I'll invite you, each one of you, to come on to our streets of Parkdale and look at what we call the institutional destruction of a neighbourhood.

What happened there? We know, for example, that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has decided in its wisdom to bring in 1,400 parolees or ex-prisoners into a community that is already rife with injustice and unfairness. Can you imagine bringing 1,400 cases into a neighbourhood, what that would mean -- 1,400 ex-convicts -- bringing them down there? Then of course what happens is that next door to it, within 300 metres, you're now going to be asking us in our neighbourhood to bring in a children's centre because you have some extra youth you want to have rehabilitated.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Could I have order, please, in the government benches?

Mr Ruprecht: I'm not surprised that our urges and that our requests --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Madam Speaker, stop the card game, please.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Ruprecht: -- and that our pleas are falling on deaf ears. Open your ears and listen to the cries of the people in the street and you will know what's happening there. I'm reminding you that the children's centre you're putting in within 300 metres of a parole and rehabilitation centre isn't the right place to do it. Before these kids get to the home, before these kids open the door, they will have to run the gauntlet of drug-dealers, pushers, pimps, prostitutes and robbers. I'm asking, that cannot be -- or can it? -- the right neighbourhood to rehabilitate children who need an example and a role model. That cannot be.

Are you doing it? Are you prepared to stand up and say: "Let's have some sense here. Let's look at the destruction of our neighbourhood. Let's not place every social agency into one area, shoehorn it into one area. Let's look at it again"? There are in all of Toronto three methadone clinics, and you guessed it: Out of three methadone clinics in all of Toronto, guess where two of them are? The two of them are within one kilometre of where you have a children's centre, a crisis care facility, a psychiatric centre, a parole and probation office, and all of them shoehorned into one neighbourhood. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense, for the Progressive Conservatives, that we're bringing in people from as far away as Brampton, Halton, Mississauga, all over that place from that part of our cities, and we're bringing them in guess to where? We're bringing them into Parkdale, and Fort York because it's on the border. We're bringing them in and we're saying to them: "We cannot send you back to where you belong and where you have your homes, your support services and your friends. No, we want you to stay down with the other folks who have severe social problems." That's what you're doing and you're not willing to look at it.

1830

It doesn't make sense to bring everyone who has a mental problem from Mississauga into the city of Toronto and leave them on the streets because you know there's no money left. There is no money for after-care services, there's no money for follow-up, there's no money for job retraining programs. There's no money because you're cutting it. Does it make sense? Does it serve the vulnerable people?

Do you want to come to Parkdale? I welcome you two to come to Parkdale. I know you've been there before; you've been there lots of time. I'm happy you've been there, and I know you've been there too, and I know that Mr Clement, who's sitting right in from of you has been there too and we've discussed it many times. Wake up. You can't bring in people from Mississauga, Halton and Brampton and put them all into one area. It doesn't make any sense. You're destroying the neighbourhood. It's a hospital without walls. It's like a ward. You can't do that. It doesn't make any sense. You're going to have a problem here.

It's the destruction of a neighbourhood which is supported by the government, and we have a responsibility to the people to say no. We have the right to send them back to where they come from. If they come from Brampton, they should have a house in Brampton. If they come from Mississauga, for God's sake, give them some money and open some homes in Mississauga. If they come from Halton, for God's sake, open the homes in Halton. Let them go back. They deserve to go back where they come from. You cannot push them all into one area and say, "Yes, we wash our hands, that's it," like Pontius Pilate. "It's not our responsibility."

What does the Common Sense Revolution say about this? Yes, of course, Mr Shea is nodding his head right now. The Common Sense Revolution speaks about justice, fairness and a good deal, and that's what we want you to do.

We want you to open your eyes and open your ears and do something about it. Are you ready to make a commitment today to the people of Ontario to look at it? Are you ready to think about it at least, to see that you can't destroy a neighbourhood? This cannot be. This is not the right way to do it.

Just to make my final comments, we remember now that you made us a promise and I hope, for all Ontarians, you keep that promise, and that was that you will create jobs.

You said you have a plan. The Common Sense Revolution says: "We've got a plan. We know what to do and we're going to do it." I only hope, even though we're the party of the opposition, that you will succeed.

It's no good for us in Ontario -- the Ontario residents are smarter than that -- for people to simply stand up on partisan reasons and criticize the government without giving them credit. We give you credit where credit is due. I mentioned that earlier to you. You deserve some credit, but where you don't deserve the credit, you've got to open your eyes and you have to open your ears on what to do.

Your plan is going to be to create thousands of jobs, and I wish you well, but please remember the statistics today do not show it to us. Right now, within three months we know there are 10,000 jobs less, 10,000 more on unemployment than there were three months prior to this statistic.

We only hope that your plan will work because if it doesn't work, all of us will be the problem. Can you image a 30% tax reduction, a 30% payout and no jobs. This has to come back to haunt you.

I'm asking you to look at this job proposal and know what you are doing in the future. You have a responsibility now. Not only do we wish you well, but we want to say to you that you might even get our cooperation in terms of the job proposals you're going to come up with.

What will you do? Where is this job plan? Are you simply saying: "If we give residents 30% tax reductions, if we do something about tenants' rights and we get construction going up again, we're going to support the building industry and maybe there'll be jobs in the building industry. Sure enough, if we reduce the taxation, if we reduce the red tape, if we reduce regulations, that will increase the jobs"? I certainly hope so, but you also know we have our doubts.

I hope you're coming up with the right plan. I'm only hoping that you're coming up with something very specific because that will benefit all Ontarians, and to that end, I say thank you very much on this last day of this session. I only hope that by the time we meet in September the jobs you promised will begin to trickle down, because that's what you're saying; there's going to be a trickle-down effect. I only hope that the jobs you are promising will indeed be verified by real statistics. To that end, I wish you well; to that end, we're going to hold you accountable, because if you fail there are going to be thousands of Ontarians who are not going to look at you with any favour in the next election. You've got a job to do. I wish only that you are going to work hard and come up with the right plan.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I want to make a few comments on this bill, but before I do, I know there's a long tradition in this House of paying compliments to the Speaker. I must say that the Speaker in the chair now, who represents the riding of Riverdale, has done an exemplary job. It's always refreshing to see you take Bert's place or Big Al's place in the chair, because we know we're going to get firm but fair decisions from the chair. I know a lot of people in this House share that view, that when it comes to making decisions in the chair, no one makes firmer but fairer decisions than the member for Riverdale.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the tradition of New Democrats from that riding.

Mr Laughren: In the tradition of New Democrats from that riding. As a matter of fact, in the tradition of New Democrats who have been in the chair. We all remember the member for Lake Nipigon, who was in the chair and set a standard which few people have met. This is Jack Stokes, of course, who was the Speaker of the Legislature in the minority Parliament.

Mr Conway: That's when Lake Nipigon had a real member.

Mr Pouliot: A fine soldier.

Mr Laughren: That's right, and the curvature of the Earth didn't bother him. But I must say that the former member for Lake Nipigon set a standard that has not been met until the member for Riverdale took her seat in the chair. I just wanted to make sure. I know it's a lonely position, but I wanted the member for Riverdale to understand that a lot of us feel that way and I wanted to pass that on to you, Madam Speaker.

I should get to the bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Could I have order, please?

Mr Laughren: Yes, don't you people want to hear what I'm saying about the Speaker?

I did want to make a few remarks about this budget bill, because every now and again some action or another on the part of the government brings into very sharp relief the ideology that underlies the Common Sense Revolution. There have been a couple of things happen in the last little while that serve that purpose. One that has been the cause of some furore around this place was what has happened to the foodservices in this very building.

I know that the people across the province don't have any kind of connection with the foodservices workers in the Legislative Assembly. I understand that. There's no way they could because it's a very élite group who eat in the legislative dining room, a very élite group. Cabinet ministers, MPPs, senior bureaucrats in government dine in the legislative dining room. Even though it's open to others, that's who, by and large, eat in the legislative dining room.

So the Tories decide among themselves that they want a number of options available to them. One is cheaper food. They want to eat cheaper food, I guess, so they drive the wages down by 50% -- 50% they drive the wages down. Oh, if it's not for cheaper food, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are not spending enough time at the trough and they want cheap food in the dining room, but maybe I'm wrong in that regard. Maybe I'm off base in that, and that's not the underlying reason. Maybe the underlying reason is they want a cheaper operation here. They don't want to subsidize the operation in the dining room.

That's what they said: They want to reduce the deficit of running the dining room. That's fine; that's an admirable goal. So I say to them: "Why don't you raise the prices? It's the élite who eat there anyway. Let them pay so that there's no deficit in the dining room." Stop asking the taxpayers to subsidize your food in this building. We're quite happy to raise the prices. I don't intend to eat there. I'm not going to eat in that place, now that you people have reduced the wages, laid them off. They're all gone as of today.

1840

Do you think I'm going to go down there and utilize that place and subsidize the Marriott chain? Why in the world would I do that? So you people can have cheaper food? So the Marriott chain can make more profits than they're already making? Is that what it's all about? Is it to reduce the deficit of the operation of the dining room? Yes, nod the Tories in unison, like a bunch of trained seals. That could be; perhaps you do want to reduce the deficit, and I agree with that. Go ahead. Reduce the deficit in the dining room.

But guess what? There's a variety of ways in which you could accomplish that, but guess which way the Tories choose to go? It's not efficiency in purchasing, which Marriott says it can do. No, don't do it that way. It's not raising prices for the élite who eat there. No, don't do it that way. Guess what the way is? Drive down the wages of the workers by 50%, so that you can accomplish your goals. That's the only option acceptable to you.

When the workers in that place went and said to the Board of Internal Economy, "We think there's a better way of doing this," guess what? They got the back of the hand from you people. That's what motivates you; that's fine. We understand. But we don't agree with you. Then when we tried to get this raised before a committee of the Legislature, you said no. You won't even do that.

You won't even have your Speaker, Mr Al McLean, who does your bidding at every turn, come before the committee. Have you noticed, by the way, the attitude of the opposition in this place towards your Speaker? I've only been here 25 years, but I have never, ever seen the views of the opposition towards the Speaker the way they are now to the Honourable Al McLean. I can tell you, it is sad to witness, because traditionally there is respect shown for the Speaker, regardless of the party from which that Speaker sits. Traditionally, there is respect.

You don't have to be in this place more than one day in a row to see the lack of respect that's shown to the Speaker by the opposition parties, and that doesn't serve us well. I don't take great pride in that, because that does not serve this chamber well, and if it doesn't serve this chamber well, it's not serving the people of the province well, because that's who we all represent.

I regret very much what has happened, and this latest incident didn't help at all. I know it's what I would call an in-house issue, the foodservices here, and I don't expect the people of the province to connect to it. But I think it is symbolic of a lot more than that, and that's what has got us very upset in this assembly and why you saw us ringing bells today and being quite obstreperous and quite frankly obstructionist. But that's why, because we think it's wrongheaded.

You didn't listen to the people. You picked only one option, namely, driving down workers' wages to satisfy your demand that the deficit in the foodservices operation be reduced or eliminated. I agree with that. I don't see any reason -- I don't want my lunches in this place subsidized. I don't need it; I don't want it. So let's get rid of the subsidy by charging prices that eliminate the deficit. Why don't you do that? But you won't do that.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: No, you want prices low so that you can go down there and eat as you always have. It's true, because you had other options.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You were the chancellor.

Mr Laughren: We're not the ones who ran on a campaign called the Common Sense Revolution. You're the people in government now. Deal with it. Don't look back and say, "Well, you didn't do anything about it." You can go and say that forever if you want, but it's not going to deal with the problem. it doesn't deal with the problem.

I just had to get that off my chest because I really think it showed the ugly and nasty face of the Tory party. That's what it did. It was not necessary because there were other options, but you picked the easy option of getting rid of the workers.

I'm just one person. I'm not saying this should alter the decision, but can you imagine how I would feel if I went down into that dining room to have a meal when we come back here in the fall for the fall sitting? Can you imagine how I'd feel? I would feel rotten. I'd say, "Here I am, going in to eat food subsidized by these workers' 50% wages." No, thank you. No, thank you. I'd rather make my sandwich and come in with a brown paper bag and eat that way. That's my right.

I understand that, but I fully expect the Tories to be lining up for cheap food in the fall rather than paying a decent level of wages to workers, some of whom have been there for 20 years. Twenty years and they're out the door. Thank you very much, Tory party. You really know how to treat people with class, don't you? You really did show your ugly and nasty side the way you dealt with these people in this very building. It perhaps will not make an impression on a lot of people, but I can tell you that some people, I hope enough people, will see what you did to these people who are paid $17 an hour to start with and you reduce it by 50%.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Part-time.

Mr Laughren: Part-time. It is unbelievable what you did.

Mr Pouliot: More than 50%.

Mr Laughren: But that's the Tory party at work. Enough people, I hope, will understand what you did and why you did it. It's why you did it that bothers me the most.

Pick any argument you want. Let's pick the argument that you want to reduce the deficit at the foodservices. No problem. So how do you get to it? How do you arrive at that? How do you make it happen? You didn't choose any other options except driving the workers' wages down by 50%. Well, God bless you. Aren't you a wonderful bunch? Aren't you wonderful?

I guess it's in keeping with your 22% reduction in social assistance benefits. I guess it's in keeping with that. I guess it's in keeping with the application of user fees on seniors and people on social assistance. I guess it's all in keeping with that. It's a very neat package when you tie it all together, a very, very neat package.

Mr Kormos: They just voted themselves a pay increase.

Mr Laughren: Yes. On top of that, you give yourselves a pay raise, and us. We weren't asking for it, but you got it.

Interjection: Give it back.

Mr Laughren: Oh, give it back. I know that if people who get a tax cut -- let's deal with the tax cut for a moment. The Tories are bringing in a 30% tax cut. Right? So the revenues are going to go down eventually by between $5 billion and $6 billion a year; that'll be the reduction in revenues.

I understand that because the Premier and the Minister of Finance a year ago or two years ago were saying Ontario does not have a revenue problem: "Stop whining at the feds. We don't have a revenue problem." That's what they kept saying to us when we were in government.

That's fine, so you cut down the expenditures and you can cut revenues too. That's what you're doing through the tax cut. But guess who -- well, we all know who gets the advantage of the tax cut. In my own --

Mr Baird: You.

Mr Laughren: I get an advantage.

Mr Baird: Give it back.

Mr Laughren: No, and let me tell you why I'm not giving it back. I am not giving my tax cut back and I would discourage anybody and everybody from giving the tax cut back. You know what? Guess who the Tories want to turn back their tax cut to? The consolidated revenue fund. Guess who would do it? I know who would do it. Well-meaning people all across the province and not a single Tory in the land would ever return any of their tax cut to the province, not one.

I'll tell you, there's a couple of ways you can approach life in this world. One of them is on cooperation and sharing and the other is on acquisition and greed, and you have chosen the latter clearly. That's what you've done, and that's what the tax cut is all about as well. That's what the tax cut is about. I don't think you could deny that really. We all know who gets the advantage of the tax cut. They're not the ones who need it.

Picture this: A 30% tax cut to people on a graduated level, so that the more you make, the more you get back on your tax cut. Absolutely. At the same time, you're hammering people at the absolute bottom of the economic scale, people on social assistance, and now to help you pay for that tax cut, you've decided that the foodservices people will have their wages cut from $17 an hour to $7 or $8 an hour, all to help you pay for the tax cut. You can't deny that. If you weren't doing the tax cut, you wouldn't have to do any of that stuff, almost none of it.

1850

I don't want to get into a numbers game here because I'm not always spot on, but I would say that --

Mr Pouliot: Your record is almost flawless.

Mr Laughren: Yeah, right. I would say that when I looked at the numbers of the Tories in their budget and their economic statements, you're not going to balance your budget. Believe it or not, you're not going to balance your budget as quickly as -- if we'd been re-elected, which obviously we were not. Fair point, fair point.

Mr Preston: You didn't get re-elected.

Mr Laughren: Of course I got that right. I can read the paper that we did not get re-elected and the Tories did.

But when I look at the numbers, if we had been re-elected, we would have balanced the budget a year before you're going to. You know why? Because we weren't going to do the tax cut. That's why. It's as plain and simple as that. So don't you people talk to me about reducing the deficit because you don't give a hoot about the deficit or you wouldn't be doing the tax cut. If you cared about the deficit, if you gave two cents' worth of concern about the deficit, you would not be doing the tax cut.

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: You wouldn't be. I'm telling you, you wouldn't be doing it. The rating agencies don't want you to do it. They were on CBC Radio the other morning. I know you think that CBC Radio is a socialist plot, I don't know, but you probably wouldn't agree with anybody who spoke on CBC Radio. But there they were, and these are not left-wing people. I have trouble getting the words through my lips with these people in my audience, but I can tell you that they were saying that your numbers are not going to work. They're not going to work on the employment or unemployment numbers. They're not going to work. They're already not working. They're not going to work on the deficit numbers. Why? Because you're doing the tax cut. That is your Achilles' heel, my friend. The tax cut is your Achilles' heel.

I know it caters to the lowest common denominator in all of you, but it's not going to work. It will not work. I stand to be corrected as time unfolds. I've been wrong before and corrected before, so that part doesn't bother me. I've been wrong. I'm not trying to hold out myself as a paragon of perfection, I'm just telling you that your numbers -- and I'm not the only one saying this -- are not going to work and it's because of your tax cut. It's because of the 30% tax cut.

I'd like someone to tell me where the evidence is that a tax cut works to stimulate the economy. Show me where it works.

Mr Kormos: Ronald Reagan.

Mr Laughren: Somebody said Ronald Reagan. Some Tory over here said Ronald Reagan.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): That was your guy, Floyd.

Mr Laughren: Oh, over here said Ronald Reagan. Well, we know what happened with Ronald Reagan and his tax cut.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Tell us.

Mr Laughren: It tripled. His deficit tripled with his tax cut. It did not work.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr Laughren: It did not work. I can tell you --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Thank you.

Mr Laughren: What did I do? Oh, them. Okay.

Mr Kormos: You're doing fine.

Mr Laughren: No. I can tell you that the tax cut will not work. The economists will tell you it won't work and I think you should have more respect for economists. May I tell you about economists?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Could I have order, please. Thank you.

Mr Laughren: There's an adage about economists. There's a couple of truisms about economists. One is that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still would not reach a conclusion. But what I like better is the line that if you did lay all the economists in the world end to end, it would be a very good thing. That's what I feel about the economists of the world. However, I digress. I wanted to deal with some of your problems.

The other item I wanted to talk about ties in with the attitude of the Tory party towards people who don't have a lot, and that is user fees. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, if I could count the number of times when we, the New Democrats, were in government and the Tories were over here, third party just like we are now, the criticism we had every time there was even a minor increase in a user fee -- they were on their hind legs yelling at us that a user fee was a tax increase and that we couldn't disguise it as anything else and that we --

Interjection: Driving us into the ground.

Mr Laughren: Driving us into the ground. That's what the Tories were saying to us: even a small, small user fee on anything.

Now what do we get? After that, the Tories ran for election making a solemn promise to the seniors and others in this province that there would be no user fees and no cuts to the health care system. No user fees: That's what they said. I also heard Mike Harris say in the most sanctimonious of terms possible that if he didn't deliver on all the promises he'd made, he would resign.

I ask you, why is he sitting in the House today? Why is he still here? He should not be here. He broke a promise. He broke two promises -- well, probably more than that, but two that I'll use as examples this evening. One, he broke the promise that he would not impose new user fees and would protect the health care system and protect seniors. Two, he broke the promise that he'd resign if he broke any promises. How can he still be sitting here with any sense of integrity? I don't know.

There's the member from White Bucks, as I speak. When I saw the member for Kitchener walk in with his white bucks I thought, this takes me back. I was elected in 1971 and I looked across the way and all of the Tory backbenchers had white bucks on, were wearing white shoes. And I thought, wait a minute. This man, Mr Wettlaufer, is not that old. How come he's -- and then he told me he'd bought them at a yard sale. So I figured, well, that explains a lot.

Anyway, I digress yet again, but I can tell you that you're not fooling anyone with the imposition of user fees. You're fooling no one. The fee on drugs for seniors and people on social assistance is a user fee. You can try to pretend otherwise, but nobody believes you. I've heard more people call Mike Harris a liar on the user fees than on anything else. The seniors in this province are saying to me, and I'm just one member, that Mike Harris is a liar because he said there would be no user fees, and there are. I'm getting that being said to me time and time --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): You wouldn't say that.

Mr Laughren: I didn't say that; I'm telling you what I'm getting when I go out there and meet with seniors. I find myself spending more and more time with seniors, and that's what they're telling me. They're saying: "How can he live with that? Why doesn't he get up and at least apologize to seniors and others in this world for lying to us about user fees?" I say: "Well, you know, that's Mike Harris and the Tory party. They have to pay for that tax cut one way or another. What better way to do it than on the backs of seniors and others who don't have very much?"

That's plain and simple. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I haven't heard any heckling of me on this issue because I think the Tories understand. I think they're embarrassed by this. You're embarrassed. Can you imagine being a Tory and going into the next election, whether it's two years from now or three years from now, and saying to the people: "I'd like your vote. I want to get re-elected because I like that cheap food in the cafeteria at the Legislative Assembly"? I can hear the constituents saying: "Wait a minute. Why should I re-elect you? You broke your promise last time. Mike Harris lied to us when he said he wasn't going to impose user fees. Why should I vote for you again?"

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): I caution the member for Nickel Belt about his language. Would you consider withdrawing the unparliamentary language, please?

1900

Mr Laughren: I'll try, but those are not my words. I was talking about constituents and others across the province who said to me that Mike Harris is lying about the user fee thing. I would never say that. I would never, ever say that. I don't believe in using unparliamentary language in this place, so I would never say that, and I've said to people who have said that to me out there --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member, such an experienced member -- I would ask with respect if you will withdraw.

Mr Laughren: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any request Madam Speaker would make of me that I wouldn't comply with. Any. Boy, that's a heavy-duty commitment, too, I have to tell you.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Will you resign?

Mr Laughren: No.

I really was trying to make a serious point that that's what people out there are telling me. I don't say that to them. I say to them, "If I repeat that, I'm going to have to withdraw it," depending of course on who is in the chair.

But the fact is, you really did break faith with people on that particular promise. You really did. You can squirm and skate and use weasel words and sucker clauses all you like about that, but at the end of the day you know and I know that that is a user fee on drugs. I don't disagree with what the Minister of Health says from time to time when he's asked to respond here, that we're the only province in Canada that doesn't have a user fee on drugs, a copayment on drugs. He's right. He's absolutely right. He says "copayment," not user fee.

But that's avoiding the issue of what you promised you would and would not do. You promised you would protect health care and not impose any user fees. It's in keeping with what's gone on in the rest of the country on drug plans; I acknowledge that. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you promised there would be no user fees and you imposed user fees on the drug plan. There really should not be much debate about that.

I say to members opposite, don't expect that you'll be welcomed with open arms for all your honesty in the way in which you have delivered on programs. Some of your programs, you have, obviously. You're delivering on the tax cut, and I think by and large people will like that. But when you don't deliver on something such as the commitment not to impose a user fee, then you've got to understand that people will be angry about that, because people don't always weigh things off one against the other. Believe me, I've learned that over the years. I think you have to appreciate the fact that you're going to get some heat from seniors and others on your user fee on drugs.

As well, I could go on at some length on the whole issue of education, post-secondary and elementary and secondary, about how you promised not to touch classroom education. That's another case where you're not being honest with people, you really are not. You know if you've got a brain in your heads that you cannot take $1 billion out of the education system without affecting the classroom. Do you think people are stupid out there? They know you can't accomplish that. They know that, and you know that as well. At some point you're going to have to 'fess up and say, "Okay, we acknowledge that you can't take that amount of dollars out of the system without it affecting the classroom."

Of course there are efficiencies. I think there should be all sorts of efficiencies achieved in the educational system. But you can't take $1 billion out in a year and say that's the way it's going to be and it won't affect the classroom. We've already seen how it's affecting the classroom. I think it's about time you started being more honest with people about what you can deliver and what you cannot.

I remember I got in some hot water shortly after our government was elected back in 1990 when I admitted in a scrum that we could not deliver on all the promises in the Agenda for People. I admitted that. I got in some hot water because this is the first time it had actually been said. But I felt somewhat refreshed after saying it and not pretending that we were still going to deliver or were delivering on all those promises, because you can't do it. I think you're being less than honest with the people of the province when you say you're continuing to deliver on all the promises in the Common Sense Revolution. You can't do it.

As time goes on it will become increasingly clear that one of your big promises you can't deliver on is job creation; you can't deliver on those job creation numbers of 700,000-and-some jobs. You can't do it. It's not possible. You know you don't believe in government intervention to create jobs; you just want to create the environment. I don't think I'm casting it unfairly, and if that's the case, at some point you're going to have to confess that you were wrong, that you cannot do it.

The sooner you do it, the less painful it will be as we get closer and closer to the next election, because there's going to be more and more pressure on you to tell the truth. You're better to do it now and say, "We're not going to meet those job creation numbers," because it will be so evident, as we get close to the next election, that you won't achieve it that it will be much more embarrassing for you. You can carry on and pretend that things are going to work out the way you thought they would, but I can assure you that simply won't happen.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much your presence in the chair and the way you've managed to control the unruly mob over there.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Nickel Belt. Questions and comments?

Mr Pouliot: By way of response, I hung on every word. It's not often that one has the privilege, or the blessing in this case of the dean, the wisdom of someone who has been here for a quarter-century reminding people that they shall reap the rewards of their ill-fated policies, reminding all of us that Ontarians are generous, that Ontarians see themselves as the most fortunate and the least fortunate. The dean, the member for Nickel Belt and former Deputy Premier, reminded us that whenever you hurt the poor in a deliberate and systematic fashion it will come back to haunt you.

He reminded us that there is a social dimension; he went as far as to say the essence of life when you deprive people of their basic needs and told us why: to give those who can run the fastest yet another opportunity to distance themselves from the field, from the middle class, from the marginalized, from the physically or mentally challenged, from those who have less in our society. It could have been otherwise; it could be otherwise.

Finally, he reminded and warned us about bad economics, that if you have a $9-billion to $11-billion deficit it makes little or no sense at all to call the banker and say, "Increase the credit line." They've borrowed more, and this lot will be asked to carry the guilt, for they will make every attempt to have us in the poorhouse in no time.

I thank you and, more importantly, I thank the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I've listened to the NDP give us their very sanctimonious talk on finances. I can't believe that they would say anything about finances. I didn't want to be here; you just wouldn't stop spending money. For five years we heard $10-billion deficits and more and more, and we're paying more taxes. You would not stop spending money. You haven't stopped yet.

I want members of the public to look at the members' office and support staff expenses. Every damn one of you has spent more than $200,000 except for Mr Pouliot, who snuck in at $197,000. The member for Nickel Belt, attempting to criticize us, look what he spent after plunging us into debt for billions of dollars. I heard this crap during the election, "Well, you know, there was a recession so we had to plunge us into debt." There was a worldwide recession. What other jurisdiction in the world more than doubled its debt? Nobody. Just you.

You guys won't stop spending money. All of you have spent almost $200,000 or more except for my friend Mr Pouliot, who is the only rich friend I have. I don't have any rich friends. Do you have to spend that kind of money? No. Look at what Mr Laughren spent. He spent $252,000. Right underneath that is the Honourable Al Leach, who is one of our ministers. He spent $121,000 -- half of that.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Wentworth North to consider withdrawing his unparliamentary language.

Mr Skarica: If I used any, I apologize, but it just infuriates me to hear the sanctimonious talk from the other side when they tried to bankrupt the province.

1910

Mrs Pupatello: It's always with pleasure that we sit and listen to the member for Nickel Belt talk about his views of what the government is doing. Coming from Windsor-Sandwich, where we had an NDP member, I remember the kinds of policies that drove me as an individual to consider running for the Liberal Party. We had a lot to say about the negatives of an NDP government. If we had to put it on a scale, yes, they had a lot of problems, and that made me run, but in the face of what we're dealing with now, I agree with just about everything the member for Nickel Belt said. I was very happy to sit and listen and would listen to more.

Some of the other commentary that we hear, the new members of government have to have a good look at what those lists are when they talk about expenses. They have to understand that they've got to compare new member expenses to those who have been here before or those who have other duties as well. There is a whole bunch of issues that will ultimately determine what the expenses are for members' offices. If the member is not prepared to stand up and give a full description, it's really incumbent on him not to bring the issue up at all. Frankly, I'm surprised, because the member of government usually tends to be quite reasonable in all his deliberations that I've heard so far.

Interjections.

Mrs Pupatello: I congratulate the member for Nickel Belt and I look forward to more of his dialogue this evening.

The Acting Speaker: I remind all members that interjections are out of order, and even more so, if that's possible, if you're not in your own seat.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I was intrigued by some comments of the member for Wentworth North. It's incredible with what passion they can speak about the things they are doing, as if they are something the people out there are necessarily enjoying. Think of this: You're taking $8.3 billion out of the economy. The government is an important player in the economy. You will have taken, by next year, $8.3 billion.

Think of what downsizing means to the people of Ontario. It means greater unemployment, which we've been suffering for the last many years, and the result of your downsizing as well as the private sector downsizing, which means people are being fired, is serious, serious unemployment; the result is that people don't have money to spend.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You spent it all.

Mr Marchese: One of the members said we spent it all. Imagine the courage they have to give an income tax cut to people in Ontario. What does this income tax cut mean? It means it will put us into debt by approximately another $20 billion. You speak of that as having the courage to help the little guy out there, young children who are going to grow up into a future when you, through your income tax, are going to take out of the economy approximately $20 billion. You speak of that as courage: courage to further unemploy the people of Ontario, courage to create greater poverty in this province, courage to create greater homelessness in Toronto and all parts of Ontario. That courage causes greater poverty, greater unemployment and puts more and more people out of a job who won't be able to feed their families. That's not courage.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The level of noise is certainly accelerating in the chamber.

The member for Nickel Belt has two minutes to respond.

Mr Laughren: I wanted to thank the member for Lake Nipigon for his comments and the member for Windsor-Sandwich for her comments as well -- I appreciate that -- and the member for Fort York --

Mr Tilson: And the member for Wentworth North.

Mr Laughren: Jeez, you're impatient -- and to the member for Wentworth North for his classy comments on expenditures of members and defence of members in his own party who hadn't been here a full year when the reporting of that expense account came down. He's comparing people who've been reported for a 12-month period versus those who were reported for considerably less than a 12-month period because the election wasn't until June and they didn't get into office until later that month.

As well, of course, you've got the cabinet minister -- using Al Leach as an example of anything I find bizarre, but anyway, using him as an example of someone --

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: I got that line from Al Palladini, so leave me alone. Cabinet ministers don't have all the expenses that backbenchers have because a lot of it is picked up in their ministries.

Finally, for the member for Wentworth North to be using such sanctimonious language when I could point out members of his government like the member for Grey-Owen Sound, I would ask the member for Wentworth North to check the mileage of the member for Grey-Owen Sound and you tell me that's an honest reporting. Tell me that, my friend, before you get on your sanctimonious high horse telling everybody else what they're doing wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again, as I'm paid to do by the constituents of St Catharines, on matters of importance, including Bill 47.

Bill 47 is necessitated, of course, because the government has embarked upon a course of action which involves a 30% tax cut, one which will benefit largely the most wealthy people in our society.

If you're a bank president, for instance -- I just use that as an example -- you're liable to get a huge decrease in the amount of taxes you pay. If you are a person who's close to minimum wage, it is unlikely that you're going to get much in terms of real dollars.

I know the government will spin this out and put in their literature that they put out to people that somehow the percentage is greater for those at the lowest end, but while it is a large percentage, perhaps it is a low number, and the people who will benefit most are the richest people in this province.

If I were among the richest people in this province and I didn't at the same time have a social conscience, I would be applauding this government, but I think I would not be applauding the government if I had a social conscience even were I a person of considerable means.

One of the issues that is emerging now, I think of great significance, is the issue of job losses. Those job losses are taking place at a time when some companies are making unprecedented profits.

We understood in years gone by, when companies laid people off, when companies closed, when companies downsized and the company was losing money -- losing a lot of money -- people didn't like that, but they understood it. Today, we have circumstances where major employers are downsizing at a tremendous rate. People are being cast out into the street. Why is this happening? It's happening because the companies want to make an even greater profit.

I want to see companies make profit. That's good for us. If companies in this province are doing well and making a profit, I think that's good. We've got a lot of good business people who have built their corporations, who have built their businesses, who have built their companies through hard work and some considerable expertise and they have been successful and they've employed a lot of people.

Where the problem arises today is that these companies are now laying people off. Why? Is it because they're not making a profit? No. The profit in fact is quite impressive, in some cases unprecedented. The reason they're laying off is because they want to make even a greater profit than they did in the past so it looks good on the stock market, and it does for approximately several months to a year, but after that it evens out. It may please the shareholders, but it certainly doesn't help our society as a whole.

1920

I wanted to touch briefly, because the member for Nickel Belt did, on a rather interesting subject. There was a report that came out this week which indicates the expenses that are incurred by members of the assembly. I'm an individual who does not look at other people's expenditures and make a judgement or determination. However, I heard the member for Wentworth North tonight making some rather interesting comments -- and rather dangerous comments, I might add, at the same time.

I have registered against my name the lowest expenditures of any member in this House for the past three, four or five years. I've never stated that in this House previous to this. I've never made any issue of this in the assembly or anywhere else. I have, in fact, defended other people in the Legislative Assembly when I've been speaking to members of the news media, because they have different circumstances.

The member for Lake Nipigon is in the House tonight. The member for Lake Nipigon has a riding which is as big as or bigger than most countries in Europe. He has to travel around; he has to use long-distance telephone far more than I do. I have a very compact, urban riding. The expenses I would ever incur as an individual within the riding are minuscule compared to what he would have to incur.

Yet, you will read in the newspaper that somebody has a higher allocation of expenses. There are lot of good reasons for that. They live at a greater distance; perhaps they have to have accommodation here. In many cases, there are constituency expenses which are far greater than for some of us who are fortunate enough to have compact urban ridings.

So enough said about that. I just became annoyed when I heard the member for Wentworth North criticize not me or anybody else but other members of the assembly. I think you have to be very cautious on that and look at the individual circumstances facing each member.

I also want to go back to the issue of jobs and the loss of jobs for people in our society.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I understand the member for Nickel Belt has challenged my credibility, and I ask him if he would like to come to my office and look at my record; any time, they're open for him. If he wants to challenge my credibility in this House as to my accounting, then he should be doing that and coming to my office and not doing it in here. What he's calling me, Mr Speaker, is a liar --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member doesn't have a point of privilege.

Mr Murdoch: This member has challenged my credibility. You don't believe this is a point of privilege? Well I do, Mr Speaker, and I'm challenging the member for Nickel Belt. If he would like to come to my office right now, we'll go over my records and I'll show him what I do in my riding.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Murdoch: I'm ashamed to say -- I thought he was my friend, and for him to --

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat.

Mr Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I must say that the remarks that I made were prompted by some rather stupid remarks by the member for Wentworth North. So you might want to have a talk with him about what his views are. As far as me looking over your records, I have no interest in doing that; I think the Provincial Auditor should.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member take his seat. The member for St Catharines has the floor.

Mr Bradley: I wish to get on to a different subject in any event, and that is the corporate concentration that's taking place in the province and, in fact, in the country and the toll that it is taking on working people in this province, people who are employed by various employers, be it the public or the private sector.

I look at what I think is something that's unhealthy for our democratic system, and that is the concentration of power in the newspaper business in the hands of one individual or one particular company. I've always wanted to see a lot of competition in the private sector -- as much as possible. I think competition has worked well in many cases to ensure that we have efficiency and to ensure that we have -- the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale looks disbelieving, but I have always believed that competition can be of great benefit. However, what we have seen in this particular case --

Mr Laughren: You guys can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Mr Murdoch: No, no, I can take it any time I want.

Mr Laughren: You are so freaky, Bill.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound will have to come to order.

Mr Murdoch: What about the member for Nickel Belt?

The Speaker: Order. I won't warn the member for Grey-Owen Sound again. It's over. The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Thank you again, Mr Speaker.

I find the concentration of power in the news media, particularly in the print media, in the hands of one company or individual to be extremely unhealthy. It's unhealthy, first of all, for the business in which they're involved because we had one individual, in this case Conrad Black, who was able to take over, in effect, Southam; 58 out of 104 major daily newspapers in this country. This was done, of course, behind closed doors.

I thought it was best described by John Miller, who wrote an op ed piece in the Toronto Star. Mr Miller, by the way, is an individual who is involved in journalism, teaches journalism at Ryerson. He had an interesting description of what was happening. He said:

"The month of May has turned the Canadian newspaper industry upside down: Owners have dealt hundred-year-old papers like playing cards. Publishers and editors have been fired. And cost-cutting is threatening the existence of one of our most important national news institutions, the Canadian Press."

I stop there because today we have news that Canadian Press is indeed in trouble, because Southam, which is now under the control of Conrad Black, has decided that it is going to pull out of Canadian Press. Over the years, Canadian Press has provided an outstanding service for people across this country, for small communities such as yours up in Simcoe county, Mr Speaker, and various other small communities across this country. It is one of those institutions which has kept us together. Even in terms of radio, with Broadcast News, which is related to Canadian Press, we have been able to keep in touch with each other in this country. That is going to be lost, along with a lot of jobs at Canadian Press.

Mr Miller goes on to a rather interesting description, and an accurate one:

"When the dust cleared, one man, Conrad Black, controlled more daily papers than any person in this country's history. And it happened almost before we knew it, because newspaper ownership in Canada has become so concentrated -- some would say saturated -- that all of the 34 properties he bought changed hands" -- and listen to this -- "privately in boardrooms without the bother of competitive bidding and with no possibility the new owners will be people who actually live in the communities being served.

"Why should Canadians care about this, and what should we do?

"We should care because Canada's newspapers have contracted with their readers to operate in the public interest. In return for an owner's right to make money delivering news and opinion, we expect him to provide information that is accurate, comprehensive, diverse, timely, fair and of service to the community. We expect him, in other words, to have a motive beyond just making money. Because an informed citizenry is essential to make our democracy work, freedom of the press is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And because it's important for Canadians to speak for themselves, we have tax laws that restrict" ourselves in many ways.

"Twice in the past 25 years, Canadians have been warned that this delicate bargain is unravelling, and each time we have ignored it. In 1969, a Senate committee headed by Keith Davey said: `This country should no longer tolerate a situation where the public interest in so vital a field as information is dependent on the greed or goodwill of an extremely privileged group of businessmen.' At the time, group owners controlled 58% of the daily newspaper circulation.

"In 1981, when that figure had risen to 77%, Tom Kent's royal commission proposed sweeping remedies for what it called the `undue concentration of ownership.'

"Today, the figure tops 93% by my count, and the number of corporate players has shrunk to a handful, with Black as the lead player.

"We should care because the acquisitive Black, who professes to be a great friend of Canadian journalism, nevertheless now finds himself in the same position as you or I if we were to suddenly buy three houses on a social worker's salary. Our prime motivation should be cash flow to pay the mortgages, not good works.

"Facing a long-term debt of $700 million, even before his buying binge, is Black in any position to invest in good journalism? The sounds you hear are editorial knees quaking in Southam newsrooms from Vancouver to Montreal."

1930

The article goes on to describe the circumstances that are facing us, where one individual is going to be controlling so much of the news media. If people in this assembly or people in this country believe that's healthy, I tell you it is not.

What has happened at the newspapers that have been acquired by Hollinger? If we look at the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, if we look at the Regina Leader-Post, both of which were making money, both of which were making a profit, the first thing that Hollinger did when it went in was to chop staff drastically. So a lot of people lost their jobs. It was alleged that the newspaper could still do its job every bit as well as it did previous to that; I contend that is not the case.

The St Catharines Standard was owned for many years by a family, the Burgoyne family, who saw it as a privilege they had. They were good community people owning the newspaper, who over the years contributed a lot financially and otherwise to the community of St Catharines and to the Niagara region. What has happened is that it has become part of the Southam chain.

What is more worrisome is that Hollinger has taken over. How many of those jobs will disappear? I can tell you now that there are people working downstairs in the press room who will be losing their jobs. There are people in all parts of that operation -- in the office, in delivery, in circulation, in the newsroom, in sports -- in all aspects who are losing their jobs as a result of the takeover, and more will lose their jobs, I contend, ultimately when Hollinger, or at least Conrad Black, takes over full control. Is this good for the community? In my view it is not, because there will be fewer resources to deal with community affairs. There is one voice corporately which will heavily dominate the Canadian scene. Yet I see nobody who wants to do anything about it.

I asked the Minister of Economic Development, a good fellow, the other day in the House what he thought of this. Immediately, he said that the government would not intervene. I asked for an opinion, as I did when I spoke to the Premier one time in a question in the House, about this whole issue of people losing jobs. Where are those jobs going to be? When the Premier went to Davos, Switzerland, one of the major issues when all of the big shots got together -- I say "big shots" in a nice way; they're the major political leaders and corporate leaders who gathered together in Davos. When they gathered there, one of the topics they talked about, one of the major speeches by the sponsor was about where the jobs are going to be. How can we as a society justify constantly reorganizing and downsizing when there are already major profits being made?

If there's money lost, one understands it. Right now, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union is going through a very difficult time. They are having to do many of the things this government has done, just as sometimes the corporate sector has. But in their case, they are not making money; they are losing money very significantly and they don't have the sources, and they are not giving a tax cut.

Where we have a circumstance where a company is making a lot of money and still throwing its employees out into the streets simply because it wants to make an even greater profit, then I think our society should speak out about this and those of us who are representative should.

I was looking at a photograph today of rather glum-looking people. It says, "Staffers Listen with Worry to the Announcement that Canadian Press May Fold." These are people who work for Canadian Press and have given good service over the years right across this country. When I see Canadian Press, a genuine national institution out there, losing its place in our society, I think that does not bode well for democracy and certainly for the news media at large.

There are a number of issues that come forward as a result of this bill we have before us.

First of all, we have mentioned as the Liberal Party the issue of tuition in this province once again going up. It is not just that the tuition is going to go up by approximately 20% this year, but it's at the same time that young people don't have the same opportunity to get jobs as they have in the past. Those jobs simply aren't there.

In the past, you might have been able to say to some of them, "Well, General Motors is hiring a large number of people," or Stelco or other major employers who over the years were very good at hiring young people, university and college students, and helping them out, paying them quite lucratively in fact and allowing them to pay for their own education. Those jobs simply are no longer there, and I become concerned for those students. What we will have in this province is something where we go back to the bad old days when only the children of the wealthy can go to college and university, something that happens very often in the United States, a country that is admired by many in the Conservative caucus.

Here, we've had popular public education that has probably put many of the people who are on the government side and the opposition side through university, has allowed them that opportunity so that they could better themselves in terms of their employment opportunities and gain all of the advantages of education. Now you're going to put the tuition up again. It's already gone up 42% since 1990, and now you're going to put it up 20% more. I think that's most unfair to those students.

I look at the fact that you're cutting food inspectors in this province. I can't believe you would do that. I come back to a point I've made before: that both farmers and consumers have a vested interest in those people being retained, but because you have to have this tax cut, because you have to do extraordinary things to try to balance your budget because of the tax cut, we're laying off inspectors.

That could have the effect of making consumers less confident in our food supply from this province. That could hurt our farmers. Our farmers by and large want these inspectors on the job. They want to have that background. They want to be able to say to consumers in our province, "We have these inspectors; our food's been inspected."

There are a lot of random inspections taking place. You can be assured that we have reduced the risk in this province of any problems with our food supply, and yet the Minister of Agriculture is being forced to lay those people off. Now question marks are going to be out there and that's most unfortunate, because we have had good food supplied by our farmers for so long.

Today the member for Fort William, the leader of the official opposition, raised an issue with a good deal of passion in the House, and that was the report of the commission on hospital restructuring. We warned when Bill 26 came about that it allowed for the establishment of a commission on hospital restructuring that had unprecedented power. What has happened today? They've cut the beds in Fort William by approximately half; they've closed hospitals; they've closed the psychiatric hospital. Nobody heard a thing about that during the election campaign. Nobody was under the impression that the Conservative government would be responsible for closing whole hospitals and large parts of hospitals. That's exactly what's happening and that's why we in this assembly should never, never have allowed the government to place that power in the hands of an independent commission, totally outside the popular will of this assembly.

That's what Bill 26 was all about. If you wondered why the opposition took extraordinary action, perhaps even unprecedented action in this House during the period of time of the discussion of that bill, it was for that very reason, so that we could have public hearings across this province so people could have input from a variety of fields, either in favour of the bill or against the bill. As a result, the government itself had, I know, over 50 amendments to its own legislation. I contend that we would not have had those amendments had we not had those hearings.

One of the areas we were really concerned about was that of hospital restructuring. As I listened to the Niagara District Health Council in my area talk about going through an exercise of restructuring and a discussion of rationalization and reorganization, I started to become apprehensive. We have some good people on the Niagara District Health Council, but they're not the commission. The commission's independent of that. The commission can come in, as it did up in the area where Lyn McLeod is the member, and simply ignore all the good work that has been done for the last three years and impose its settlement on it.

1940

For those who were applauding when the Premier replied -- and I know it's your job on the government benches to applaud the Premier when he replies, but I ask whether you'll be applauding when they do it to your community. It's going to happen across this province. More hospitals will close. There will be more mergers of hospitals.

Nobody at all is saying that you can remain the same. I know the spin doctors in the government offices have told you to say to everybody and to us, "Are you for the status quo?" Of course we're not for the status quo. Few people are, and we recognize the changes. I commend the government when it has put some money into the community for the purpose of services at home. We've had an allocation in the Niagara region for that purpose and I think that's positive. I would not be critical there. I want to make that clear. I am critical of the government allowing this commission to come in and impose its will. The community is totally upset and disrupted by what is happening.

In our own hospital we have another circumstance. The Minister of Health is a person who brags about how much work has been done in kidney dialysis. I can tell you at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines we have far more dialysed patients than the hospital is receiving funding for. It looks good, and there was an expansion thanks to the former Minister of Health, the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine. There was an announcement made that thee would be an expansion of the renal dialysis facility, but they're not getting the money for it.

It's like getting an MRI. We're delighted to have an MRI in the community, but you should know that only $150,000 of that is paid per year by the provincial government and the whole cost of the renovations and the MRI has to be raised by the local community. If you're a community that's lucky enough to have that kind of money in it, I guess that's fine, but if you aren't, you're in some considerable trouble.

The issue of rent control has come forward. We have canvassed that in this House again. If I had knocked on doors and asked people, "Do you think the Conservative government will be ending rent control?" -- because that's what you're doing; you're really ending rent control, whether you say it or not -- most people would have said no. It's not an easy subject; landlords have some problems as well that have to be addressed. But what you're really doing, make no mistake about it, no matter what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has to say, good fellow that he is, is ending rent control. I think you're going to see a lot of people suffer as a result of that.

The International Joint Commission report came out today, and those of us who represent constituencies adjacent to the Great Lakes were alarmed by the report because it indicates that it sees governments, including our provincial government, cutting the efforts to deal with the contaminants in Lake Ontario. It takes a lot of staff to deal with this. It takes money to invest in sewage treatment plants. It takes a lot of monitoring to be done. It takes a mammoth effort. You know, for once we were seeing some progress. I signed an agreement as Minister of the Environment with the Honourable Tom McMillan some time ago to deal with Great Lakes cleanup.

Essentially, though, most of the work in this area is done by states and provinces -- in this case it's essentially the province of Ontario -- and I see the minister sitting in a ministry that's losing $200 million, losing about 700 staff, losing all of the resources and weakening the regulations. How can that possibly comply with any agreements that have been signed over the years between the various jurisdictions for cleaning up the Great Lakes, including the Niagara River where the minister has just disbanded the team that was responsible for the monitoring and the cleanup of the Niagara River?

The Niagara River has adjacent to it one of the most toxic dumps you're going to find anywhere in the world. The largest single concentration of dioxin is located in the Hyde Park dump and there have been seeps into that river over the years. What does the minister do? Does she address it? Does she at least maintain the present the effort? No, they disband it. The people of Toronto, for instance, have that as drinking water. That doesn't mean tomorrow everybody's going to have dioxin in their drinking water -- it doesn't mean that necessarily -- but what it means is that those contaminants will continue to make their way into those waterways, and it increases the risk significantly for the recreational and drinking water supply all over Lake Ontario. This government has made a conscious effort, because it's so intent on giving a 30% tax cut particularly to the rich people in this province that it's prepared to make that sacrifice.

I want to say as well that there is another issue. The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is a person who's had some experience in rowing. I know he is very supportive -- there are about four ministers who are involved in this -- of appropriate funding for something that I think can be of great benefit to our province financially and otherwise, and so is the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and that is the cleanup of the Martindale Pond; the restoration of the Martindale Pond on which the Henley rowing course is located. The federal government has put in its one third, the local government has put in its one third; we wait for the provincial government.

I am confident that there are enough people on the other side of the House, particularly Minister Saunderson, who knows of the sport of rowing and knows of the importance of having international games -- in this case the world rowing championship, held right here in Ontario -- and that he will be very supportive of that; that there will be money forthcoming from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, perhaps the Ministry of Transportation, and any other ministry possible.

I look forward to the province joining with the federal government and with the local government and with people from the private sector in providing adequate funding for that purpose. When they do so, of course, people in St Catharines and people in Ontario will know that we will benefit financially by all the people who will be visiting the Niagara Peninsula, the province of Ontario and our country of Canada, leaving millions of dollars here, leaving a rowing course in great shape and improving a waterway environmentally. The province, I think in that case, could be justifiably proud of its record in that specific area if it were to allocate those funds.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's always a pleasure to rise in response to a speech by the member for St Catharines. I would say to him that he's probably wrong that there are a lot of people on the Conservative side of the House who are interested in what he's had to say. There don't appear to be many to me.

One of the issues here is that this is an extraordinarily important bill. The implications, as the member for St Catharines has pointed out, are really tremendous in many, many different areas. What we really are seeing here in this House is the effect of policies by this government that in fact are driving a wedge between the people of Ontario. The member is quite right to talk about the real issues that are hidden within this bill and the necessity that we have to examine it thoroughly to ensure that the people of Ontario understand how serious are many of the issues that have been raised.

The member also mentioned a lot of other issues and it's impossible to comment on all of the things that are exercising him tonight. I dare say we share his concerns that many of the people living in Ontario are beginning to appreciate the extent to which this government is changing the fabric of our society. While I agree with him that there are still some good things in Ontario, and certainly the athletes he was referring to are some of them, one of the realities is that we are having an increasingly difficult time maintaining the quality of life that all of us have tried so hard to build. The changes that are included in this act and in many of the others this government has brought forward are eroding that quality of life to an extent that is really quite distressing for many of us. As time goes on, more and more people in Ontario will understand that this affects us all and is of concern to us all.

The Speaker: Further questions or statements? There being none, the member for St Catharines has up to two minutes to reply.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the comments of the member for London Centre, who has a long commitment to those who are disadvantaged in our province and has spoken many times in this House about those individuals. I guess at the conclusion of this session, as we are concluding this evening, we could look back at what has happened over the past year -- they had a celebration at Varsity Arena the other night and I'm sure there were a lot of people of much substance and wealth who gathered together, and other good Conservatives who wanted to celebrate. One always allows for that celebration and we always wish people well.

What we are seeing in this province, I'm afraid, is the Americanization of Ontario -- Americanization at its worst rather than its best. There are many good things about the country south of the border, but one of them is not how it is moving further and further apart; the poles are moving further and further apart; how the most wealthy and the most advantaged people in the society are gaining at the expense of those who are the most disadvantaged.

1950

Even if people on the other side of the House don't have much sympathy for adults, I think you must always look at the children. We have a responsibility for those children who are in fact innocent, regardless of what you might think of the way in which their parents have conducted themselves, the work ethic they happen to have or the lifestyle they happen to live. There are always those children. If we're going to give those children any kind of opportunity, we must provide for them. We can't simply be taking away from them, as we are in education, as we are in health care, as we are in social services.

As we are in the conclusion of our session, I hope the government will think long and hard about that over this summer.

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing no further debate, the third reading of Bill 47.

All those in favour of third reading of Bill 47 standing in the name of Mr Eves, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

SAFETY AND CONSUMER STATUTES

ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1996

/ LOI DE 1996 SUR L'APPLICATION DE CERTAINES LOIS TRAITANT DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

Mr Sterling moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 54, An Act to provide for the delegation of the administration of certain designated statutes to designated administrative authorities and to provide for certain limitation periods in those statutes / Projet de loi 54, Loi prévoyant la délégation de l'application de certaines lois désignées à des organismes d'application désignés et prévoyant certains délais de prescription dans ces lois.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have some opening remarks on Bill 54?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would just like to make a few remarks with regard to this bill. I want to thank all of the people who have participated during debate on this bill, and especially those from the private sector who appeared before the justice committee on Monday and Tuesday of this week. I think all of these individuals, representative of a wide variety of organizations that have an interest in this legislation, made a valuable contribution.

Naturally, I want to especially commend those who supported us in this legislation. They included such esteemed organizations as the consumer council of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Ontario Real Estate Association, motor vehicle dealer associations, and representatives from the elevator and amusement ride industries. In addition, even those who were somewhat critical are to be thanked for their time, effort and thoughtful input.

I just want to summarize by saying that the legislation we are discussing today, Bill 54, is not about deregulation but about self-management. What we have proposed is simply the transferring of responsibility for administrating regulations from government to a non-profit organization. In doing so, the government will continue as a watchdog, ensuring the delegated responsibilities are properly fulfilled rather than delivering them directly. We believe this will then allow the government -- in this case my ministry, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- to focus more of its attention on results rather than on technical procedures and delivery mechanisms. The bottom line will lead to better protection for the consumers and better safety standards for the people of Ontario.

In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to all members of this House who have contributed thoughtfully and helpfully during the debate on Bill 54.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The New Democrats are going to be voting against this legislation. This is yet more of the flim-flammery that's being passed off under any number of guises by this government. It's typical of the sort of stuff that's flowed out of cabinet office over the last 12 months plus.

Marion Boyd and myself spent the mere two days in committee hearings, listening to people talk about Bill 54 and what it meant in a relevant way, both to the industries that ought to be regulated -- and the government hasn't gone so far as to say that they shouldn't be regulated; the government doesn't say that, but that's what they mean by virtue of the legislation.

It's been spoken of in many ways by many people. One of the most eloquent submissions made to the committee was that by Tim Little from OPSEU who talked clearly and he reflected the views of many, if not most, and that was that this is putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. It's putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. We're talking here about industries that historically -- we're speaking of motor vehicle dealers, real estate agents and brokers, we're speaking of travel agents, we're talking about cemetery operators. But let me restrict the comments to the first three because they're far more relevant.

We're talking about businesses, services that in terms of consumers are the second- or third-largest purchases that consumers make in their lifetimes -- well, first, in the case of real estate. We're talking about industries which historically have been occupied by well-meaning, legitimate and integrous operators. The fact is, we have laws to protect people from the less than well-meaning and less than integrous. That's why we have regulation of these industries. The public deserves to be protected and that's what the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should be all about.

But we've got a government over here that's going to abandon the consumer in the province of Ontario. It's going to say, "You're on your own." The minister's got "Caveat emptor" written across his forehead because that's all that's going to be left. You're on your own because this government has no interest in regulating industries that can be very predatory on the innocent and naïve and industries that -- although I again acknowledge that the vast majority of participants are legitimate, integrous operators -- have also been plagued throughout the years by players who would abuse the positions that they're in to scam people, to swindle people, to take their money, to rob them, to commit frauds of any number of sorts.

Look, there isn't one of us in this chamber who doesn't have letter after letter from victims of the unscrupulous operators. Darn right. My friend the member from Ottawa knows that. He's got those letters on his desk. He's reflecting on their content right now, even though here we are at 8 in the evening on Thursday, June 27. Letter after letter from people who have been victimized; again, not the majority of consumers; the minority of consumers, no two ways about it, the people who have been preyed upon by unscrupulous operators within these industries. The industries themselves and the performers in those industries want a regulatory body which is legitimate and which is arm's-length because that enhances the image of the industry in the eyes of the public.

One of the arguments advanced by the minister, Mr Sterling, was that the creation of these self-regulatory bodies was going to reduce red tape. That's one of the themes that the government has been working on from day one. "I've got to reduce red tape." What was remarkable, though, was when Ms Boyd and I questioned the minister while he was there with his senior bureaucrats, including the ADM, Art Daniels, as to what kind of red tape, exactly what is it that this legislation is going to relieve either the industry or the consumer of, there were some muttering and stuttering and stumbling and humming and hawing, until finally Mr Daniels said, "Well, registrants will be able to do that electronically," the same way some people do their income tax. You go to the accountant or to H&R Block and they file electronically. Mind you, I've asked my accountant not to do that because that reduces jobs up in Sudbury where they take the income tax returns. I want my accountant to file my return on paper because I want real people doing real work for real wages.

But the ADM said, "Oh, no, we'll have electronic filing." I said: "Why can't the government do that? Why is it necessary to turn control of the industry over to the industry itself to achieve that?" Quite frankly, nobody had an answer. It was a matter of shrugging and going, "Gosh, maybe they could." And when I asked participants, players in the industry about the red tape they thought they were going to be relieved of as a result of this Bill 54, this anti-consumer legislation, once again, players -- some of the big players in the industry -- sat there and scratched their heads and said, "Well, there really isn't that much red tape now."

2000

What's the red tape? If you're a player, if you're a car salesperson, if you're a real estate salesperson, if you're a travel agent, you've got to be registered. So you've still got to fill out your registration form and you've got to, of course, enclose your cheque because after all, you are dealing with government. This government had been picking up non-tax revenues left and right, user fees, call them what you will, and at the end of the day, that's the red tape people are talking about.

Everybody, be it motor vehicle dealers, be it real estate associations, be it the travel industry -- the CAA was there speaking. They're big players in the travel industry. They said, "Well, we don't know what the minister is talking about when he says "reduce red tape." So you see, it really isn't an anti-red tape measure.

Ms Boyd and I thought, "Well, surely then it's got to be in the interest of saving somebody some money somewhere." Because we pointed out, the numbers were there. The minister was very candid. We appreciated Mr Sterling's candour during these very modest committee hearings. Lord knows, they should have travelled about the province so that there could have been real consultation. One of the criticisms of Bill 54 was that it was all done behind closed doors. It was done in secret, in the dark back rooms of the Harris government, because at the end of the day it was revealed quite clearly that nobody was really spoken to; none of the consumer associations were spoken to, none of them were participants in identifying problems and then solutions. No.

We didn't get a meaningful, relevant consumer protection act, which is sorely needed in this province and which has been needed for a number of years, going back to the days of before the last government when there was a draft consumer protection act sitting around which gathered dust, and rightly so because the thing was the most pathetic, toothless, ineffective, irrelevant piece of fluff one could ever encounter. Those were the Liberals.

I acknowledge that the last government didn't develop a consumer protection act in a state that it could be brought forward to the House -- again, for any number of reasons, and I regret that didn't happen. But with Mr Sterling's experience here at Queen's Park -- he's been in government, he's been in opposition, he's a long-time member of the Legislature. To say he's mature is to say the least, and over the years, the many years, that he served his community, he undoubtedly has had -- albeit not statistical, merely anecdotal -- Speaker, you're well aware of what I'm talking of; I know you are. I see you nodding in acknowledgement that it's pathetic that we're dealing with Bill 54, this abandonment, this abdication.

Speaker, I caution you. You're supposed to be non-partisan and I wish you wouldn't agree with me with such vigour when I address this. I don't want to get you into difficulty with the government caucus, because the Speaker is supposed to be non-partisan, and when I see the Speaker nodding so enthusiastically in agreement with what I admit are very partisan remarks about relatively meaningless legislation, I appreciate your support, Speaker, for our position. I remind you, you can't vote on this, but when New Democrats vote in opposition to Bill 54, we'll be thinking of you as well.

One of the things we talked about when we talked to the players was, what about the prospect of reducing the cost to somebody, anybody? There were a lot of heads nodding, like those little dogs in the back ledge of the car as it turns a corner anywhere here in the province of Ontario, big city, small town. People were saying, "Maybe it will reduce costs." Because you see, what the ministry told us is that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been a little bit -- not just with this government -- of a cash cow. It has. It generates a profit.

Mind you, of course, that means it's being targeted for dismantling. By God, with this government, anything that's publicly owned or operated that generates a profit, dismantle it and hand it over to your friends in the private sector, just like the LCBO. Don't forget, when we examine Bill 54, it's coming from the same minister and ministry that wants to sell off the public ownership of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and that wants to see out of work the 5,000-plus hardworking women and men who work in the LCBO, all members of the Ontario Liquor Board Employees' Union.

Think about this: They want to sell it off; they want to dump it; they want to get rid of it. Truly. But the LCBO, owned by the people of Ontario last year, made profits of $630 million. It employed those 5,000 working women and men with decent wages. This year it's going to probably make somewhere around $680 million in profits, for the public of Ontario. These guys want to give it away to their rich friends, to the big corporate interests they are so intent on serving.

Here we are. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the areas of regulation of real estate, travel and motor vehicle sales, one's left with the impression that there's something of a net profit in the range of $4.9 million, that the revenues generated in terms of licensing and other fees collected exceed the cost of enforcement by almost $5 million. Mr Skarica wants to come over and look at these figures, and by God, here they are in black and white. Come on over here, Mr Skarica.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I don't trust you, Peter.

Mr Kormos: Don't tell me. They came from your minister, so if you don't trust me when I relay them to you, you don't trust Norm Sterling. I've never questioned Norm Sterling's cash register honesty and I never would. I have no doubt that the numbers we got about the net revenues generated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- Speaker, you know what I'm speaking of: cash, net revenues, profit, assets to the public of Ontario.

One of the questions posed to Mr Sterling by Ms Boyd and myself was, gosh, if you dismantle the regulatory bodies that supervise real estate, travel and motor vehicle sales, the government's going to have to look somewhere else for that $5 million. It figures. Norm Sterling, with his usual candour and I'm sure forthrightness, said: "No way. Don't worry. There won't be any substantial reduction in the revenues collected by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations."

Can you believe it, Speaker? It's a level of candour you're not used to, I understand that. It's a level of forthrightness that may be foreign to you. But there Norm Sterling was in the committee saying: "Don't worry. The government's still going to collect darned close to that $5 million in profits." We were concerned about the fact that they would be picking somebody's pocket to make up the difference, that they would be looking to yet more working people and make them pay the difference. Norm Sterling said, "No, the impact on net revenues by the privatization or regulation of these very important industries, the net revenues are going to be close to what they are now."

2010

We started asking these industries about that. Here, we've got the CAA there, we've got Bill Davis and the motor vehicle dealers' association. Bill Davis was there. We had other people there who were participants in these industries saying: "Look, guys, you're already paying out this money now and you're paying it by way of licensing and fees to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Norm Sterling tells us they're not going to collect substantially less money, but he also tells us that you as an industry are going to have to fully fund your privatized self-regulatory body, and that's going to cost too, right? So somebody's going to pay twice."

At the end of the day, we know who ends up paying. It's the consumer, it's the little people who are customers, who go out and buy houses, although Lord knows, the real estate market has been flat because even after a year of Tories we're seeing increasing unemployment and increasing mistrust in the economy. Young families down in Welland-Thorold where I'm from and quite frankly anywhere else across this province are loath, fearful of even considering investing in a home, because they don't know what their future holds in store.

Thank goodness that none of the women and men who worked in the foodservices here at Queen's Park signed a deal last month on the purchase of a new home, because they had the rug pulled from underneath them by a Harris Tory government that's creating yet more unemployment and that's hell-bent on devaluing work in this province, that has as its goal a big tax break for the very rich and the very profitable, and lowering of wages for the working people of this province who create the wealth that constitutes the profits.

New Democrats in the last government were faced with any number of phenomena that caused them to be subject to criticism from here or there or wherever, but by God, New Democrats in the last government and New Democrats have never told working people to suffer yet more unemployment, to be the subject of yet lower wages, to pay yet more user fees so that the wealthy could become richer and the big corporations could become more profitable.

We spoke with the industry and they started to acknowledge that the way it was being described by Mr Sterling was such that they became or were becoming fearful as well of the prospect of having to pay yet more. There's a scam going on here, a little con job -- not so little because you're talking about millions of dollars. We're talking about somebody at the end of the day having to pay more, which is so typical of this government. They promised no new user fees. They promised no user fees for health care. A broken promise. They probably never intended it when they said it. What would that make them? When you say something that you don't intend to do even when you say it, what does that make you? It's the L-word.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I would remind the speaker that you can't infer something you don't want to say. I would just like you to get on with the debate.

Mr Kormos: Speaker, I would never infer something I don't want to say. I would imply it and let the audience infer, but I would never infer it. It's up to you folks out there to draw the inference based on what I'm implying. I understand you, Speaker. I appreciate the caution.

They promised no new fees. They promised a tax break and created an illusion that all of us -- our folks, our retired parents, our kids going to university or college or school -- were going to have more cash in our pockets. That's what they told us. As it ends up, there's going to be more cash in some people's pockets, but it's going to be the Frank Stronachs and the Tubby Blacks and the Babs Amiels of this province who are going to be walking around with more cash, as if they needed it.

It's going to be working folks and the unemployed who are going to be paying. Just like with Bill 54, it's going to be the consumer who's going to pay. But they're not just to pay in terms of the dollars and cents. Oh no, because they're going to pay by having wrested from them, by being stripped of whatever modest consumer protection there was for ordinary people here in the province of Ontario. One of the concerns expressed by at least one consumer advocates' group is that these hearings were held so briefly and so speedily there was no real opportunity for the consumer groups to prepare.

Let me leave it at this: We're going to oppose Bill 54. Mr Christopherson just slapped his watch.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): No, it's okay.

Mr Kormos: Mr Christopherson has stopped slapping his watch.

Mrs Boyd: Keep talking, Peter.

Mr Kormos: Mr Christopherson slapped his watch again. We're going to oppose it because Mr Christopherson is pointing to his timepiece. We're going to oppose it because, as OPSEU warned, this isn't about enhanced consumer protection; it's about abdicating the government's role for consumer protection. We're going to oppose it because it's going to generate more cost for consumers and we're going to oppose it because at the end of the day the real goal of Bill 54 is to destroy the jobs of hundreds of public sector workers, those represented by OPSEU, and to strip the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations of those hardworking, committed people who have done such a good job of supervising and regulating these industries and regulating and supervising and inspecting elevators and pressure vessels and amusement rides.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a privately owned, a corporately owned company is to make money. How do you make money? How do you make profits? By charging the most you can and delivering the least you can. It's just like insurance companies, it's just like banks; like the Toronto-Dominion Bank that sometimes even dips into people's private accounts on the basis of so-called monthly or biannual fees and carrying charges. Before you know it, you go back to the bank and your account's dry.

This government's privatizing regulation of these very important businesses. This government's abandoning the consumer. This government's destroying the role of important and valuable public sector workers. This government is betraying the public of Ontario. Any fair-minded, reasonable, intelligent member of this assembly must feel compelled to oppose this legislation. The people of Ontario don't deserve this being done to them after so much has already been done to them by this government over the course of the last 12 months.

The Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I share, first of all, the member's concern that we are so concerned this evening that we must be out of this Legislature before the world ends. I think these pieces of legislation deserve very close scrutiny and I don't think they're going to get the scrutiny they should get at this time of the session.

Part of that is as a result of the fact that the government does not bring in its legislation at an early enough time in the session and tends to bring most of its legislation in, particularly that which would require some considerable debate, in the latter half of the sitting of that session. Therefore, some of the legislation that goes through does not get the kind of scrutiny I believe it should.

The member has outlined a number of matters that are of great concern to him. I know the member for York South, Mr Kennedy, in committee and in this House on second reading, certainly indicated clearly his opposition to certain provisions of this legislation. I agree that it was important for him to do so and I wish he would have the opportunity to do so once again.

2020

I also worry about the user fees that will result from this legislation. People are soon forgetting as well the circumstances that existed before we had these regulations and regulatory bodies, where there were some rather significant problems in the travel industry, where a lot of people lost their savings, savings they had gathered up for the purpose of a holiday; where we had problems with amusement rides in midways and at fairs. We need that kind of strong regulation and appropriate inspection.

There are many parts of this bill that are not going to be advantageous to the consumers of Ontario, and that is why we will be opposing this legislation.

The Speaker: Any further comments or statements? The member for Welland-Thorold has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate the comments of Mr Bradley, who has a long history of consumer advocacy in this Legislature, along with my predecessor, Mel Swart. The two of them shared many a drive and many a train -- that's back when we had trains -- from the Niagara region up here to Queen's Park. Mel Swart was as effective a consumer advocate and had as undying a commitment to advocacy on behalf of consumers as anybody could have. Jim Bradley shared that with him then and shares it now.

What's saddest about this is the apparent lack of interest and insight on the part of the Tory caucus. We've all been on the used car dealer's lot and we've all been with the real estate -- mind you, I suppose I'm a little more benign about real estate agents than many would be because, after all, none of them persuaded me to buy a downtown Toronto condominium in 1984 as an investment.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: It's true. I wasn't about to fall for that one, but talk to hundreds -- no, thousands -- of folks who fell for that back in the early and mid-1980s and you'll be surprised at how many people are still paying the price.

But what amazes and distresses me is the lack of interest and insight that Tory backbenchers have into this legislation and the lack of understanding they have about how dangerous it really is, because it's going to be their families and friends and neighbours who fall prey, who become victims of unscrupulous operators in these respective industries, and it's them and their families and friends who aren't going to have a regulatory body to look to for protection, because the industry regulating itself ain't going to work.

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, Bill 54, standing in the name of Mr Sterling for third reading. All those in favour of the motion?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CROWN FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES FONDATIONS DE LA COURONNE

Ms Bassett, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 71, An Act to encourage the financial support of Public Institutions by Individuals and the Private Sector through the establishment of Crown Foundations / Projet de loi 71, Loi visant à encourager le soutien financier des établissements publics par les particuliers et le secteur privé grâce à la création de fondations de la Couronne.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): My comments are going to be very short because we have all spoken on this bill and we are all in agreement. I just want to say that since this initiative was announced in our economic statement last fall, there has been unanimous support from right across the province, everybody seeing it as a step in the right direction.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their support of this initiative and I look forward to seeing the results of some of the donations.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to take a minute to indicate that much of what is contained in this will of course be helpful in terms of getting a little bit more money for various organizations, for various crown foundations in the province, but the real reason we have this bill before us is because the government is cutting its own funding so much to hospitals, libraries, cultural agencies. Were the government not doing so, it would not be scrambling to give this crumb to these institutions.

As I indicated on second reading, this affects so few people. The federal change in legislation really covered this some time ago and, according to the information provided by the government itself, this is going to affect very few people in terms of donors. But because it affects anybody at all, we are prepared to be supportive of this legislation.

We are in this province moving rapidly towards a situation -- and some people agree with this, particularly on the government benches -- where people are going to have to rely on the benevolence of others in our society to obtain for them the kind of support for public institutions and for organizations that do such good work because government is abandoning its responsibility. We see a lot of that south of the border, we see a lot of that in many states in the United States, and what in effect it does is place people at the mercy of others in our society. We are fortunate that there are people who are prepared to give to these organizations, to make those kinds of donations which are very helpful, but again, the only reason we have such a need today is because this government has abdicated its responsibility on behalf of the people of this province to appropriately fund those organizations that have done such good work in the past.

The Speaker: Comments or statements? There being none, we are dealing with Bill 71, standing in the name of Mr Eves.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, An Act to provide Co-operative Education and Film Industry Tax Credits, to create Economic Growth, to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget and to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister of Finance / Projet de loi 70, Loi créant des crédits d'impôt pour l'éducation coopérative et l'industrie cinématographique, favorisant la croissance économique, mettant en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996 et modifiant des lois dont l'application relève du ministre des Finances.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for the following motion: That the debate on second reading of Bill 70, the Tax Credits and Economic Stimulation Act, is deemed to have been concluded and that the question be now put.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

We're dealing with Bill 70, standing in the name of Mr Eves. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, private members' bills 36 through 46.

2030

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1996

Mr Bob Wood moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bob Wood moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 1996

Ms Bassett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms Bassett moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Be it resolved the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

Ms Bassett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr55, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Ms Bassett moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr55, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Be it resolved the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

Mr Carr moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Carr moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1996

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Gerretsen, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Caplan, on behalf of Mr Gerretsen, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT, 1996

Mr Ron Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Ron Johnson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1996

Mr Klees moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean):Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Klees moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

DELZAP CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ACT, 1996

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Considering that there are no NDP members left and that tough, hard-nosed position they took has obviously collapsed, I would then be honoured to move second reading of Bill Pr62, considering the absence of the socialist members in this Legislature.

Mr Stockwell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Delzap Construction Limited.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Stockwell: I get to move third reading with one NDPer in the House, and we know full well it takes five of them to force a vote, so I'll continue. I'd like to move third reading of Bill Pr62.

Mr Stockwell moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Delzap Construction Limited.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 2040 to 2100.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Mr Stockwell has moved third reading of Bill Pr62. Those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ross, Lillian
Bassett, Isabel	Hardeman, Ernie	Sampson, Rob
Bisson, Gilles	Harnick, Charles	Shea, Derwyn
Boyd, Marion	Johnson, David	Sheehan, Frank
Bradley, James J.	Johnson, Ron	Silipo, Tony
Brown, Jim	Klees, Frank	Skarica, Toni
Caplan, Elinor	Leach, Al	Smith, Bruce
Carr, Gary	Marchese, Rosario	Snobelen, John
Christopherson,David	Martel, Shelley	Spina, Joseph
Chudleigh, Ted	Maves, Bart	Stewart, R. Gary
Clement, Tony	Munro, Julia	Stockwell, Chris
Danford, Harry	Murdoch, Bill	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Parker, John L.	Turnbull, David
Elliott, Brenda	Pouliot, Gilles	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Eves, Ernie L.	Pupatello, Sandra
Grimmett, Bill	Rollins, E.J. Douglas

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are zero.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the bill passed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and that it be named as in the motion.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motions without notice.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly review and report on the matter of referenda as set out in the Ministry of Attorney General document to be filed with the clerk of the committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on general government review and report on the matter of rent control, as set out in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consultation paper to be filed with the clerk of the committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

The standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bill 75, An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming;

The standing committee on general government to consider the matter of rent control pursuant to the order of the House dated June 27, 1996, and Bill 52, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries;

The standing committee on government agencies to review intended appointments to the public sector;

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider the matter of referenda pursuant to the order of the House dated June 27, 1996;

The subcommittee of the standing committee on public accounts to adjourn to Victoria, British Columbia, to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees;

The standing committee on resources development to consider Bill 49, An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act;

The standing committee on social development to consider Bill 76, An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is a debatable motion and I intend to debate it; that is, the motion that deals with the committees that will be dealing with legislation that's been passed at this time.

First of all, the committee on administration of justice dealing with Bill 75, an act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, it is absolutely essential for the people of this province to know that in fact this committee must deal with this this summer. The reason it is dealing with it is a very reasonable reason, and that is that we have had second reading of this particular bill; there has been discussion of it in principle. There has not been as widespread debate as I would like to have seen on the bill, because it essentially deals with VLTs, or video lottery terminals, which are in the opinion of the official opposition the most insidious and the most alluring kind of gambling that would attract those with addictions more than any other kind. This represents an escalation of the policy of gambling on the part of the government of Ontario, and for this reason it is our belief that this committee must hear from people across the province, both those who are in favour but, I would hope, many of those who are against. I would hope that the churches, who have had much to say about many issues that have come before the provincial and federal parliaments, would appear before the committee to make known their views on this escalation of gambling.

In addition to this, some of the other changes are reasonable. We'll want to hear from the public and from bar owners, for instance, on the merits of increased regulation of those whose bars operate without permission of local authorities or operate in a manner which is contrary to legislation and regulations that have been passed in this province.

Next, the standing committee on general government is considering the matter of rent control. The reason we wish to see this consultation taking place this summer is that we believe any legislation that is contemplated is much better legislation if the people of this province have a chance to look at the proposals that the government has in this regard.

2110

In terms of rent control, we in the opposition believe what is happening is that rent control is being removed by this legislation, or by the proposed legislation at the very least. It would be our hope that when the government hears the representations made by tenant groups, by landlords and by others, the legislation they were contemplating would be modified considerably in order that rent control would be remaining, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.

As we know, the legislation -- or the proposed legislation, I should say again -- will allow for the government of Ontario to permit landlords to raise rents in those units where people move out. This will be particularly onerous on students who rely on well-priced accommodation to be able to live in communities other than their own to attend community colleges or universities. In addition to this, we have many people who are unable to avoid moving for various reasons, whether it's to be closer to people or whether it's to move to another unit for health purposes, and for this reason we believe those people should have that chance.

You may wonder why it would be required to debate these matters. We spent an hour and a half this afternoon fooling around with bells when we should have been debating legislation. I believe this Legislature should be sitting till midnight tonight to deal with these matters. It's obvious that it will not be, but I don't think it would have been necessary if we had been debating legislation this afternoon instead of ringing bells all afternoon. As a result, many members of the Liberal caucus who wanted to deal with a couple of the bills that were before the House, particularly the bill under the auspices of consumer and commercial relations, were unable to do so, and other members who wished to address certain matters before this House were unable to do so.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Except if they were going to be here until midnight, they should still be here.

Mr Bradley: Well, if you would like them to come back, I guess they can.

What has happened in this House today is that good, valuable time -- there are valid reasons, good points that were raised in this House by members of this House, but as a result of other manoeuvres that have taken place today, much of the debating time has been lost. We have endeavoured to accommodate those who have other commitments, but I noticed in the last vote that we were not accommodating others who had made certain agreements.

I look at the standing committee on government agencies and note that it is going to be reviewing intended appointments to the public sector. This is an opportunity for those of us in the opposition and for government members to assess the credentials and qualifications of those who would be coming before that committee and making a determination of whether they should be endorsed.

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is to consider the matter of referenda. That is preferable to some of the other matters that the committee probably could be considering, matters which we in the opposition feel would be detrimental to the working of this House. But I might note that when you're considering referenda, one of the areas you might be considering is a referendum in this province on the introduction of video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines in bars and restaurants and other casinos -- not the established casinos approved by the government at this time, but a multiplicity of casinos that will be across the province. So you'll have a widespread introduction of a new way of gambling with special access now being available to those people and it being endorsed by the government of Ontario.

The standing committee on public accounts will be attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, which is no doubt appropriate.

The standing committee on resources development is considering Bill 49, An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act. Again, those who have concerns about that should have that opportunity to appear. It is useful that committees have their hearings not only in the city of Toronto or the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, but across the province.

The standing committee on social development will consider Bill 76, An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act. The very title of that act is totally contradictory to what the bill actually does, in the opinion of the opposition, but we in the opposition did ask for and receive permission to have hearings across the province, again so that both sides on this issue, those who feel the present legislation is too restrictive and those who feel it is not restrictive enough or adequate at this time, will be able to make representations.

Last, the standing committee on general government will be considering Bill 52, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries. The reason we in the opposition feel it's necessary to have these hearings -- as well, the government House leader has been cooperative and has granted the request that there be hearings, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but in other locations such as Halton and Niagara -- is so that we can assess the ramifications of this legislation.

It is appropriate that all of these committees meet this summer so that we can have the appropriate input. We know from Bill 26 what happens when we don't have adequate input from the public, particularly at an opportune time, that being before legislation is finally passed, or even better, as was the case -- and I compliment the government on this -- in automobile insurance, where consultation took place even before the legislation was presented.

We will be supporting the motion moved by Mr Eves this evening and look forward to the hearings this summer.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): All those in favour of Mr Eves's motion will say "aye."

All those opposed, if any, say "nay."

In my opinion, the motion carries.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the Assembly, and upon resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MEETING OF THE HOUSE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(ii), when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 24, 1996.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Debate on the motion?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'll speak very briefly on this. According to the House calendar, this House would normally return on September 23, which is the high holiday of Yom Kippur. I want to express my appreciation and the appreciation of my colleague Mr Kwinter that the government has decided to return on the 24th, which will allow us to attend the first day of the fall session.

I want to express my appreciation and say that I will be supporting this motion.

The Speaker: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion say "aye."

Opposed, if any, say "nay."

The motion is carried.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, His Honour awaits.

2120

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Henry N.R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 30, An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement / Projet de loi 30, Loi créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation et modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation du rendement scolaire

Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation

Bill 36, An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles

Bill 38, An Act to amend the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993 / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1993 sur l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto

Bill 45, An Act to repeal the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act and transfer assets to the University of Toronto / Projet de loi 45, Loi abrogeant la Loi sur l'Institut d'études pédagogiques de l'Ontario et transférant l'actif de l'Institut à l'Université de Toronto

Bill 46, An Act to amend or revoke various statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and to enact other statutes administered by the Ministry / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois appliquées par le ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ou qui touchent ce ministère, et visant à édicter d'autres lois appliquées par le ministère

Bill 55, An Act to promote road safety by implementing commercial trucking reforms, drinking and driving countermeasures and other aspects of Ontario's comprehensive road safety plan / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité routière pour la mise en oeuvre de mesures de réforme du camionnage, de contremesures visant l'alcool au volant et d'autres aspects du programme général de sécurité routière de l'Ontario

Bill 59, An Act to provide Ontario drivers with fair, balanced and stable automobile insurance and to make other amendments related to insurance matters / Projet de loi 59, Loi visant à offrir une assurance-automobile équitable, équilibrée et stable aux conducteurs ontariens et à apporter d'autres modifications portant sur des questions d'assurance

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting City of Ottawa

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr55, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston

Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the City of Brantford

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Delzap Construction Limited.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

His Honour was then pleased to retire.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on September 24.

The House adjourned at 2126.

27 juin 1996