Journal des débats 1997-juin-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It is with a great deal of pride that we reflect and remember that on June 24, 1497, an enterprising explorer in the employ of Henry II, King of England, is reported to have arrived off the coast of what we now call Canada. That explorer's name was Giovanni Caboto, a citizen of Venice. It is said that upon seeing the land and the plentiful fish in the water surrounding it, Caboto declared, "O bona vista," Italian for, "Oh, what a beautiful sight." It is said that the phrase gave rise to the town of Bonavista, Newfoundland. Today in Bonavista, as elsewhere in Canada, Italy and England, people are commemorating this extraordinary accomplishment of 500 years ago.

I think it is very refreshing to consider that Canada was discovered by neither the English nor the French, but by an Italian, whose ancestry is the foundation for both the English and French cultures and therefore Canada's.

It gives us an opportunity to reflect on the depth of the roots of Canadians of Italian origin in this country. These hardworking Canadians have helped to enrich our quality of life by building railways, roads, buildings and businesses, and especially by building bridges to all cultures and nationalities across Canada and contributing to the artistic and professional life of our province. Today is a day to reflect on their great accomplishments and contributions.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to point out to the House that in the Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, which has been tabled for debate in this House, section 37 says, "The minister shall by regulation designate geographic areas of Ontario for the purposes of this act." Then subsection 38(1), "The minister may by regulation designate a municipality or district social services administration board as a delivery agent for each geographic area to exercise the powers and duties of a delivery agent in that geographic area."

We all know the reason for this change is to enable the provincial government to download services and costs to the local municipalities and the local areas. What is interesting is that in northern Ontario there are very large expanses of territory where there are small communities which are not organized municipally. Up till now the provincial government has provided social services directly in those areas.

The provincial government is now proposing to download these as part of the overall download. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is proposing permissive legislation some time this fall which would allow for area services boards.

How is it then that this act, which has already been tabled, indicates this will happen when the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines says it only will be permissive, and if the local communities do not want to have area services boards, they won't have to. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): In 1968 a Canadian writer by the name of Arthur Gibson wrote: "The most imperative need of our world is not for more and more speaking. It is for more, much more listening." This revelation holds true today and is exactly what this government is doing, listening to the people of Ontario.

When Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia discovered an oversight in their funding application, they asked for a review. The Ministry of Health completed the review and additional operating funding was forthcoming. This government is listening to the people.

When Simcoe East seniors called my office questioning the time frame on annual copayment, changes were made. The Ministry of Health and the minister responsible for seniors spread the copayment over a 16-month period. This government is listening to the people.

Community care providers have been asking for additional funding in Simcoe East to meet increasing demands. Last week the Minister of Health announced $4.5 million in funding for community-based, long-term care in Simcoe county.

When Simcoe East residents found themselves in traffic jams at the Atherley Narrows bridge, they requested expansion of the bridge and roads. I arranged a meeting between the ministry, municipalities and Casino Rama. From this meeting casino engineers and the Minister of Transportation engineers found a solution. This government is listening to the people.

For years, Tom Gostick, Brian Dubeau, boat cruise operators on Lake Couchiching, Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, have been writing me asking for highway signage. The Ministry of Transportation worked with the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism introducing a new tourist signage program.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Mike Harris has decided to stifle democracy with his draconian rule changes. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, people in Kent county know the value of maintaining democracy because their democratic rights have already been steamrolled by the Mike Harris bully bill.

My caucus colleagues and I sat through the night to oppose Bill 26, to shed light on its unprecedented attack on the citizens of Ontario. I held two public meetings on Bill 26, in Chatham and in Essex, to warn citizens in Essex and Kent counties of the extraordinary powers the government was taking for itself. My press release then said, "Municipalities are disturbed by the authority of the minister to force amalgamations, and gravely concerned that the criteria to support restructuring has not been established."

It was true then and it is true now. Time after time in this Legislature, at meetings and even personally to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have expressed my objection to the flawed process of amalgamation. The minister ripped our rural communities apart in a race to meet an artificial deadline.

The Chatham Daily News spoke for the community when it said, "The blame for Kent's failure to reach a local solution must rest on the shoulders of the provincial government." It went on to say, "What is more important, doing it fast or doing it right?"

Now a confident group of Kent county citizens have banded together to take the fight against Bill 26 to the courts. Look out, Mike Harris, the Kent County Citizens for Local Democracy are not giving up.

GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today, June 24, is an important day in our history. It is of course Jean Baptiste Day and we join in noting that important day, but it also marks the 500th anniversary today of the arrival of one Giovanni Caboto to Canada.

On the shores of Newfoundland 500 years ago today, Giovanni Caboto arrived aboard an English sailing ship, and it's noteworthy that today Queen Elizabeth II is there to greet the occasion of the ship that was put together to recreate that sequence. I also want to note that the Italian Canadian community is justifiably proud of Giovanni Caboto's Italian roots and to note the presence in Canada for the next few days of the President of Italy, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, also here to partake of the celebrations. As a Canadian of Italian background I also personally take great pride in this event.

I also want to note that while these celebrations are going on, there are, as I know there are, concerns expressed by our first nations. I do not believe for one moment that either the celebrations of Giovanni Caboto's arrival in Canada or the legitimate injustices that our native peoples have need to be forgotten. Both need to be put forward and both need to be addressed and dealt with.

1340

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

M. Marcel Beaubien (Lambton) : J'aimerais souhaiter à toute la communauté francophone une joyeuse Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Cette fête que nos ancêtres ont baptisée la fête des Canadiennes françaises et des Canadiens français est une tradition qui demeure chez tous les francophones d'Amérique du Nord un événement par lequel ils peuvent s'identifier.

L'Ontario compte une population importante de francophones. C'est grâce à cette capacité bilingue que plusieurs entrepreneurs voient l'Ontario comme un endroit idéal pour faire des affaires. C'est ça la valeur ajoutée de notre province.

Aussi, depuis l'an passé, ce gouvernement a fait un grand pas dans le dossier de la gestion scolaire. En effet, suite à la restructuration des conseils scolaires, nous avons annoncé la création de 12 conseils scolaires francophones. Il y a de quoi à fêter cette année. Il faut donc réfléchir aux opportunités que nous offrirons à nos jeunes. C'est pourquoi le gouvernement doit continuer son travail afin d'équilibrer le budget et de remettre dans les mains des contribuables l'argent que, ils et elles, gagnent.

Afin de marquer cette journée ici à la Législature ontarienne, j'aimerais souhaiter à tous les francophones de tous les coins de la province une bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Ces jours-ci, et particulièrement aujourd'hui, un peu partout en Ontario, les francophones fêtent des siècles de détermination tranquille à la survie et à la prospérité.

Je veux d'abord souhaiter une très heureuse Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, quelles que soient leurs origines, qui célèbrent leur appartenance à cette grande et diverse communauté francophone de l'Ontario.

La Saint-Jean a des racines historiques et très profondes. C'est un bon moment pour les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes à penser à Jeanne Lajoie, au père Thériault, à Alphonse Desjardins, au père Charlebois, à Gisèle Lalonde, au sénateur Jean-Robert Gauthier, à André Lalonde, à Omer Deslaurier et aux nombreux autres qui ont été pour nous des rassembleurs et qui nous montrent encore aujourd'hui que c'est l'organisation et la solidarité qui nous permettront un jour de parvenir au plein épanouissement.

Ce n'est pas vraiment un moment de parler de tout ce qui menace ma communauté : la privatisation, les transferts aux municipalités, les réductions budgétaires, et j'en passe. J'aimerais quand même que cette journée si importante soit l'occasion pour le gouvernement de réfléchir au sort qui est réservé à la population francophone.

J'aimerais aussi rappeler à M. Harris, à M. Wilson, à M. Villeneuve qu'ils annoncent aujourd'hui de ne pas fermer Montfort --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We've been raising concerns in this House about rule changes. On a number of occasions, members in the opposition have pointed out that when government moves too quickly, it's likely to make mistakes.

I want to use the example of the megacity bill, which was rammed through this Legislature. As a result of that, mistakes were made which trample on people's rights. Particularly I'm talking about the residents of East York and their access to effective local democracy.

This afternoon I will be introducing a private member's bill to amend the megacity act to increase the representation of councillors in East York from two to three. Currently, as that bill was pushed through by the government, we see that throughout all of Metro, most councillors represent on average 38,000 residents. In East York the number is 54,000. I have to say that a community council, which was supposed to be the answer to effective local democracy that the government put forward -- a community council of two is a recipe for deadlock.

I hope to convince the government to support my private member's bill. I hope they'll use the occasion of introducing their son of megacity bill this week to address this very real problem. Some 81% of the people in East York said no to the megacity. Mike Harris didn't hear them, Al Leach didn't hear them, the two local Tory MPPs, who purport to represent them, didn't hear them at the time. You moved too quickly. I hope you'll listen to them now.

GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): The arrival of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip for the anniversary celebrations of John Cabot's landing on the shores of Canada allow us to celebrate two important events.

First, we celebrate the introduction of the constitutional monarchy which has played a central role in shaping our country. We look forward to Her Majesty's return to Ontario and her visits to the communities of London, Stratford, North Bay and Ottawa.

Serving on behalf of Henry VII, John Cabot laid the foundations for future English and French settlements. As I stated in the House last year, having claimed this dominion for the crown, Giovanni laid the foundation for Canada's future development as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy which would unite our bilingual, multicultural and regional traditions.

John Cabot, or Giovanni Caboto, as he was known in his native Italy, has come to symbolize more than simply the first formal steps in Canada's formation. This anniversary also allows us to recognize the important symbol Caboto has come to be for the Italian, if not wider, immigrant communities. It also provides us with an opportunity to pay tribute to the important role immigration has played in the development of Canada and Ontario.

Many of our colleagues here today and within the Italian community are the sons or daughters of immigrants. Many come to this province with one simple hope: the hope of a country and province that could provide a better future for their families than the countries they left.

Today, Canadians of Italian descent hold key positions throughout our society. They are seated in the Supreme Court, they are members of Parliament and federal cabinet ministers, and they are my colleagues in this House, but most important, they are our neighbours and our friends.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): It's a pleasure to stand before you today during the final week of Seniors' Month, where we are celebrating voluntarism, to recognize the valued contributions seniors make to our society.

This evening at the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards we will recognize and honour 21 individuals who exemplify the generosity, goodwill and commitment seniors bring to communities all across Ontario.

Each of these individuals enrich the lives of many, with their abundant energy, their varied life and cultural experiences, and their wealth of talent and wisdom.

Some of the recipients have been involved in intergenerational programs with children, passing on their talent and wisdom to those who follow in their footsteps. Others have volunteered in hospitals, long-term-care facilities and many non-profit organizations, working selflessly to assist and improve the lives of others. Still others have fostered greater understanding of our cultural diversity, the arts and the importance of our history is to us all.

Though they've been witness to change, as perhaps no other generation before them, these seniors have been up to the challenge and have embraced the change. For example, one recipient's tireless work documenting the history of his own community is now posted on the Internet for everyone to access.

In their own way, each of these people have made contributions and sacrifices that are worthy of recognition, respect and our enduring thanks.

It is a pleasure to announce this year's recipients for Ontario: Dennis Alsop, Willis Blair, Ann Bourton, William Compel, Lois Carroll, Yiu Kuen Chan, Marion Edmondson, May Greig, Izetta Hobbs, Donald Johnson, Gordon McCutcheon, Pearl McPhee, Ena Mellor, Marshall Neilson, Wayne and June Pettie, Aline Plouffe, John Poste, Sidney Roberts, Armand Simard and Lou Wise.

In addition, I would like to congratulate the more than 180 municipalities across our province that have also recognized the achievements of seniors by naming a Senior of the Year.

Mr Speaker, I invite you and all my colleagues in this House to join the Honourable Hilary Weston, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, myself and the honourary chair of Ontario Seniors' Month, Gordie Tapp, to a ceremony this evening to recognize the recipients of this year's Senior Achievement Awards. They are indeed an extraordinary group of mature Ontarians, and they are worthy of our enduring appreciation.

1350

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party to add to the salute to seniors. I certainly agree that it is important that we recognize the unique contributions that have been made and congratulate the provincial government on having made those distinctions for people. Would that the provincial government provided as much distinction in its overall area of service to seniors.

Unfortunately, the minister, the sometime minister for seniors' affairs, we know -- perhaps not at tonight's ceremony, but at other times -- will be taken to account for a rejection of seniors on the part of this government since it has come into office. We certainly regret that this very much clouds any efforts on the part of this government towards seniors.

We saw this as recently as a week ago, when seniors, belatedly and after 71 days of being ignored by each member of the Conservative caucus, by the government in toto -- by not being able to recognize that a mistake had been made with respect to their drug benefits and the amount of money they were made to pay. The $100 deductible, twice in eight and a half months, was a shameless tax on seniors in this province. Even more shameless was the fact that it took 71 days for this province to recognize that, illustrating the character of this government when it comes to really appreciating the contribution seniors have made.

They not only inflicted a tax on them in their vulnerability, many of them having planned their retirement because we had drugs without those surcharges, without those taxes for 20 years in this province, but when they went ahead and did that they had the audacity to compound it by making that worse. It was only with the efforts of seniors that this government was brought to account and had to backtrack and give back four months' worth of benefits to seniors and prorate that cost. It was $30 million a year that this government was extracting and taking away from seniors.

We know too that the people who live in the communities of Metro are going to be extremely upset knowing that the hospital closures continue apace. We know who is consuming the health services that have been cut $435 million this year, $365 million last year. That translates into longer waiting times in emergency rooms around the province; it translates into days and weeks, in some cases months, on waiting lists. That's where this government has parked seniors with serious health concerns: on waiting lists because of their reckless cutting of the hospital system.

We recognize too that some of those situations are ones none of us would want to see occur but which a government, borne by a certain level of recklessness, has allowed to happen: seniors strapped to their chairs in hospital wards where there isn't enough staff to attend to them, other seniors not attended to so that they've had conditions of extreme pain. These are avoidable conditions for seniors, ones we would hope there would be more tangible recognition of during Seniors' Month. This month above all, if we're going to set aside a time to recognize the contributions of people who have made this province what it is, we would hope we would do something functional and very substantial for them. Instead, we have only the most superficial of recognitions coming forward from this government.

We see that again in the lack of long-term-care facilities. We have 16,000 people, mainly seniors, on the waiting list for long-term-care facilities in this province. Nothing has been done to change that. We've heard promises. We've seen no action. Unfortunately for this government, we know that this province's seniors, like many of the voters, are starting to appreciate the difference, in fact the vast gulf, that exists between the actions and the words of this government from time to time.

We know as well that there are seniors sitting in their abode today -- let's call it what it is; it's their home -- in their apartment, and with the rent decontrol this government wants to put in place, that apartment, that home, is at risk. Seniors who have lived in the same place, in the same home, for years and years now are subject, under the honourable minister's provisions in Bill 96, to losing that home if it gets converted into a condominium and there's substantial construction. They do not have adequate protection. This government had a choice; they could have provided that protection to seniors, but they chose not to.

Similarly, in the instance of AVA, in terms of the changes to actual value assessment this government has put in -- MVA is really what it is -- they had a choice to guarantee, to make a commitment with provincial dollars to make sure that seniors wouldn't be made to bear disproportionately the impact of that. Instead, they've washed their hands of it, they've put it in the hands of municipal governments, and they've told us much more clearly than any set of awards could tell us what they really care about seniors.

We are very glad today to extend the respect and salutations that this House should be conferring upon our seniors, but we cannot do that without drawing each member to account: What have the actual actions been on the part of this government towards seniors? Unfortunately, those actions have been sad. They have put seniors in a place where they don't deserve to be, which is denigrated, not supported and not given the fundamental respect they deserve by this government.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On behalf of my leader and party I'm very pleased to be able to extend our congratulations to the winners of the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards.

The minister for seniors quite clearly points out in his statement that the many achievements of seniors are only symbolically designated with these awards, and I think it's important for us to understand that. Indeed, seniors in our communities are more and more being relied upon by all of us to pick up a lot of the services, a lot of the continuity within our communities as a result of many of the cuts this government has made.

We see many seniors doing child care, helping their children and their children's children with child care in order to maintain a safe and healthy environment for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

We see many seniors who are doing home care with partners who are ill, both men and women, who toil away in obscurity within their homes, trying to care for those for whom no care is available in the community, often exhausting themselves trying to find the services that have been there. They look with hope to some of the changes that are occurring in the health care system, hoping that the promise of community-based services will materialize, hoping that there will be respite care for themselves and for those who assist them.

It is true we have always, as communities, relied upon the wisdom and the experience of our elders to appreciate and have a perspective on the kinds of changes that are happening in our community, but one of the issues for us today is that we are not listening very well to some of the concerns of seniors. My colleague from York South pointed out that although seniors had identified a very serious problem many days, many weeks, many months before the government acted on the seniors' drug benefit plan, they were not heeded until it became very clear that their voices were being carried by members of the opposition parties in this place. It is extremely important for us all to learn from the example of our aboriginal neighbours that honouring our seniors means listening to them and listening to the experience they bring.

Most seniors do know that change occurs. The minister is quite right to point out that this generation of seniors has seen a greater range of change than any other generation in our entire history. But he is also aware that many of those seniors are fearful of simplistic change for change's sake, that they sound warnings about the speed with which change is occurring and the fact that we are not testing out the efficacy of these changes before we put them into place holus-bolus.

They know from their experience with the health care system, from their experience in terms of the tax system, from their experience both federally and provincially with the kind of security that they worked hard for many years, within their communities and with their various governments, to attain -- they see that level of security being eroded by the actions of federal and provincial governments.

It would do us well to listen to the concerns they have. It would do us well to look at what has worked in their lives and to listen to their opinion about how we manage extraordinary change, how we manage extraordinary circumstances.

I'm sure the honourees tonight, people who are obviously very involved in their communities, very willing to volunteer their time and their experience, their expertise, would say to this government and to every other government in Canada that it is extraordinarily important for us all to learn from the past, to learn from those who have experienced change in the past, and to learn how to make change possible by moving slowly and testing, each step of the way, what really works.

The member for York South gave a long list of areas of disappointment for seniors in the policies of this government, and I won't repeat those. I will simply say that if we really honour them, we will --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

1400

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner for the period April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997.

LARRY GROSSMAN

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to pay tribute to Larry Grossman.

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

Hon Mr Eves: It is with both a great deal of pride and indeed much sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and former colleague Larry Grossman. For 12 years, Larry was a respected and greatly admired member of this Legislature, for 25 years he was a devoted father, and for all 53 years of his life an individual who represented fairness, tolerance and integrity.

Larry Grossman's reputation as a talented individual with a driving ambition and a true sense of social justice was well-founded. Fortunately for Ontario, it was to public service that Larry directed a lot of his energies.

When I first arrived in this place in 1981, Larry was a great example for all of us newly elected members. He taught me that one individual member can indeed make a difference. He taught me to fight for what you believe in. He taught me to speak out, even when being silent would be politically expedient.

This attitude gained him the respect not only of his constituents and his colleagues on the government side of the House, but among opposition members as well. Stephen Lewis labelled Larry Grossman as a minister to watch. Former NDP MPP Richard Johnston said of Larry, "He is quite talented and organized, which differentiates him from most of his colleagues." I don't know what that said about the rest of us. His friend the honourable member for Renfrew North, who sits in this place today, in 1983 said the opposition considered him one of the toughest and most competent ministers in government.

From the time Larry Grossman entered political life in 1975, he was determined to make a difference, and indeed he did. He served in many capacities: as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General; in 1977 he entered cabinet as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; he was appointed Minister of Industry and Tourism in 1978.

In that role, he was one of the first Canadian politicians to recognize the importance of high technology to our economy. The Toronto Star headline from 1978 cites "Whiz Kid Minister Out to Create Ontario Jobs." In hindsight, "whiz kid" was an understatement indeed. Today the benefits of his foresight are clear: Two out of every three jobs created in the province of Ontario in the last decade have been in the technology sector.

In 1982, citing his desire to get back to people's issues, Larry Grossman became Minister of Health. During his tenure there he introduced legislation requiring, for the first time, immunization of all school children, and he established Ontario's first paramedic program.

He served in many subsequent cabinet posts, ranging from Minister of Education, Colleges and Universities, Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Treasurer and Minister of Economics, and government House leader.

Larry was a person who cared about people, individually and collectively. He was impatient. He was wanting to accomplish as much as possible in as short a period of time as possible. Larry was the epitome of a perfectionist.

I can remember one day when I was the House leader for the then third party, sitting in his office and him agonizing about the wording of a particular question he wanted to ask in question period. It was really quite insignificant, I thought. I asked him to come over to the window and look out on to University Avenue, where there was a dump truck going by. I said, "Larry, do you think the guy driving that truck really gives a damn about how you're going to word this question in question period today?" I think that helped him bring a sense of what he was all about back to him on that particular occasion, but it also demonstrated to me the perfection with which he strove to do his duties every single day in this place.

I can also recall in the 1987 election campaign, which was a more popular campaign for some of us than others, as I recall, hosting the then leader of the Conservative Party in my riding on Labour Day Monday. He asked me to come on to the bus with him for a few minutes before he went into the luncheon we had planned. He said: "Well, I have good news and bad news for you. The pundits are writing us off; we're not going to win enough seats to maintain our status as a political party. The good news is that we could win as many as 16 seats. The bad news is that we could win as few as two, and you're one of the two."

Larry Grossman gave 110% all the time. As he said, "I don't want to look back on a political career saying, `If only I'd pushed a little harder on this thing.' I've pushed as hard as I can on as many fronts as possible."

Outside and after politics, Larry had several favourite pastimes. Baseball: He considered himself to be an expert on baseball and offered opinions even when they weren't asked for. He was a great music enthusiast. He was an avid reader and a bit of a romantic, The Thorn Birds being his favourite book.

I think one thing that most clearly taught me something about Larry Grossman's character and personality outside of this place was his love of family, following in his father, Allan's, footsteps, displaying love and respect for his mother on many occasions, his children Melissa, Jamie and Robbie. If you had the opportunity to hear his children speak at his service yesterday, you would understand exactly how much his family meant to him and how much he meant to his family.

Larry once told me, when talking about his children: "Remember to make time for them. Seize the time you have at hand, because the opportunity may not be there in the future." His advice was certainly right for me, and having heard his children speak yesterday I know it was right for them as well.

His numerous postings on boards and service organizations are almost too many to mention. Two weeks ago today, Larry Grossman was named to the Order of Ontario. When reflecting on the criterion for that award that the honoree has enriched the lives of others through excellence in his or her respective field, I cannot think of a more deserving recipient.

Larry Grossman's loss will be felt in many ways: His family has lost a source of strength; our party has lost one of its key advisers; the Toronto Blue Jays have lost one of their biggest fans; Ontario has lost one of its most dedicated citizens; thousands of people throughout the province, including many of us in this House, have lost a very good friend.

On behalf of the government, I extend our most sincere condolences to the Grossman family, to his children, Melissa, Jamie and Robbie. To the members of this House, I would ask that we not forget Larry Grossman's many contributions and achievements and that we all strive to live by the same values of family, community service, principles that guided Mr Grossman in everything he did. In so doing, we will ensure that his legacy lives on in this House and indeed in Ontario.

1410

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I too join in paying tribute to Larry Grossman, a formidable adversary. Those of us who sat in the House when he was here certainly knew what that meant. Larry was the consummate politician and he came by it quite honestly, and I think you can't mention Larry Grossman without mentioning Allan Grossman.

Allan, his dad, was well-known to the community. I knew his father before Larry was born. He was our local alderman. He had relatives living right next door to us and would come often to visit. He then entered politics in 1955 and served in St Andrews-St Patrick for 20 years, and when he retired his son, Larry, took his place. So between the two Grossmans they held that seat consecutively for 32 years. I can tell you that his dad often said to me that his greatest achievement was his son, Larry, because Larry had fulfilled all his dreams and all his ambitions. Allan had lived to see Larry do all the things we just heard about. Just as yesterday we were at the funeral and two of the three children gave part of the eulogy, I was at Allan's funeral in 1991 and Larry gave the eulogy. But he was talking about a man whose life had been lived. He had seen his son reach the highest pinnacles of political life and seen his grandchildren, and it was natural, it was very natural that this is the cycle of life and someone passes on and someone picks up the torch.

Yesterday unfortunately we saw something that was relatively unnatural. We saw two young children speaking about their love for their dad and about the various values that had been imparted to them by Larry, and I can talk about Larry's drive. He was absolutely driven in everything he did and he was a tough, tough person, yet when you met him socially, when we used to get together and we used to talk, he was a totally different person. But it did not in any way detract from his particular feeling that if it was worth doing, you did it right and you did it with all your might. He gave and he took as good as he got.

When we talk about his accomplishments, I'm reminded of something that has really stuck in my memory since it happened, and that was his love for sports. When I was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- and just by coincidence his first posting was as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- we were invited to a Heart and Stroke Foundation event. I remember Larry represented the Progressive Conservative Party, I represented the government, the member for Lake Nipigon, if he can remember, represented the NDP, and we went to a function at the Eaton Centre.

There were three Blue Jays baseball players there: Lloyd Moseby, George Bell and one other whom I can't remember. The idea behind the organizers was that we were going to have a question period; the idea was to really show up the politicians, so they would ask questions. They asked questions about the Blue Jays. They'd say, "How many bases are there in baseball?" They would say, "Three." Then they would turn to the politicians and they would say, "Who played in the 1923 World Series?" We would huddle and Larry said, "These are the teams," and we would get up and he would give the answer.

This went on. Each question got more and more difficult. Finally the last question, at which I just threw up my arms: They said to our team, "How many stitches are there in a baseball?" I said, "Give me a break." Larry said, "Are you talking single stitches or double stitches?" When he was told double stitches, he gave them the answer. I got back into the House the next day and I sent him a note and I said, "Larry, you've just done it for me; I cannot believe that you would know that."

That is the kind of person Larry was. He was absolutely driven at everything that he did, whether it was his children, whether it was his politics, whether it was his sports or whether it was his music. That is really the memory I think we shall all have of him.

His life of course was far too short. Those of us who were at the awards ceremony for the Order of Ontario couldn't help but feel the grief of his two children, Robbie and Melissa, as they accepted the order on behalf of their father. The grief was palpable. You knew it was just a matter of time; here it is, and that was two weeks ago today.

If we had to talk about Larry Grossman and if you had to think of an epitaph for his tombstone, I think one he would appreciate and would really agree with is that he was a gamer. I would ask that we do as we do in the Jewish faith: remember his memory as a blessing.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I wish to join my colleagues from Parry Sound and Wilson Heights in the tribute to Larry Grossman. I too was at the service yesterday afternoon and I don't think I've ever been at one that was more moving and yet carried off in a way that had such resolve on the part of his children. I was taken aback by how much they obviously loved him but were able to express it at a funeral service in a way that was so filled with resolve and determination to get through it in a very firm way without breaking down. That was very impressive and I thought it spoke partly to some of the characteristics that were in Larry himself.

I personally served with Larry for the full 12 years he was here. Twelve years, to me, doesn't seem like a long time in this place, but I can tell you he sure cut a wide swath in those 12 years in this place, from somewhat of a rebel backbencher to party leader, and with cabinet posts in between. He really did make his mark in this place.

As an opposition member, I was of course very well aware of his talents. He was very obviously smart, he was aggressive, he was hardworking, well-informed, articulate. Others have used these adjectives as well. What better characteristics for a young man on the move than those. He was a young man on the move, and he was a young man in a hurry as well, and he could not have achieved what he did if it was simply ambition not backed up by a lot of talent and a lot of resolve.

I can recall one day I asked a question of a fellow cabinet minister of his -- I was in opposition then of course -- on a rather broad policy question. I could have asked the same question of Larry Grossman but I asked another cabinet minister, and I thought I did quite well in putting down that particular cabinet minister and scoring a few political points. I no sooner sat down than across the floor came a note from Larry Grossman in which he said to me, "Floyd, tomorrow ask me that question and I'll blow you out of the water." I knew that he could and I knew that he would, and so I didn't ask him that question. I have to tell you that he made opposition critics better because you had to be extremely well prepared if you were going to go up against him either in a committee or here on the floor of the Legislature.

I respected him because of his abilities. I can recall when he was a minister he was very creative in the way he approached his ministry too. I remember he was Minister of Industry and Tourism, I think it was called then, and he did two things that have stuck in my mind to this day. This was prior to the days of free trade, when you could do some things you cannot do now. One of them was something he called "global product mandating," in which he wanted Ontario companies to establish a global mandate and the government would back them up in the way in which they would carry that out. I thought it was a good idea and I still think it's a good idea.

But he also had a program that he called "import replacement," which is much harder to do today than it was back in those days. Larry Grossman got a large number of products which are imported into this country, which should not have been imported in his view, and in my view as well, assembled them all together and said to the people who used those products, "These are all imported; now let's get together and see if we can get somebody in this province to manufacture these products," because there was a large market for them. I thought that was a good idea. He was very creative in that sense and not unwilling to take risks as well.

After he left politics, involuntarily, we did stay in touch a bit, not as much as I'm sure some of the members did. But I have had supper with him on occasion and he was a truly wonderful dinner companion. He could be incredibly caustic and mocking and funny, and at times aggressive as well, but always a very entertaining dinner companion, very well informed and completely committed to the role of public life in this province. I always looked forward, when an opportunity came up, to have dinner with him.

I am sorry he is gone because I think he still had a lot to offer this province. On behalf of my caucus, I wish to extend condolences to his family and to his legion of friends, because believe me, he had an enormous number of them, and I know that I always wanted to be considered one of them.

The Speaker: I'll take the comments from the Minister of Finance, the member for Wilson Heights and the member for Nickel Belt and ensure they get passed on to the family.

1420

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the west gallery today, we have Mr James Taylor, the previous member for Prince Edward-Lennox. Welcome, sir.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to ask for your help. It concerns standing order 54 and the events which transpired last night. It occurred to us last night that the representative of the government House leader had no idea how to call government business forward for debate or what government business to call. As a result, there was a great deal of scrambling about here last night. Speaker, could you ensure that the government always has somebody on duty who understands the rules of the House so this doesn't happen again?

The Speaker: It's not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in recent weeks you and your government have transferred 24% of the provincial highway system to local governments. In eastern Ontario, you have transferred in recent weeks 50% of the provincial highways to local governments. My question is, having transferred in my region, in eastern Ontario, 50% of the provincial highways, representing 2,154 kilometres, are you prepared as a government to transfer a corresponding amount of the $2.5 billion that your government will collect this year in gasoline and fuel taxes to local governments in eastern Ontario that are now or very soon going to have to accept fully 50% of previously provincial highways in eastern Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I think it's a very good question. It touches on an issue, actually, that the provincial government has been lobbying the federal government to see if they can in fact share those same dollars that the honourable member is referring to. Having said that, I haven't been very successful, so certainly I would like to ask the member's help in making that a reality. I just want to make it very clear that the provincial government of Ontario wants to utilize the limited dollars that it does have in making sure that true provincial highway infrastructure is protected.

But as far as what we have done with the municipalities is concerned, I believe we have transferred the roads in good condition; and the ones that were not, we were able to make sure that we are going to be investing those dollars in bringing them up to that level that they should be. I want to say to the member we will do what needs to get done.

Mr Conway: Let me get more specific, Minister. Let me talk about the Toronto-Ottawa highway that most people use, the highway that takes people from Toronto down the 401, up Highway 37 through Tweed and east along Highway 7 into the national capital, well known to hundreds of thousands of motorists in Ontario. Under your new plan, you're going to keep 401 and you're going to keep Highway 7. But you're going to turn that 42-kilometre section of the Ottawa-Toronto highway that runs through the village of Tweed in the county of Hastings over to local government. My question is, why should local people in Hastings county pay for that portion of the provincial traffic that has gone, is going and will surely continue to travel across that part of the provincial highway system that was, is and will continue to be the Highway 37 corridor?

Hon Mr Palladini: Highway transfers are going to benefit municipalities. They're going to be able to control the land zone use and also control entrances and building. Local development can actually be expedited in those corridors. We are investing $127 million to make sure that Ottawa will now, in that particular region, have access to the 401. With the completion of the 416, I believe a lot of the traffic the member is referring to at this particular point in time will be taken over by Highway 416.

Mr Conway: Another breathtaking part of your new plan is that you and your colleagues in the Harris government are going to turn over 200 kilometres of the historic King's Highway 41, which runs from Lake Ontario at Napanee to the Quebec border at Pembroke, most of that major artery that's been a provincial highway for decades, all of which you're going to turn over to the counties. Most of that highway runs through provincial crown land that is obviously not very heavily populated. Why should local taxpayers in Lennox and Addington, Frontenac and Renfrew counties pay for a highway the bulk of which travels through a provincially owned woodlot from Napanee to Pembroke?

Hon Mr Palladini: I have said to the honourable member that local municipalities have been asking MTO for many years; they want more to say about those local roads and highways because of potential possible growth.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Palladini: As I was saying, municipalities have been asking for many years for decreasing intervention on the part of the provincial government. That is exactly what we're doing. We are addressing the problems in the best way and we are doing the transfers in an orderly fashion. We've also put aside $225 million, which will be replenished on a yearly basis, that will help those counties, those municipalities in case the help is needed. We are going to do what we said we were going to do: make sure the transition is going to be done in a fair, proper way.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about the threat your government has been making to small and rural hospitals. Your district health council reports come in with the assistance of your ministry, and then incredibly in Lambton county, two days before the final report, after a draft report had recommended the closure of Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital, you held it up. You stopped what was up until then an attack on small hospitals. Two days before, suddenly you saw the light and said that something had gone wrong.

We understand you're about to announce a small rural hospital policy. It was three months ago you said you would have it very shortly. When you put that policy forward, we want to know, to understand what's going to happen after the House has risen. We want some accountability today. Will you take into account the social and economic impact hospitals have in these small and rural communities? Will you be listening to the economic and social impact arguments that have been made by the mayors and the reeves of all persuasions, and thousands of people who have turned out to events in those communities? Minister, will you tell us that will be in the policy?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): While I appreciate the question, the honourable member's position on the rural health care policy has been rather confusing for me, his colleagues, colleagues in the NDP and our party who sit on the estimates committee, because we've been going through hours of questions and answers in that committee, and anyone watching that over the past couple of weeks would know that the honourable member has been all over the board. He knows very well, because I've explained ad nauseam, what the elements of that policy will be: to recognize the driving distances in rural Ontario, the weather conditions and all the unique needs of rural Ontario and northern Ontario that need to be taken into account. So I'd ask the honourable member if he's in favour of a rural northern Ontario hospital policy.

1430

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I just want to take this time to introduce a gentleman in the west gallery who I think had one of the most difficult jobs in this place, the ex-Speaker Mr David Warner. Welcome.

Supplementary, the member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Speaker and Mr Ex-Speaker.

Minister, I appreciate that you seem to be, as in other areas, conceding your ministry. We'll be happy to take it over should you wish to do that.

What we want to know from you and what the people of Wiarton, Port Colborne, Fort Erie and a whole bunch of communities want to know from you is, are you going to let them have a real emergency service? Will those who have a surgery be able to keep it? Will they be able to have a real emergency service? Will they be able to have a real hospital? Will that be part of your policy, or is this just some political Band-Aid you've put together to paper over the attacks you've made on health care all around this province? Minister, will you specifically and explicitly tell us that the hospitals that have emergency services today will be able to keep them at the very same level they had last year? Will you let them do that?

Hon Mr Wilson: The policy will make it clear that no one is exempt from restructuring in terms of getting rid of the waste and duplication and excessive administration in the system.

Having said that, I want the honourable member to be very clear, because I've made this clear to him many, many times, that politicians didn't write the rural policy. It was people like Robert Muir of the Ontario Hospital Association; Dr Ray Dawes, president of the Rural Physicians Group of the Ontario Medical Association; Dr Michael Murray, emergency physician service representative from Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie; Dr Jim Rourke, a family physician from Goderich; Dr Dennis Psutka, an emergency physician at McMaster University Medical Centre; Willis Rudy, former executive director of Wilson Memorial General Hospital in Marathon; Charlotte Clay-Ireland, past chairman of ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association; representatives from the north and throughout, all experts, including nurses from rural Ontario, who wrote the policy in response to the commission and the government saying that there's a very real need for a specific rural and northern hospital policy in this province. It will be the first of its kind and everyone in rural Ontario --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Health. Final supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: You can recognize why I would be disappointed with that answer: It wasn't an answer. You didn't tell us: Will they have the same emergency services they have today? Will you recognize their economic and social impacts? You won't tell us, Minister. Instead, as usual, you're fobbing it off to someone else. That's not acceptable. These hospitals have already scrimped and saved. They have doctors who are leaving them because of the uncertainty, because of the threat you have them under -- you exclusively.

Stand here today and tell us that your policy -- which has taken away $490,000 from Wiarton, a 10% cut; $589,000 from Port Colborne, another 10% cut; $633,000 from Fort Erie, an 8% cut; and $966,000 from Grimsby -- will include a means of reinvestment to recognize the good, hard work that they've done to make these hospitals viable, that this is not just going to be rhetoric, that it's not just going to be a political Band-Aid, that you are really going to help these hospitals stay viable and stay open. Minister, tell us today.

Hon Mr Wilson: Other members of the policy team were Louise LeBlanc, president of the Emergency Nurses Association of Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: I mentioned the names of the honourable people who came forward as volunteers to help write the policy to ensure the honourable member knows that the policy is written by rural people, by experts in rural medicine and rural nursing care.

I don't need any lectures and this government doesn't need any lectures from you, Mr Kennedy, or from the NDP. Some 70 emergency rooms were either closed or closing in rural Ontario when we came to office. We brought in, after the Scott report, the $70-an-hour sessional fee for physicians, and 70 emergency rooms in rural and northern Ontario are open today thanks to this government's action. I don't need any lectures from the opposition. Our record is second to none with respect to emergency services in rural Ontario.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment is supposed to be here.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Lost in the smog.

Mr Hampton: Yes, he must be lost in the smog.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Here he is.

Mr Hampton: Today at the United Nations, Canada is coming under attack for failing to meet its commitments made at the Rio environmental summit to clean up our environment. Your government, the Ontario government, bears much of the responsibility for this failure. For example, today we have the first smog alert of the season, stretching from Windsor right into central Ontario. Today and tomorrow we can expect our hospitals to admit people choking and gasping for breath as a result of the smog.

We're still waiting for your government to act on its promise to bring in mandatory testing of automobile exhaust pollution. Can you tell us how much longer the people of Ontario will have to wait for that program?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): First of all, today the air in Toronto is actually quite good. At 1:30 today the air quality index was 22, which is in the range of good air. In fact there won't be a smog problem today. However, it's not uncommon during this time of year, as has been in the past history of our province over the last five or 10 years, that there have been smog alerts during this summer period.

That is why this government is taking action where previous governments didn't take action on air quality. That is why we have lowered the gas volatility for gasolines during the summer period in Ontario, something previous governments didn't do. That is why this government has taken the unprecedented steps of revising some 75 air quality standards, which previous governments neglected to do. We are taking positive action and we will continue to take positive action to address air quality problems in Ontario. We are the first government to recognize this. We are the first government to deal with this.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I was a member of a government that brought in a very successful pilot project to deal with automobile exhaust pollution, and other jurisdictions have acted in a similar way. You have these things to build on. In fact, you haven't built on them at all.

You know, and everyone else in the province who pays attention to this issue will know, that 2,000 people die each year in Ontario because of poor air quality. Cars and trucks are the single largest cause of smog, but with a proper testing program we could make a real difference with respect to that kind of air pollution.

I ask you again. You could save lives if you would quit stalling. When will the people of Ontario see the mandatory testing of automobile exhaust pollution that you promised?

1440

Hon Mr Sterling: We are using the results of the pilot project to design an effective program to deal with smog and air quality in the province. We have been looking at the experience of other jurisdictions, 32 jurisdictions in the United States plus the province of British Columbia, because we are trying to learn from their mistakes -- and mistakes they have made; in fact, in each jurisdiction they are going through the second and third stages of developing their particular programs.

It is our intent to go down this road. We are going down this road cautiously because we want to get it right the first time around and not cause the taxpayers undue expense and hardship in addressing this problem.

Mr Hampton: The reality is that other provinces have passed Ontario. Yes, other provinces may have made some mistakes; they learned from their mistakes and they have moved on. You have done literally nothing. Let me quote John Wellner of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. He says, "Quite literally, people will be dropping dead if something isn't done by the province."

As I said, other provinces are surpassing you. Other provinces have made great headway, especially British Columbia, over the last two years. How many more people in Ontario have to die before you do something?

Hon Mr Sterling: We are making progress. Mayor Michael Hurst of Windsor: "We in Windsor strongly support your position in this matter." My position has been not only to address it domestically but to address it in terms of the transborder pollution problems we have.

We will address this matter in a reasonable, logical, competent manner to reduce emissions in this province, and this will happen within a period of time which will make the program work and so that the people of Ontario will participate in it in a willing manner.

I thank the NDP and the Liberal Party for their support in this matter and expect that any legislation I would bring forward would have their complete support.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. News reports say you are about to introduce your long-awaited son of megacity legislation. The people of Metro Toronto are bracing themselves for what could be another big attack on democracy.

We know you need this bill to correct the mistakes you made with Bill 103. You tried to ram Bill 103 through this House thoughtlessly and recklessly, and as a result you don't have any regulatory power. If you're going to control the transition process towards the so-called megacity, you need that regulatory power.

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

Mr Hampton: The question is this: We want you to hold full public hearings on your son of megacity legislation. We want you to hold those hearings so there will be public input and you won't make the same sorts of incompetent bumbling mistakes with this one that you made with --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): If the member of the third party wants to talk about stumbling, bumbling mistakes, it's the one he just made. The bill that's going to be introduced has nothing to do with regulatory power that we eliminated from Bill 103.

This is a bill that we stated at the outset would be introduced. When I introduced Bill 103, we stated categorically at that time that it was a foundation bill and that we would be introducing a second bill to deal with the administrative aspects of going to a single city.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): The reality is that you rammed your megacity bill through so quickly that you've left behind local democracy. One way that you can fix, at least in part, that mess you've left is to give community councils meaningful power over the guts of the planning process. That means zoning and official plan amendments. That's the only way in which local people will have control over local decisions affecting their particular neighbourhoods. If the megacity council, on the other hand, controls zoning and official plan amendments, it means that you'll have a vast bureaucracy that controls what will happen in every local neighbourhood, and local control will quite frankly just be a sham.

Minister, I just want to ask you, will you use your son of megacity legislation to give community councils control over zoning and official plan amendments?

Hon Mr Leach: Again to the member of the third party, what we want to do is a very democratic thing and give the new council, the newly elected council of the unified city, the power and the ability to make those decisions. They are going to be the duly-elected members. They should decide what responsibilities are provided to the community councils. That's their job, that's what they're elected to do, and that's what they will do.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The problem, Minister, is that your megacity bill does not allow the new megacity council to delegate those authorities. You've centred those authorities within the megacity council.

You made other mistakes. We know your coming bill is going to amend your megacity legislation with respect to the Cafon Court area and the regulatory powers, but there are other problems. The people in East York, for example, are desperate for you to amend to ensure that they get adequate representation. Right now, you've only given them two councillors, which means they will be underrepresented on a proportionate basis to every other resident in the cities of what is now Metropolitan Toronto. They also know that their community council will be totally ineffective because there will only be two members there. It's a recipe for deadlock.

Today I'm introducing a private member's bill. I'm going to ask you to support that concept to increase the representation for the residents of East York to three councillors. I'm going to ask you, please, to help us expedite that so it can be in place for a fall election, by inserting that provision in your bill that you'll introduce this week. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I find it absolutely incredible. On one hand they stand there and talk about this government ramming things down people's throats, and then when we stand up and say that we're going to give the new council the authority and the power to establish community councils in any form that it chooses -- once that council is elected it can change the community councils to any form that it chooses -- they start talking about, "The government should act, the government should do this."

We're going to give the elected council of the new unified city the power to make the decisions on what the community councils should do, what they'll be responsible for, what the size of them are, what geographic areas they should represent. The new council of the new city of Toronto will have the authority and the power to do that, as it should, not have it forced on them by a provincial government, like they're asking us to do.

1450

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I have in my hands a copy of the agreement which you signed --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you. Actually, this is a very significant issue for a number of public servants in Ontario. My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I have a copy, signed by Mike Harris, of the OPSEU agreement that was the result of days and days of walking the picket lines by public servants around the precinct here and right across Ontario, for weeks in the dead of winter. The end of that was Mike Harris signing this agreement with public servants in Ontario.

What this did was provide some kind of dignity for people who have worked for years for the Ontario government. After you signed this agreement, Minister, you said it was a very good agreement and you were pleased. Could you please explain to this House why you are now in breach of this contract, what possible rationale you could have to breach the very contract that Mike Harris signed?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I had a little hand in that contract myself, being involved with the negotiations through a long period of time, and I would say that the government does live up to the agreement, to the contract. I suspect that the member for Windsor-Sandwich is indicating that from time to time there are grievances associated with any contract associated with the government. That was true under the Liberal government; that was true under the NDP government; it's certainly true under this government.

There is a process in place. If there are differences of opinion, there's a process in place which can involve arbitration. The differences are resolved and the parties settle and move on.

Mrs Pupatello: Honestly, I don't think anyone would believe that this is like any other government Ontario has had. This government has moved forward with privatization plans. That means negotiation with your public servants is more critical than it has ever been in the area of privatization and what guarantees and frankly dignity you are giving to your own employees.

May I say again: Mike Harris signed the agreement. The grievance board has now found you in breach of that same agreement that you negotiated. You were in breach in the very area of having absolutely no concern for your own employees, for running completely rough-shod over them, throwing them out the door without so much as a thought as to where they might be.

I have a résumé here. Here's an example: A Ministry of Transportation employee for over 20 years who worked as a patrol foreman; duties included responsibility for maintenance of all highway operations. What can I tell these people, of whom this is just one example? They cannot even count on their own government to stand up to the contract that they negotiated.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Windsor-Sandwich could tell all of the employees, and I'll tell all of the employees today, that this government values the contributions of the employees. This government values the employees. We signed a contract which provided for reasonable efforts that the employees would move with the job, in case the job was outsourced or privatized or if the job went to another corporation, for example a municipal corporation.

We have introduced human resource factors to go along with the contract that we signed. Now there's a difference of opinion in terms of the human resource factors. The Grievance Settlement Board is the natural place for it to be discussed. It has been discussed there. There has been a ruling. The government will certainly comply with the ruling. The government will be meeting with the union next week to discuss this matter further.

This is a normal type of situation. It happened with the Liberal government; it happened with an NDP government. I can assure you that we value the employees and are following through on this.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I would like to follow up on the question from the member for Windsor-Sandwich, but I'd like to ask it -- I don't like the answer I heard from the Chair of Management Board -- of the minister for privatization for the government.

You, Minister, have had now to put your privatization plans on hold because you've been caught. You've been caught in breach of an agreement that your government had signed with OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Why did you, as the privatization minister, and your colleagues agree to make reasonable efforts to let people keep their jobs when you privatize them, keep their jobs with the new employer and then turn around and completely ignore that obligation?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I will refer that question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson: This is an issue that rightly falls under Management Board because it's not just privatization. There are a number of other factors: outsourcing, contracting out, many different ways of divesting of services from the provincial government to another entity.

I don't know why the words "social contract" pop into my mind whenever the NDP complains about how employees are being treated. We value our employees. We negotiated a contract with our employees, which is more --

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: I notice Sid Ryan in 1993 said, "This no doubt will go down in the annals of history as being the greatest betrayal of workers in this province by any government of any stripe." That's what Sid Ryan had to say about the social contract.

There were grievances under an NDP government. There were grievances under a Liberal government. There are certainly grievances that we have to deal with. We are listening to the arbitrator's conclusion as a result of the Grievance Settlement Board hearing. We are discussing this matter with OPSEU, and we'll be taking actions in conjunction with OPSEU in the future to obey the arbitrator's ruling.

Mr Laughren: You try and give a junior minister a profile and they don't know when you're doing them a favour.

The Chair of Management Board can spin this all he likes. Two things are important here: One is we are talking about privatization. I'm not talking for the moment about contracting out or outsourcing. I'm talking about privatization, which is why I asked Mr Sampson the question, and he chose to flip it back to you.

Secondly, the grievance board has ruled against you. It's a decision. It's not something for you to consider now. The decision's been made. I'm asking you and we've asked you, and members from the official opposition have asked you as well, will you at least, at a very minimum, guarantee the jobs of the most vulnerable people in your employ, namely those with disabilities? Will you at least guarantee those people a job if there's any privatization that occurs in the services they presently provide?

Hon David Johnson: As we did through the contract, we are committed to taking those reasonable efforts, dealing with all employees of the province of Ontario, that all employees would be able to go with the new service delivery, whether it's privatization, whether it's outsourcing or whether it involves some municipal entity, for example. Whatever form the alternative service delivery takes, we are going to live up to the terms of the contract.

There's been a difference of opinion in terms of how exactly that should be done. The Grievance Settlement Board has made a ruling. We have already begun discussions with OPSEU. Those discussions will be more intense next week and we will resolve this matter to the satisfaction of both parties.

1500

ÉDUCATION EN FRANÇAIS

M. Ed Doyle (Wentworth-Est) : My question today is for the minister of francophone affairs. Ma question aujourd'hui est pour le ministre delégué aux Affaires francophones.

Aujourd'hui, c'est la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, fête des francophones. It's the francophone Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday. Pourriez-vous nous dire ce que votre gouvernement a apporté de nouveau pour le bien des francophones en Ontario ?

L'hon Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Je remercie mon collègue de Wentworth-Est de m'avoir donné l'occasion, premièrement, de souhaiter une bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous nos francophones ici en Ontario.

Je suis fier du nombre important de réalisations dans le domaine des affaires francophones, des prestations aux services en français. Tout en particulier je veux noter le maintien des programmes en français au Collège francophone de technologie agricole et alimentaire d'Alfred, un partenariat avec l'Université de Guelph ; la désignation de 48 agences additionnelles en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français pour offrir leurs services en français -- ceci est le plus grand nombre d'agences à être désignées dans une année ; l'établissement de 12 conseils scolaires francophones avec leur propre gestion ; le soutien de nos collèges à distance francophones. Finalement, je suis très fier de nos accomplissements envers la francophonie ontarienne.

M. Doyle : Monsieur le Ministre, pourriez-vous nous dire ce que le gouvernement fait pour encourager la participation et l'unique contribution des jeunes francophones au développement économique de la province ?

L'hon M. Villeneuve : Nos jeunes francophones ontariens ont des atouts spéciaux, étant donné que la vaste majorité sont bel et bien bilingues et que nous avons plus de diplômés francophones en Ontario depuis longtemps. Puis, dans le contexte, leur capacité bilingue leur donne l'habileté, une valeur ajoutée considérable. Nous avons ciblé un programme communautaire pour le développement économique de nos jeunes et pour leur donner un avantage réel de valeur ajoutée du fait qu'ils sont bilingues.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. You acknowledged on Focus Ontario on Saturday night that, "The very early years, the time from four to eight, is a critical time in the learning process of a child."

We agree. That's why we have been so distressed by your abandonment of any responsibility for keeping junior kindergarten programs in this province. You can use all the empty words you like about focusing your attention on the early years, but the fact is that you cut the funding for junior kindergarten. First you made the program optional; then you cut the funding. More and more boards are going to be forced to cut junior kindergarten because it is the only option you've left them to deal with the funding cuts.

If you believe that the years of four to eight are critical years for learning, will you restore full funding for junior kindergarten?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I believe the member opposite knows that we haven't removed the funding for junior kindergarten. We removed the program that was mandatory across the province. We continue to fund it, as we do every other program in education.

The question is, will this government leave in place the general legislative grant program that your government left in place, a program that treats students in Ontario as second-class students by virtue of the funding available to them? No, we won't. We will replace that with an allocation model that meets the individual needs of every student in Ontario. Finally and at long last and in answer to the 24 reports that have been done on education in my lifetime, yes, this government will change the funding formula to one that is fair to every student in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: This minister gives lip-service to the importance of the early years, but the bottom line is that he has cut the funding for junior kindergarten and he has abandoned any responsibility for early education.

He has abandoned his responsibility for children with special needs too. He gives lip-service to adapting his rigorous curriculum and then he suggests, as he did on Saturday night, that students with special needs will need to go to summer school or work a bit extra after school so that they can, and I quote, "get up to speed."

Minister, you really don't get it. You really don't understand that meeting the needs of children who have special needs means giving their school more resources. It doesn't mean making the kids work harder.

Will you keep the faith in what you say you believe in, in making every student a first-class student and giving them a first-class opportunity? Will you keep that faith by putting back the $533 million you stole from education so that junior kindergarten programs and special education programs can be put back?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the member opposite that our government will continue to do what it has been doing, which is directing our funding into the classroom, where it makes a difference with students, and by being very clear on the standards we expect students in this province to reach so we can attain our goal of having the highest student achievement in Canada at long last for our students here in Ontario. It's hard work, but it needs to be done, in sharp contrast to what your government did and what the previous government did.

Let me draw your attention to a column by Thomas Walkom. It says, "Reading Between the Lines of Ministry Bafflegab." It says:

"Probably the funniest newspaper story published in a while comes from the Ottawa Citizen. The story is by a reporter, Elizabeth Payne, and describes how the Ontario cabinet, baffled by a policy document on education that no minister could understand, had to turn to an outside consultant named Prose Busters. For a fee of $10,500, the consultant translated the education ministry's Common Curriculum, Grades 1-9, from jargon into English."

The last paragraph reads: "Parents might be troubled by this document. The education minister is not. After all, as the Common Curriculum notes, the events, problems and situations one encounters in daily life -- "

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. You will know that the standing committee on government agencies is looking very closely at the appointments you're making to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

I have the criteria that your ministry has laid out for these appointments. The first one listed is "familiarity with the workers' compensation system," yet the vice-chair appointee that you are nominating was interviewed last week and acknowledged that she did not have that kind of experience with WCB. She has a fine record as a lawyer, an excellent résumé, but not the top criterion you outlined.

She has, however, made three generous contributions to your Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. This political stacking of this quasi-judicial body is even more serious because of your Bill 99's attack on the independence of this tribunal. Minister, why won't you accept your responsibility to maintain and protect the independence of this vital tribunal?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): If you had been listening to comments I have made in recent weeks, I have indicated that as we review Bill 99, which is in front of you in committee at the present time, we are quite prepared to consider all amendments and each amendment put forward. If you have some you would wish to make related to WCAT and its function vis-à-vis WCB, we'd certainly be happy to receive them.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you know full well that the only reason you're considering that is because employers are putting pressure on you. You're not listening to injured workers in terms of reducing their benefits and taking away their pension rights and allowing them to qualify for legitimate claims, so don't hand us that.

The reality is that the three names you submitted, and Ms Ballam was one of them -- the original list was given to you by Ron Ellis, the former chair for 12 years. He had an independent process that was always followed where he reviewed applicants, he interviewed them, he decided where the balance was between interests and experience and right and left politics and made a recommendation that was ultimately accepted by the cabinet. The same process was followed this time, and you even signed off on it, but you know -- it's an open secret -- your Premier killed that list and brought three of his political friends on side.

Mr Ellis stood and fought for the independence of this tribunal and paid for it with his job. Why don't you have the courage to fight for the independence of this important workers' tribunal?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just indicate to you that we have listened to injured workers. In fact, the reason that direct payment, a three-day waiting period and the elimination of compensation for repetitive stress are not in Bill 99 is because we did listen to the injured workers.

Again I would make the offer to the --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I was emphasizing the fact that we have responded to the concerns of all the stakeholders, including the injured workers. Certainly if in the future the member opposite has suggestions for changes we can make to WCAT, I would be happy to receive them.

1510

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Today I watched the noonhour newscast and saw that you and the Solicitor General had attended a launch of an illegal alcohol initiative this morning. Could you inform me, as the member for Scarborough Centre, my constituents and all members of the Legislative Assembly what this new initiative will achieve and who will be involved in combatting booze smuggling?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This morning I and the Solicitor General had the opportunity to attend a launch of the new illegal alcohol anti-smuggling initiative and reward incentive program which was funded by the Association of Canadian Distillers and has the full support of the LCBO, the RCMP and the OPP and of course both my ministry and that of the Solicitor General.

For anyone who has information on the smuggling of alcohol and also on the production or manufacture of illegal alcohol, it could be worth up to $1,000, which is the top reward being offered by Crime Stoppers. We are working with Crime Stoppers in this program. The public can call Crime Stoppers. Everyone knows the number, but I will repeat it: 1-800-222-TIPS. I was very pleased to be present when the president of the Canadian distillers presented a cheque of $15,000 to Crime Stoppers' Cam Shillington.

Smuggling must be stopped. I'm also pleased to inform the member that the LCBO will be seconding two additional OPP officers from the Ministry of the Solicitor General to work on this initiative.

Mr Newman: My constituents in Scarborough Centre have many concerns relating to illegal and smuggled alcohol. They want to know who the victims of smuggling are. Could you inform all members of the Legislative Assembly and consumers what they should be aware of relating to illegal liquor being sold in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, over $11 million worth of illegal alcohol was seized last year. We believe the problem is about $640 million in the province right now from smuggling and the illegal manufacture of alcohol and wine.

This is not a victimless crime. We have concerns about the health hazards with respect to bootlegged alcohol. We went through the warehouse. They had some facilities there being used by some of these bootleggers. There are some big vats of so-called wine that you wouldn't want to touch, let alone drink. That's being sold to the public by bootleggers. This is quite a health hazard.

There's also no stoppage for the sale of this type of illegal alcohol to minors. It's a very huge problem that we want to direct resources to. We will be doing it. This is an excellent example of how government can work with private industry to come up with a solution towards a huge problem in the province.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As you're well aware, most of southwestern Ontario today is in a haze of smog. It is the first day we have seen this in June. It is a crisis; it is serious. Children, seniors, people with respiratory illnesses are basically prisoners in their own homes. What we've seen from you has been no action on vehicle emissions. You have promised a smog accord plan. We have seen absolutely no action.

Municipalities have taken their own measures to try to deal with this problem because of your lack of leadership. The Environmental Protection Act, regulation 346, gives you sweeping powers to take emergency measures to address issues such as today. You, as minister, have the power to undertake initiatives and force compliance on a day like today. Can you outline to the House what emergency measures you have taken today, with the power you have, to deal with the smog problem in Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I consider the air quality of Ontario a serious issue and a very important issue. Perhaps we are the first government to recognize that it is an important issue. We have taken significant measures already to deal with this very serious problem. In June 1996 we released a smog plan for Ontario to deal over a long period of time with certain targets which were agreed on between different Canadian environment ministers from across this country. I have met with 11 states in the United States which are passing transborder ozone and air quality problems to us. We have amended the gasoline volatility regulation. In fact, we are taking more steps to deal with this problem than any previous government has ever done.

Mr Agostino: Simply, it's not good enough. There are seniors today who can't leave their homes. You may be aware that hospital admissions today will go up by 6% to 10% as a result of the smog. You, as minister, have powers under the Environmental Protection Act to take action to force compliance with industries today and to cut back on government services that contribute to the problem. You have failed miserably. There has been no vehicle emission testing program. Your smog accord is somewhere in the bureaucracy; you haven't brought it forward. Frankly, you don't care. You have no concern.

Maybe there's a simple answer. Maybe every Ontarian will get one of these and that way the --

Interjections.

Mr Agostino: Minister, my question --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Are you kidding? I think you've used your time. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: In anticipation of this particular question, I did check the air quality index for southwestern Ontario across the whole part of this area. As I indicated previously, actually the air quality index is quite good in Toronto today. The air quality is good in this particular part of the province, it's moderate in some of the areas that the others represent and therefore, although the member need not wear that gas mask today, I do believe it improves his appearance.

1520

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, for some time now everyone in my community has been saying to you that your latest downloading attack on our community is either going to raise taxes or cut services. Yesterday the editorial board of the Hamilton Spectator added their voice to those of us who have been saying this to you for some time.

They said, "The provincial government's swap of services with municipalities will have a greater impact on property taxpayers in Hamilton-Wentworth and other municipalities than Premier Mike Harris is letting on." Further, they said: "Far from lowering municipal taxes, as the Tories would like, the province's lopsided deal in its present form threatens to wallop property taxpayers.

"The revised cost-sharing leaves Hamilton-Wentworth alone holding the bag for a budget shortfall of anywhere from $59 million to $81 million. Regional officials have warned it could translate into a residential property tax increase of 9.2% to 12.4%, or an equivalent reduction in services."

Minister, are you going to refute these numbers? If not, how do you justify doing this to the taxpayers of my community?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes, I would refute those numbers, because what they're not taking into consideration is the funding that's coming off the property tax base by taking education off. Some $2.5 billion worth of tax room will go to municipalities, including the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

We know that the municipalities have the wherewithal to eliminate waste and duplication within their organization. Last year there was the hue and cry about how taxes would have to increase. Municipalities dealt with it quite well. Most municipalities didn't have any tax increase whatsoever. I'm quite confident that competent and efficient municipalities will not have any tax increase next year either.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, I would invite you to meet with local officials personally. If you're going to declare publicly here today that in some fashion officials and elected representatives in my community are fudging the figures and you're also calling the editorial board of the Hamilton Spectator all but liars, then I say to you that you owe it to them to sit down and show your numbers.

They went on to say: "A boastful Harris gave municipal officials sandwiches and pastries when he unveiled the revised plan. Pork and beans would have been more appropriate.... It is unconscionable of the province to send municipalities" -- this is the Spec editorial board -- "into next year's budget-setting process saddled with a financial time bomb created by the Harris government."

Minister, I'm asking you on behalf of the taxpayers in my community of Hamilton-Wentworth to withdraw your unfair plan today.

Hon Mr Leach: I really do appreciate the dramatics that are put in there.

This is a trade in the services that are being delivered. The province is assuming a number of services and we're asking the municipalities to assume other services so that we can ensure that the waste and duplication in the current system is eliminated.

We know that municipalities last year, when they developed their preliminary budgets, were also concerned that there would be increases. We know that this year when they develop their preliminary budgets, if they don't do anything to address their waste and duplication, they could have tax increases. But we know that when they look at eliminating the obvious waste and duplication that's in the system as a result of the overlap of the delivery of services, they will be able to cope next year. We're anticipating that not only will there not be a tax increase, but by the year 2000 there will probably be a tax decrease.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to see what your familiarity is with this legislation. Help me out on something procedurally, if you will. Bill 108, the Provincial Offences Act; Bill 109, the Public Libraries Act; Bill 139, the Game and Fish Act; Bill 129, a budget bill; Bill 138, the road safety bill; a supply motion and House calendar motion: In your opinion, do you think we would be able to complete these by Thursday evening of this week? If the government wishes to complete them --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Motions.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I just wanted to comment on that, if I could, that the government is more than --

The Speaker: This is an interesting thing. It looks like a meeting is breaking out here. I prefer to do motions. Motions? Petitions?

PETITIONS

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario made a pre-election promise to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act if elected; and

"Whereas the resolution introduced by Marion Boyd, MPP, on May 16, 1996, calling on the government to keep its election promise to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act was unanimously supported; and

"Whereas no actions have been taken by the government in the direction of creating or passing an Ontarians with Disabilities Act; and

"Whereas persons with a disability in Ontario are not allowed equal rights or equal citizenship due to lack of access in areas including but not restricted to communication, transportation, housing, employment, education, and the cost of disability is all but ignored by the Ontario government;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris and the Conservative government take measures to ensure the introduction and passage of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which is in accordance with the needs of persons with a disability in Ontario."

That has been signed by many of my constituents, and I attach my name to that petition as well.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition signed by 367 people representing 220 homes in the Couchiching Point area of Orillia, as well as Invermara Condominiums, Gwen and Eddies Restaurant, Couchiching Inn, Hot Knots and Mariposa Marinas. The petition states that the residents believe the proposed changes to the above intersection will not improve the safety aspect of the intersection -- more dangerous than it is today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas as residents of the Couchiching Point area. we strongly believe the Minister of Transportation's proposed changes in the intersection of Highway 12 and Couchiching Point Road in Orillia will not improve safety conditions;

"Whereas we believe, if anything, the proposed changes will increase the risk of a serious accident because the traffic will be four lanes travelling at a much higher speed than present. Turning left off Couchiching Point Road and turning left on to Couchiching Point Road, across two lanes of traffic moving at 60 kilometres an hour, will be asking for a disaster;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ask the Ministry of Transportation to install traffic signals now at this intersection before a serious accident occurs causing injury or death."

I have affixed my name to it.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas this lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa or Kingston several times each week, even during dangerous winter weather conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families and friends continuing to drive to Ottawa and Kingston for treatment several times a week in the abovenoted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the Minister of Health follows through on the commitment made last April to set up the long-awaited dialysis and much-needed health services for Cornwall area residents."

I've also signed this petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to present on behalf of the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy, with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals, and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed, renewable resource; and

"Whereas bear hunting replaces natural mortality and reduces cannibalism among bears; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and economic rhetoric to ban bear hunting and end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

1530

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I will affix my signature to this.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of the United Steelworkers of America.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the introduction and passage of Bill 7 in 1995 legalized the use of replacement workers -- scabs -- in strikes and lockouts; and

"Whereas the use of scabs has contributed to lengthening the bitter dispute between S.A. Armstrong Ltd in Scarborough and the United Steelworkers of America Local 6917; and

"Whereas the strike at S.A. Armstrong began its second year in late April; and

"Whereas, as this case demonstrates, the legalizing of scabs makes the democratic decision of workers to withdraw their labour meaningless;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to rescind the Bill 7 changes to the Labour Relations Act which allow the hiring of `replacement workers,' and thereby restore the legitimate bargaining power of workers who have chosen to organize themselves into a union for the purposes of securing a collective agreement, and thereby to restore some small measure of fairness between the unequal forces of labour and management in this province."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues in the NDP, I proudly add my name to theirs.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I have a petition here signed by hundreds of people. It says:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce measures to allow, during lunch periods in public schools, instruction in the religious doctrines of families who seek such programs, and that such instruction be allowed to be presented by clergy and other recognized religious leaders."

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have more petitions, this time from members of OPSEU from all across the province, forwarded to me by Leah Casselman, their president.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

I wish they were doing that with WCB as they had committed to, and I add my name to these OPSEU members.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition from the residents of Sarnia.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residences adjacent to the location of the third phase of the noise barrier along Highway 402 in Sarnia face the highway; and

"Whereas the noise barrier would obstruct our view by replacing it with a wall;

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

"That the third phase of the noise barrier project be abandoned and our view be left intact."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of the province are incensed about the Mike Harris plan to kill debate in the Legislature. We're getting petitions coming in from all across the province, certainly from my riding of Port Arthur, Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. The petition reads:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram through legislation more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That's a shame.

Mr Gravelle: It's shameful.

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I am very proud to sign my name to that petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of Local 105 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers from and around my community of Hamilton-Wentworth. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre has provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre has made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled female toplessness is legal in all public places; and

"Whereas we believe only designated areas be enforced;

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

"Out of respect for our seniors who built this country and our children who shall inherit it, we ask this ruling be amended and our petition be tantamount to those who are in agreement with this ruling as it exists, whereas our beliefs are protected and valued by our government."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

1540

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1997

Mr Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 143, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 / Projet de loi 143, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1997.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Does the minister have a brief statement?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I really have no statement. I'm happy to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. It deals with routine spending of the province of Ontario. I'll simply leave it at that.

CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 144, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? It is carried.

Does the member have a brief statement?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The City of Toronto Act, 1997, as you are well aware, is commonly referred to as the government's megacity bill. I am proud today to sponsor this private member's bill which would amend the megacity legislation to effect a different ratio of representation in what will become the ward of East York under the new megacity. Currently, the megacity legislation provides for only two councillors for the ward of East York. My bill would increase that number to three, which would ensure that there is more equitable representation based on a councillor-to-resident population ratio and also that there would be a more effective community council that could play a role in bringing local democracy to the residents of East York.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT, 1997

Mr Boushy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

JOB GROWTH AND TAX REDUCTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CROISSANCE DE L'EMPLOI ET LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS

Consideration of Bill 129, An Act to stimulate job growth, to reduce taxes and to implement other measures contained in the 1997 Budget / Projet de loi 129, Loi visant à stimuler la croissance de l'emploi, à réduire les impôts et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): Order.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm not suggesting you are in charge. I am asking a question because you are in charge. I want to know if you will allow strangers sitting in the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to address the member for Algoma. Standing order 105 gives permission for the parliamentary assistant to sit in the front row and for the staff to be there.

Are there any amendments, and if so, to which section? Are there any questions or comments, and if so, to which section?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The question I have is, why is this government in the first two sections, the amendment to paragraph 1 and the amendment in subsection (2), going ahead with its tax cut when at the same time its budget documents clearly show that we're still running an annual deficit of somewhere close to $7 billion or $8 billion per year, when the interest on the public debt has gone from $7.1 billion to $9.1 billion, an increase of $2 billion in interest payments, just in a matter of two or three years?

Why is the government proceeding with this action at this time, when the recognized worldwide bond rating agencies, such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's, are not giving this government any higher rating than they gave the last government? One of the main reasons they're not is because they think it's ill advised at this point in time to proceed with a tax cut when we're still adding to the public debt of this province.

My question to the parliamentary assistant is, why are you proceeding with this part of the bill at this time when it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from a responsible fiscal viewpoint?

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I would say that we are proceeding with the tax cut because our plan obviously is working. If you look at the economy today you will see that the number of jobs in Ontario is increasing, the general economy is on the way up. You just have to look at housing starts, you have to look at the public confidence.

You mention also that tax revenue is falling. I have the figures here. I would say tax revenue is projected to increase by $111 million, or 0.3%, in 1997-98, as the current economic expansion continues. It has already started and it can only accumulate as time passes. Revenues are also projected to be up in retail sales tax, corporations tax, gasoline tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, land transfer tax, just to name a few. It's a different philosophy, as I can point out to the member for Kingston and The Islands. We feel that we are going to get to the prosperity that Ontario once enjoyed through the tax cut. You will never agree to that, but we are using the current statistics to show that our plan is working.

1550

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First of all, I do not like to be misquoted in the House. I did not say that the revenues in this province were falling.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): It's not a point of order.

Mr Gerretsen: It sure is a point of order. I said, "Why is the government going ahead with this tax cut when the annual deficit in the province of Ontario is still in the $6-billion to $7-billion range?" In actual fact, if the parliamentary assistant would take a look at page 63 of her own budget document for this year, when you look at the total revenue for this province, you will see that in this year it is going to be $48.4 billion, whereas last year it was $49.4 billion. So you're incorrect.

The Second Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order.

Ms Bassett: The other thing I would say to the member for Kingston and The Islands is that those are the forecasts. Second, we are going ahead with our program, because the evidence is that this program for restoring prosperity is working. We feel that although the deficit may remain at $6.6 billion, it is going down as planned, and by the year 2000-01 it will be eliminated. There's no question about that. It's just that we may be going a little more slowly than if you were in office. You might plan to cut it next year. We think it's better to use the statistics and the programs we have in place that are already showing they're working.

The Second Deputy Chair: Questions or comments?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I do indeed have a first question to my colleague, the parliamentary assistant for finance. It refers specifically to the Income Tax Act, part I of Bill 129.

My question is as follows: I would like to know the impact of the second part of the Income Tax Act for an Ontarian making $25,000 per year, $60,000 per year, $100,000 per year, $150,000 per year, $200,000 per year, $500,000 and, finally, an Ontarian making $1 million.

My question is twofold. For instance, if a person makes $1 million, with the second part of the tax cut how much will he or she benefit, cumulatively, from the first instalment, inclusive of these instalments in the ranges I've mentioned: $25,000, $60,000, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, $500,000 and $1 million?

Ms Bassett: I say to the member for Lake Nipigon that we can supply you with every single answer. I'm not a computer; I can't go through every single line. We can, probably, by the end of the hour. In terms of the person with a $1-million income and the tax on that, the increase that you presume he is getting in his savings will be offset by the progressive Fair Share health tax. You don't answer that, which is a progressive tax, and it goes up with the more income you bring in. When you mentioned that the rich are going to benefit much more by the tax cut --

Mr Pouliot: We'll ask for them.

Ms Bassett: I am pointing out, though, that this offsets the fact that the person making $1 million, you would imply, would be getting more dollars in terms of his tax cut. But he is going to be paying a huge amount more in terms of his Fair Share health levy. It's a progressive tax, and that's the way it should be. The people with more money should be paying more for their health, to offset the ones who don't and to offset, I suppose, the savings that would be made on the tax cut.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the partial answer from the parliamentary assistant. Basically, what she is saying is that for one of the income levels my colleague from Nipigon asked about, they will get a certain cut -- she didn't say how much, which we need to know -- on average --

Ms Bassett: I said I'd get it for you.

Mr Wildman: We've got until midnight, so we've got lots of time. We need to know that, but she said it would be offset by a huge increase in another tax, which she described as progressive. I'm sure she would understand that before we can pass this into law, before we can move to third reading, we actually need to know some of the figures. It would be most irresponsible for us as members of this assembly to pass a tax act that is of such significance without at least being given some figures.

We need to know, as my colleague indicated, what, on average, various levels of income will benefit from these cuts, and if the parliamentary assistant wishes to argue that these cuts will be offset by other tax increases, we need to know those figures as well. My colleague has asked about various levels of income. I would be interested in some others, but I will await the answers for the levels my colleague from Nipigon has put on the table before I might raise other income levels, because I'm quite interested in the parliamentary assistant's view that these cuts in income taxes will be offset for those at the upper level of income by other increases in taxes.

Not that I doubt her word and not that I question the view she's putting forward, but it would be most helpful if we actually had the figures so that we could tell whether she's correct in her view. It has been stated in this House by certain members that about the top 10% of income earners, I believe, would get about 66% of the income tax break that is being offered by the government in this income tax scheme which is embodied in Bill 129, which is before the committee.

That hardly seems progressive, but since the parliamentary assistant is arguing that this is indeed a progressive move because it's related to other taxes, we need to know the numbers. I'm sure she understands that. If she can give us the numbers for the levels my colleague has requested, then I'll determine what other numbers we should also get.

Ms Bassett: Certainly we will work out the specific numbers that the member for Lake Nipigon wants. We can get them.

Let me say to the member for Algoma, though, that there's no question that the less you make, the bigger your tax percentage is going to be. Let me read out: for the less than $14,900 income group, 41.4% is the average Ontario tax cut when fully implemented. I've got a whole series of numbers. If you want me to read through them, I can read through them. From $19,175 to $23,529, you get a 32.3% Ontario tax cut when fully implemented. I'm jumping down: $37,800 to $44,049, you get a 30.5% Ontario tax cut when fully implemented. I can jump to those earning $102,500 to $122,999: You get a 23.2% Ontario tax cut when fully implemented. As you see, it's less. When you get to $247,500 and over, you get a 17.9% Ontario tax cut when fully implemented. Just to point that out.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for High Park had an inquiry.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Fort York.

The Second Deputy Chair: Fort York, I'm sorry.

Mr Marchese: That's okay. It's hard to remember where we come from.

The Second Deputy Chair: I've made that mistake before.

Mr Marchese: That's all right, Chair. There are too many people in this House to remember.

To the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, we appreciate that kind of breakdown. It isn't for our benefit, I should say; it's for the benefit of those who are watching this program and of course ultimately paying for this tax cut. It isn't just for me to know. It's true that it's good for me to know because the public I represent wants me to share it with them, because presumably I have that information ahead of them. I need to know this information now, the public needs to know now, those who read the Hansard -- and they don't get it any more, so it's even more complicated to have access to this information -- need it now; we don't need it later.

1600

As we get this breakdown, 32% of the Ontario tax cut if they're making between $19,000 and $23,000 means nothing to me, and I'm sure it means nothing to those who earn $20,000. What people want to know is, what is the tax saving? Not just when fully implemented, because some people will understand that in terms of the 30% income tax; others want to know what that 7.5% is, what that 15% is, what it means to get a 21% tax cut, and when fully implemented. People need to know, in my view, dollar figures. "What do I get back if I earn only $23,000? What does it mean in my pocket?" What does it mean to the person getting $1 million in his pocket, either when fully implemented or with the 21% or 22% tax cut you've already provided, whatever that is?

We don't want this at the end of the debate. We would like these figures as soon as possible so we can make statements connected to this and so the public has access to that information as soon as possible.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Use the percentages.

The Second Deputy Chair: Member for Fort York, was there something else you wanted to clarify?

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, just to respond to the member for Huron, because she's connected to this.

The Second Deputy Chair: No. Please don't. Please address your questions to me for the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Marchese: Through you, Mr Chair, of course. The percentages don't mean anything to anyone.

Mrs Johns: Of course they do.

Mr Marchese: The member for Huron is speaking to you, Mr Chair, not to me. She's saying percentages mean something to her. But the general public don't operate this way. They don't have a clue. Even people with university degrees can't figure some of this stuff out unless they have a degree in mathematics. She knows that. But the parliamentary assistant knows this as well. I think she knows better than the member for Huron that people want to know, "What does it mean in my pocket if I earn $20,000 and I get this tax cut?" -- a dollar figure, not percentages.

The Second Deputy Chair: I think the parliamentary assistant understands.

Ms Bassett: I just want to say to the member for Fort York that we are getting you the figures, the percentages of all these figures the member for Lake Nipigon wanted. We're just working them out. You will have them. Nobody is hiding them. If you want them in dollars -- most people think in terms of a 5% cut in the provincial income tax rate or whatever. It's fine to translate it into dollars and cents in relation to an income. We're not trying to hide anything. We shall give it.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Please address your comments to the Chair.

I'm going in rotation, and I now recognize the member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant if she could confirm her comments. Is she saying that the more money you make, on a percentage basis, the less your tax cut is, that those making less than $50,000 get a disproportionately higher tax cut than those making over? Could she confirm that?

Ms Bassett: I certainly can. You can just look at the charts -- they're all different charts -- that absolutely show this. The person I started off with, earning $14,900, gets a percentage cut of 41.4%.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The people of Ontario, certainly the people in the riding of Oakwood, are saying this government has promised them this tax cut and they don't see it. They say they don't see it in the amount of money they have in their paycheques, they don't see any real money coming back to them. I think the question that has to be asked of the parliamentary assistant is --

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Members for Fort York and for Huron, I'm warning you. We are in committee of the whole. I can't have these conversations going on about me and I will not.

The Chair recognizes the member for Oakwood. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr Colle: I think it would be helpful if the parliamentary assistant showed us the money. We would like to see not percentages, not vague references; we want to see what this tax cut really means to ordinary people.

I'm sure you get it in Listowel and in your home town, Mr Chairman. People are saying, "We hear a lot of talk about the tax cut, but we don't notice that we have more money in our pockets." They're also saying, "The city hall has closed down, the hospital is about to be closed down, junior kindergarten is gone, we have to pay more user fees at the arena, more user fees to swim, more user fees to go to the library." They're saying, "How much does that really end up costing me in the long run?"

That's why I think it's important. I want to see what a millionaire now brings home because of this bill. That's why we want to see the real figures. Does the millionaire now bring home or have an extra $100,000 in his or her pocket because of this bill?

What's really at the heart of the matter is that if you look at part XI of Bill 129 -- in part I, the government is giving away a tax cut with money they don't have. Certainly I don't run across people who say the government has extra money. Then in part XI, the same government which just gave away this money, up to $5 billion -- in the last section, the bill enacts the Ontario Loan Act, 1997, and authorizes the borrowing of up $7.5 billion in total for the consolidated revenue fund.

The average citizen is asking, does it make sense for a government to forgo or to give away $5 billion in tax cuts that ordinary citizens don't see? I get that over and over again, people saying, "I haven't seen anything from this tax cut." How does it make economic or fiscal sense for the government on one hand to give away this money and then go out and borrow $7.5 billion? That is the real money question ordinary Ontarians are asking, especially in light of the fact that they're seeing some very negative fallout in the community, all over Ontario.

In Toronto, for instance, we have 10 hospitals that are about to be closed down. The emergency department in my own community, in Northwestern hospital at Keele at Eglinton, is about to be closed down in September. Some 45,000 people a year use the emergency department in Northwestern hospital. As a result of this government through this bill, the way I read it, giving away money in a tax cut, they're saying, "Is the price for that tax cut the closing down of the emergency department?" Those are the fundamental questions that I think the parliamentary assistant has to answer.

We are going to lose Wellesley Hospital here in Toronto. One of the finest downtown hospitals anywhere in North America or the world is about to face the axe. Women's College Hospital, one of the finest hospitals, delivering -- my second brother was born in that hospital. We have all had mothers and sisters who have gone to that hospital and had excellent treatment. We're going to lose that hospital. We've got Doctors Hospital. I don't know if you're aware of Doctors Hospital, Mr Chair. It's a fine little hospital off College Street that serves the newcomers in our community. That's about to be closed down.

1610

In the context of this bill people are saying, "Is it wise for the government to close a hospital," not just one hospital but up to 30 in Ontario, 10 in Metro, "where that money is going maybe to millionaires?" Do you know what the economists too are saying? Not only are the ordinary people in the street questioning it, a lot of economists are saying, "How do you track that tax cut?"

Let's say that millionaire gets $100,000 in his or her pocket. How do you know that millionaire isn't spending that money down in Acapulco, for instance? That millionaire maybe is buying a condo in Acapulco with that $100,000. At least the hospital worker who's got a job at Northwestern Hospital or Doctors Hospital gets his 12 bucks an hour, and when he brings home that paycheque, that hospital worker is spending that money buying bread and shoes and a shirt in downtown Toronto or downtown Grimsby or downtown Port Colborne.

I know that is a way of explaining it in layperson's terms, but I think it's a fundamental economic question. If you're really going to use that money to stimulate the economy here in Metro, in Ontario, in Kapuskasing, you have to spend the money locally. As you know, what's happening more and more is that a lot of wealthy people can spend the money offshore. I would like to have some data from the ministry in terms of how much of that tax cut money is being spent offshore and if they've done any tracking of that.

If we get that kind of information, I think we'll see that a lot of those big dollars that are being given to the well-to-do people of Ontario -- I bet more than half of that tax cut is probably being spent in places like Acapulco. I can see a lot of condos being bought in the Cayman Islands. I can see a lot of these properties on the Riviera being bought up by Ontario residents with a lot of money, or they have taken that tax cut money and spent it in Acapulco.

The problem with that from an economic perspective is that money was supposed to be spent to stimulate the Ontario economy, yet what it's doing is stimulating the Acapulco economy or it's stimulating the economy in Saint-Tropez or wherever the jet set go these days, I don't know -- Morocco for all we know.

Wouldn't it make more sense from an economic perspective -- I wonder if Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Service and the other economic forecasters aren't trying to say the same thing I'm trying to say, that the reason they oppose the tax cut is because you can't track that expenditure, that it's better to spend that money in Orillia, and for all we know, spend it at Rama, but at least it's staying in Orillia, it's staying in Ontario, but that when you give that tax cut to the well-to-do, you don't know where the money is flying to. Therefore, it does not create the economic activity and the real jobs here in Ontario -- in Orillia, in Grimsby, in Brampton, in Kapuskasing.

It's not just the opposition saying that; I think it's the people who are experienced in this area. We've heard the comments from three of the major-domos of the financial world. It hasn't just been Gerry Phillips or Gilles Pouliot or the critics in the opposition. We've had Moody's, the Dominion Bond Rating Service and Standard and Poor's saying, "We really caution the Ontario government." That's why they haven't improved our credit rating.

I think they are doing something fundamentally contrary to good, basic economics 101. If you look at basic economics, it says that before you spend money or give it away, take care of your debt. As you know, the basic contradiction in this whole Bill 129 is that they're giving away money and then in the last paragraph they're trying to keep it really low profile. As I mentioned, it's an outstanding amount of money they're going to borrow. If you vote for this bill, you're sanctioning the borrowing of $7.5 billion.

If you look at what the public is saying, the public in Ontario and all across Canada were given the same option in the last federal election. You had the Reformers and the Conservatives going door to door saying, "We want to give you a tax cut." As you know, that platform did not sell. People said: "Hey, wait a minute now. We know what is happening in Ontario with the tax cut. We know there's a price to pay. There's no free lunch with tax cuts. We know a tax cut means you have to close hospitals." People in Ontario are very clear on that. They understand that. I think that's why they rejected it.

As you know, the Republicans of Bob Dole ran on the same ill-fated Reaganomics approach of the tax cut first. They rejected the tax cut unilaterally, and Bob Dole went nowhere with that same policy.

I think if you ask the people of Ontario today, after two years of witnessing what a tax cut means, they would tell us that this Bill 129 is not what they want. I think what they're saying is, "I'd rather not pay those user fees for my prescription drugs." That's what the seniors are telling me. Every time I go into a drugstore or into a seniors' home, they're all saying, "We hate that Mike Harris user fee on prescription drugs." They say it over and over again. I say to the seniors: "Well, don't you like that tax cut the Mike Harris government has given you? You can pay for those user fees now because you got that tax cut." Do you know what the seniors say? They say: "We haven't seen this tax cut. Where is it?"

What is fundamentally wrong with the approach of Bill 129 is that the people who need a break the most, the people who can least afford to pay user fees, are the ones saying: "We don't agree with Bill 129; we would rather have the government help us in paying for our prescription drugs; we would rather have the government keep rent control; we would rather have the government build good, affordable housing for seniors and the poor than this tax cut," which they think is really a boondoggle for the economy of Acapulco. That's what they think it is. They think that's where all the money is going.

I agree with some of my colleagues on the NDP side. What we're saying through this committee of the whole process is that we want the government to show us the money. We want the government to show the seniors the money. We want the government to show the unemployed hospital workers and the nurses the money. If you look at the consequences of the bill, how many nurses are going to be laid off because of this tax cut in Bill 129? We know how difficult it is to get nurses. We know how difficult it is to get prompt services in hospitals now.

I was talking to a person last night. He said, "I had to wait over an hour and a half in emergency for a simple problem." You have to wait an hour and a half. When they move and close six or seven emergency departments in Metro Toronto, how much longer will that wait be in emergency? That's what it's all about, this centralization of these hospitals that look more and more like airports. I don't think the people of Ontario want mega-hospitals; they want their community hospitals. They want a hospital where they don't have to wait an hour or two or three in emergency.

They don't want all this mad rush to day surgery. You talk to a lot of seniors and they say, "Every time I have to go to the hospital now, they want me at home by noon." A lot of seniors cannot cope with being at home by themselves after they have just had a surgical operation, but the doctors tell them: "Sorry, we can't keep you in the hospital. It costs too much money. We get rewarded if we get you out of the hospital quicker." So you're sicker, quicker, out on the street again.

1620

This is where the money is going maybe, or not going, so I think a lot of us on this side would say two basic things: First of all, before you reward people with a tax cut, make sure that the hospitals provide the level of service we're used to, make sure junior kindergarten is restored, and make sure that you take away those user fees for prescription drugs. Take care of those things first. Then, down the road when you don't have to borrow any more, when we know we've got our hospitals funded, we know we've got our schools funded, you can look at the potential of tax cuts. You've got to put first things first.

Everybody will tell you now, as you know -- it's undeniable -- no matter what political party you belong to, people are worried about those fundamental basic good things that were part of Ontario's government, where they made sure they went out of their way to provide a good education to everybody and good hospital care to everybody. Now we're seeing that jeopardized, and they're questioning whether or not bills like Bill 129 are jeopardizing this because this government is on this very narrow ideological bent, the supply side economics, which has been debunked. Reagan tried, and we know what happened when he did it. The United States went into about $3 trillion in debt. They tried it; it didn't work there.

Even Ralph Klein didn't try to do this double-edged, burning the candle at both ends, whatever you call it, where you essentially try and tackle the deficit and give a tax cut at the same time. Even Ralph Klein, who is a fiscal Conservative, who is a rational Conservative, it seems, said don't do it. First of all, what you've got to do is control your deficit, and don't cut hospitals at the expense of the tax cut. But here in this bill --

Mr Gerretsen: Or education, for that matter.

Mr Colle: I mentioned education when you weren't here. I said that was also important. It is true, and I don't think it's something that is of a partisan political nature.

Talking about education, one thing that a lot of people are saying too is they really wonder if you look at the tax cut and what it's doing to post-secondary education, the cost of it. We see that a lot of young people now are not finding employment opportunities, so they're going back to school. As they try to go back to school, they see that tuitions are going through the roof, a 30% increase. They can't afford college or university. They can't get a job. As you know, there is 17% to 20% unemployment in youth. They go back to school and they can't afford school. Then, if they go to school, they're told to go into massive debt.

You wonder whether some of that money that is going towards this tax cut as the government proposes here in section 1 of the Income Tax Act -- let's say you told the wealthy especially: "Hey, listen, you can afford to wait for your tax cut for a couple more years because you're just going to spend that money in Acapulco anyway. So don't buy that condominium in Acapulco this year or next year. Go and buy the Acapulco condominium maybe in the year 2002." Either give that money instead to some of those young people so they can get some help in jobs or lower the tuition for universities.

That's the fundamental question I'm asking about this bill. How does it address that fundamental question, the fact you shouldn't be borrowing money, you shouldn't be closing hospitals, raising tuition fees, closing junior kindergarten down, charging user fees and giving that kind of money to a tax cut? I think it goes back to the original question: You've got to show us the money. You've got to show us how much that millionaire is getting in real dollars, not in percentages, and I want to know where they're spending it. I want to know if you've been tracking how much money is going to Acapulco, how much money is going to Morocco, how much money is going to the Falkland Islands, for all we know. We don't know where the money is going, but I do know that those hospital workers, the nurses in one of the hospitals about to be closed, spend the money locally. Whether they can track that, that's the fundamental type of research I hope the government has done, because this is a fundamental shift in the way our province has been run.

When you do something fundamentally different, you need to have that kind of analysis done, and I would hope the Minister of Finance or the parliamentary assistant can give us that kind of research to show us what happens with this money in the tax cut, where it goes. Would it be better spent to keep it in the hands of the hospital worker or the teacher's aide or the junior kindergarten teacher, and would they not create more job stimulus by spending the money locally on local services, local goods? That is the fundamental information we need before we proceed down the road with Bill 129, because you can't argue that every one of our communities wants to see the money spent locally.

I'm afraid, as I said, a lot of this money that's going out in tax cuts -- I guess it's going to be up to $5 billion when they get through -- is not going to be spent even within Canada, never mind in Grimsby. It's going to be spent who knows where. Maybe the new hot spot is Shanghai or somewhere. We don't know. I think we need that kind of tracking information, because when you make this fundamental shift, and Bill 129 is very fundamental, we want to know where this money goes, and would it be better spent on our schools like Queen's University in Kingston and all our good universities, our high schools and our elementary schools? Those are the fundamental questions I hope get answered.

The Second Deputy Chair: Does the member for St Andrew-St Patrick wish to respond?

Ms Bassett: I'm happy to have the opportunity to reply to the member for Oakwood. I must say to the member for Oakwood, whom I've known for quite a while now as I have made my way around during the federal election and the provincial election here in the same area, you really remind me of my days as a newspaper writer when I used to think of the most sensational heading and then I would add everything together, on teachers' salaries or whatever, and put it at the top in order to get the headline. You are doing exactly the same thing, and I don't blame you. You're in the opposition. Naturally you're going to be trying to create this horrendous story of millionaires walking away with the loot, taking money away from the poor in the province.

The fact is that when you say you want to know what millionaires are getting in the tax cut, if you had been looking at figures, you would know that only 0.5% of people in this province make more than --

Mr Wildman: Yes, and we want to know how much they're getting.

1630

Ms Bassett: You're going to be getting it -- make more than $247,000 a year, and yet you have blown it into this amazing story as if everybody was going to be getting that when it's a tiny, infinitesimal percentage of the population who get a few more tax dollars.

I also want to point out that 64% of the benefits from this tax cut will be concentrated on middle-income Ontarians earning between $25,000 and $75,000 a year. When you say that people don't notice that they're getting a little break in their tax cut, I don't know where you are. When I go out along St Clair West in your riding, people are all happy if they can get a little bit of a tax cut. In fact, it's amazing to me that we are living in a country and living in a province where people might object to a tax cut. After having had to live through 10 years of Liberal and NDP government when there were 65 tax increases, it's absolutely ludicrous, when we come along with a tax cut, to say, "What's happening, what's happening?" and question that.

In so far as looking at our using the tax cut to fund the health and hospital restructuring is concerned, as the Minister of Health says almost daily, we're not going into the health restructuring and closing of hospitals; what we're doing is restructuring for the new millennium.

We can't afford to deliver health services the way we did in my day when I was young. You go into a hospital today for an operation, which might have kept you there 10 days in the past, and you come back within the same day, often within four hours, so you don't need the beds in the same numbers as you did in the past. You don't need nursing care as much in the hospitals as you do in the community. That is what the Minister of Health has said time and time again. Let's move the nursing care from the hospitals to the community. We're trying to keep people in their homes much longer, where people can be happier, people can be healthier. It has nothing to do with saving dollars in this particular case; it's spending dollars much more wisely.

Frances Lankin, for example, who was your Minister of Health, was the person who started on this matter of restructuring hospitals. Michael Decter, who has written books on it, is around saying how hospitals will be restructured to meet the needs of a new delivery of health care systems.

To come back to your point, Mr Colle, about the little bit of money people get, before the Ontario budget, people who had -- I want to talk about a single senior with a total income of $20,000 that he gets from his old age security and a pension. Before the Ontario budget he paid $895. After the first two Ontario tax cuts he would have paid $755; after the first four Ontario tax cuts it goes down to $695; and after full implementation, $625. Every dollar counts.

A family of four, with one earner with an income of $25,000 and two children: The Ontario personal income tax payable before the Ontario budget was $505. After the first two Ontario tax cuts that goes down by half, really, to $280; after the first four Ontario tax cuts, to $160; and after full implementation, to $35. Who can argue that we aren't going in the right direction? Why would we not be praising going in the direction of having less tax?

Mr Pouliot: I thank the parliamentary assistant for the answer. Let me, for the benefit of the people of Ontario, the people who are watching, and for our own edification, repeat the question. A family of four earns $25,000 per annum, in a year. At this stage of the tax cut, since the beginning, how much money per year will that family of four be saving? The next stage is $60,000; then a family of four earning $100,000 will result in how much saving; $150,000; $200,000 per year; $500,000 per year; finally, a family of four earning $1 million. You see, we wish to know in terms of dollars how much a family of four earning $25,000, in one case, will be saving and progressively up to $1 million; in terms of dollars, how much each of them will save.

Ms Bassett: Let me answer that because I have three of those and then the rest we have to compute out. For the person earning $23,000 to $28,000, if that's close enough for you, the average tax cut is 31.8% --

Mr Wildman: No, money.

Ms Bassett: Just a minute, because we think of taxes in percentage -- or $450.

Mr Wildman: Four hundred and fifty?

Ms Bassett: Four hundred and fifty. That's quite a bit if you're earning that money.

The next bracket you asked about is $53,000 to $67,000, the next bracket we have. That person gets a tax cut of $1,675, or 30.3%, which is considerable. The next one you asked about was $200,000. We have it broken down from $172,500 to $247,500. That person gets a tax cut of $5,815 or -- the percentage is way down -- 19.6%. As I said before, anybody earning over $247,000, which is only 0.5% of the population, gets a tax cut of $15,075, or 17.9% When you get beyond that, we are getting that number to compute the difference.

I find those dollars considerable savings, and happier news is the direction it's going.

Mr Wildman: The advantage of committee of the whole is that members in the assembly can have an exchange and get specific information, have questions answered about the legislation we're dealing with. It is very helpful, and without any disrespect for my friend from Oakwood, we here are attempting to find specific information so that we can determine whether this bill is going to achieve what the government says it will; that is, stimulate job growth. We're not here to make third reading or second reading speeches, but just to get the information, and I appreciate the parliamentary assistant giving us that.

If I am to understand the figures she just gave us correctly, is she saying then that in round terms a family of four making over $250,000, that makes approximately 10 times the family of four that gets $25,000 -- so they make about 10 times the amount of someone at the bottom end, but they're getting 30 times as great a tax cut. In other words, they're getting over $15,000 in their pocket --

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: I know why the member doesn't want to hear about the real dollars. They're getting over $15,000 back, but the person who makes one tenth of what they make is only getting $450 back. In other words, the person who makes 10 times as much gets 30 times as much of a tax break. That really doesn't seem very fair. Why aren't they only getting 10 times as much? Ten times as much still would be a great amount, but why 30 times as much? That really does seem unfair. I'm just wondering why on earth a government would do that.

If an individual makes $250,000, that's 10 times as much as the person who makes $25,000, but in terms of cash in the pocket or in the bank account or in the condominium in Acapulco --

Mrs Johns: Create jobs.

1640

Mr Wildman: -- or the jobs they may or may not create on Main Street, we've got to understand that the person who makes $25,000 and gets $450 back is not really going to be creating too many jobs in Ontario. But the person who makes $250,000, I'll concede, if that person were to invest the $15,000 in Ontario, it might create a job.

My concern is this: I'm asking about equity. That person who is making $250,000 is already at an advantage. That person is making 10 times as much as a person who is making $25,000 -- they're doing all right in life -- but they're getting 30 times the tax cut. I just don't understand. If they were getting 10 times the tax cut, that would still mean they were at a great advantage but you might understand it. But they're not getting 10 times the tax cut, they're getting three times that; they're getting 30 times as much.

I can't understand. Why on earth would a government that believes in equity, a government that believes in equality, a government that believes in helping people, be helping those who have at the expense of those who haven't? I don't understand that. Really, what is this? Why is it this government believes that the person who makes $250,000 needs more money, but the person who makes $25,000 doesn't need as much money? It would seem to me that the person who makes $25,000 could use the $15,000 a lot more than the person who makes $250,000. If we were really going to be equitable about this, why not give the person at the bottom end more than the person at the top end? That would make a lot more sense.

Interruption.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. I want to explain to those in the gallery that we appreciate your interest in being here, but there are absolutely no demonstrations or anything or I'll ask you to leave.

Mr Wildman: I'm sorry I provoked that, sir.

It would make sense, obviously, that the person who is making $25,000 a year and has a family of four needs more money than the person who makes $250,000 and has a family of four. Obviously, the person who has only got $25,000 income needs more money than the person who has $250,000. Surely we can all concede that.

Since the parliamentary assistant earlier wanted to talk about percentages, why wouldn't the Minister of Finance and his brilliant staff who are here to help you have devised a plan that would give the people at the bottom end a substantially higher percentage tax break than the person at the top end? When I say "substantially," I mean so that the individual who makes $25,000 a year is getting at least a tenth of the dollars that the person at the top end is getting.

We understand that percentages don't feed kids. Dollars do. You can't say, "I got a pretty good percentage, so we'll be able to buy more groceries." What determines the amount of groceries you can buy is how many real loonies you've got in your pocket. The amount of groceries you buy then stimulates jobs in the corner store, in the grocery store, in the transportation industry, in the agrifood industry and in farming. But the guy who gets $15,000 as a tax break and makes $250,000 is not going to spend it all. He's already got $250,000 to spend. He ain't going to spend all of it. He's going to save some of it; he's going to spend it elsewhere; he's going to do whatever he wants with it. If you really want to stimulate jobs in this province, you give the person at the bottom end more dollars, because they'll spend it and they'll stimulate jobs.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): That's the way it's set up; always has been.

Mr Wildman: The member from Brampton says that's the way it's set up. My question is quite simple: Why not change the way it's set up?

We didn't give this kind of tax break. This Bill 129 proposed by this government is a tax break, as the title says, "to stimulate job growth." If you're going to stimulate job growth, you give the money to the people who need it, who are going to spend it, not to the people who don't need it and aren't going to spend it, or aren't going to spend it here to stimulate job growth, if that's what you're serious about.

Unless we can get a real explanation from the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, I'm going to have to suggest that we move an amendment in committee to change the title of this bill. It's not going to stimulate job growth in Ontario.

Mr Colle: Show us the studies.

Mr Wildman: My friend from Oakwood asks for the studies the government has done that will show I'm wrong and she's right. Can you please table them in committee, the studies that will show that by giving somebody who makes $250,000 a year $15,000, you're going to stimulate more jobs than if you gave the person who makes $25,000 or $60,000 a few more dollars in their pockets?

Let's not just talk about the people at $25,000. Let's talk about middle-income people making between $53,000 and $67,000. Those people are getting $1,675; that's one tenth of what the people who are over $250,000 get. Why? This is a denial of the whole purpose of your bill. If we're going to pass this legislation here, if the committee is going to say, "Yes, we agree with this bill without amendment," we'd better have the figures that demonstrate and the studies that prove this is going to stimulate job growth.

The Chair: Does the member for St Andrew-St Patrick wish to respond? Okay, the Chair recognizes the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: I thank the member opposite, the parliamentary assistant for finance. I would like to pursue the same line of questioning. We've already established that a family of four, with an annual income of $23,000, will benefit to the tune of $250 per year; an income of $147,000 to $172,000 will get $5,815; an income of $257,000 per year, a family of four, more than a quarter of a million, will get approximately 30 times what people with a small salary do: $15,075.

On the same progression, will you kindly inform us, if a person makes a million dollars per year, $500,000 and then $1 million -- we would like to compare. We will do the mathematics ourselves; we're here to help.

If a person makes between $53,000 and $67,000 and gets $1,675 per year savings, and the person making $247,000 gets approximately 10 times more money in their pocket by virtue of the decision you have made, yet they only make about 4.5 to five times the money, if this is true and it appears that it is, when a person makes $1 million a year or $500,000, these figures will take on unprecedented and extraordinary proportions. They should be, if they are not, embarrassing to the government. What is being done here, if it is true -- and the words are not too strong -- is a deliberate and systematic benefit to those who need it least at the expense of the middle-class and the working poor in our society. It will go beyond the obscene; it would be porcine. People should ask, if they were outside this Legislative Assembly, for nothing short of examination and a jail term, because this is an act of thievery.

1650

People go in excess of tens of thousands of dollars as we go through. If you're on the dole or you make a small salary of $25,000 for a family of four, they throw you the crumbs: $450 per year. Whoop-de-doo, big deal. But those who are the most fortunate -- I guess the more you make, the more you take. Who's on the take here? You can't blame the people who lobby -- well, just a bit maybe -- but the people who give, and they rake in from all in society.

Not only that, you don't have the money. You've got a big debt out there that you always complain was left to you by the Liberals and the NDP and you use the same plastic, the same credit card, and run it through the machine one more time. You borrow all over the world because you can't even pay your deficit, never mind the debt, so you go out and borrow some more. You're out of control, because the money must come in. You pick the pockets around you, you borrow internationally, and then you take that money and you give it to the Bridle Path.

Madam, one question, and then I shall leave you alone until the next article. If you make $500,000 per year, a family of four, what are the savings in dollars? If you make $1 million per year, a family of four, how much do you save? It's the same formula. We started at $23,000, a family of four; you will save $450 per year. If you make $240,000 or so, you will save 30 times that, $15,075. We need only two more. Don't tell us about Frank Stronach, at $30-some-odd million or the $4 million or $5 million. We want to know $500,000 and $1 million.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: I prefer to give my time to someone else.

The Second Deputy Chair: Whichever: Yorkview.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Chair, I'll take anything I can get, especially nowadays.

I was just reminiscing about all the various documents. I welcome the opportunity to debate Bill 129, which is practically the budget itself. I couldn't help but go through my desk here and see that I have been keeping bits and pieces as we have moved along in the last couple of years since the government has taken power. I have to say that since the government took power, they have brought forward a number of documents, including the last budget that we saw this year.

By the way, the last budget addressed itself mainly to such major points as cutting taxes again, and I'll come back to that; balancing the budget, and I will come back to that as well; helping small business to create jobs, which is something I really want to address for the member on the government side; and investing, for example, in excellence in the classroom and stuff like that; investing in children and families; investing in young people; supporting safe communities; and less government, of course. Those are some of the highlights of the last budget. Everything has got to do with dollars and cents, of course, but above all, it's got to do with good administration, good government.

Some of the previous speakers were addressing the real cost of the tax cut and all the downloading of the Mike Harris government. As I said at the beginning, most of the major documents brought down by the government in the last couple of years included the last budget; the Common Sense Revolution, which now we all know; the 1995 speech from the throne; Bill 26 in November, 1995; the fiscal and economic statement of November 29; of course the budget of May 7, 1996; and a business plan, which meant doing better for less.

Let me read something for the information of the House which I think is quite interesting. It doesn't come from members of the opposition and it doesn't come from a document from the government side; it stems from the budget. I'm going to read a couple of phrases as reported in an article in the Toronto Sun on October 15, 1996. It addresses pages 1 and 2 of the Common Sense Revolution, addressed to the voters. It's in the form of a letter sent by Mike Harris on May 3, 1994, which was a year before the election.

It begins: "The people of Ontario have a message for their politicians -- government isn't working any more. The system is broken."

Of course, Mike Harris was elected and he was supposed to fix it. Just over two years later, we know what he has done to that particular system which he said one year prior to the election was broken. This doesn't come from me, it doesn't come from us, it doesn't come from the opposition side. This is the Toronto Sun on October 15, 1996, page 12, and the writer says this:

"Just what did you think Mike Harris was talking about when he made those promises, those comments? To be sure, there are many valid criticisms one can level against the Harris government, but they are based on things the Tories did say they would do. They did say on page 3," I would assume of the Common Sense Revolution, "that they would protect health care funding, spending on classroom education and the priority area of law enforcement.

"Well, even supporters like me are having a hard time understanding exactly what all of that means right now. For example, when the Tories promised they would not touch a penny of health care funding, surely they knew the public would take that as an indication that they were not planning a major upheaval such as the mass closing of hospitals."

The same thing is for education. Now we know, when the Premier said the system was broken and he was getting a message, what he has done two years later. He has been closing hospitals, and we won't see the consequences of that for another couple of years. We know what he's doing to the health care system, to the education system, to labour laws and stuff like that. Let me point out one thing: The income gap is a storm on the horizon, and this springs from the actions of the government.

Many years had been spent to try and bring some equity in the workplace, in the workforce, especially among women working in the many fields of employment and especially the low-paying jobs. Whatever gains had been made over the last 15 or 20 years have been wiped out in the last 18 months or two years by the Mike Harris government.

1700

What is stranger -- it's not even strange, it's ironic -- is what they are doing, they are doing with such an arrogance that they keep on saying, "We have been listening to the people and we are continuing to listen to the people," when in fact they are doing the total, complete opposite. If they were listening to the people, they would not do what they are doing today.

On pages 5 and 6 -- I have to read this because it's extremely important, because it deals with budget, it deals with spending money, it deals with getting money from the people, it deals with balancing the books, balancing the budget, reducing the debt. Rightly so, I think many of the things the government has said, we have been saying. Yes, we have to be concerned with the rising costs with the budget, the total debt, but we did say there is a way to do things.

What's really hurting -- and I will be reminding the Premier and the minister and the members on the government side of this -- is that page 5 of the Common Sense Revolution says this: "There is only one taxpayer.... We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes." We know what this is going to do to local municipalities and local taxpayers with respect to the unloading.

On page 6 -- again, this is something the government will be reminded of on a continual basis, especially how it affects the most needy in our society, the most affected in our society; I'm speaking about seniors. This is something that members on the government side should continually open, on page 6 of the Common Sense Revolution, and continue reading and bring to the attention of their caucus and the Premier on a daily basis:

"`Fair Share' Health Care" -- this is on the top of page 6: "We will ask for one thing...to reinvest some of the income tax savings into our health care system." My goodness, we know what they have done with that. "A `Fair Share' health care levy will be collected through the provincial income tax, with the rich paying more than the middle class" -- sounds good, doesn't it? -- "and people making less than $50,000 a year paying nothing. At $50,000 the levy will be $100."

Shall I remind the members of the government side, the Premier and the various ministers, who those people below $50,000 are and how they are being affected?

"The average middle-class family will still save more than $4,000 over three years." Let me give the government members what this does to a family at some $40,000 a year. Let's take even a family at $50,000 a year. A reduction of 15% would give that family of four -- that is, a family with two working people and two family members -- a reduction of about $512.

Up to now, what the Mike Harris government has given this particular family is $30 in new recreational taxes or user fees; new garbage fees, $50; new water fees, $100; property taxes, at least $30; school board taxes, another $30; transit pass for one student to the tune of $264; three adult transit passes, another $180; an increase for one university student's tuition, $490. They are saving $512; Mr Harris has imposed $662. I wonder where the savings are, to whom Mike Harris is giving that 30% tax cut, because a family making $50,000, let alone $40,000, doesn't see any money whatsoever.

Let me go back for a second to one particular group that is extremely affected by the actions of this government. One of these days we're going to come back and remind Mr Harris and the government that he has made a written promise that he wouldn't touch anything to anyone making $50,000 or less. You know what has happened to people making $50,000 or less, let alone $40,000 or $30,000? He has affected the people making the least: seniors, making some measly $14,000 a year, $16,000, and $24,000. I wonder where Mike Harris got these figures when he was running for election a couple of years ago. I wonder how many seniors -- there aren't too many in my area, I can tell you that -- are making $40,000 a year in pension. Perhaps Mike Harris would like to provide me a list for the people in my area of those seniors making $40,000 a year. I don't think he would find very many in my area.

The irony is that the uncompassionate Mike Harris, the arrogant Mike Harris, is taking the most from the people making the least. That is a shame, because he's charging seniors on a measly pension of $16,000 a year $2 every time they have to go to the pharmacy, and now what's happening for those seniors who have to take two, three and four is they are going to the pharmacy and saying: "I can't afford to buy all four or five of them. Which is the most important? That's all I can afford."

I wish I had brought down the letter with me which says, "I have to take my medication every other day because I can't afford to take it on a daily basis." Mr Harris says: "I won't touch you. I will help you. I'm going to bring in the fairest health care system in the province." Now he's taking the most away from the most needy people.

A family or a senior couple making $24,000 a year already have to shell out $200 before anything else, plus the $6.11, plus all the other increases as a result of the actions of this particular government. You cannot see them, but they are there. Seniors and people in general will have to pay, because now they are coming from another level of government, downloaded on the other government by big daddy, Mr Mike Harris. So now those people on fixed incomes -- single parents, single women, seniors mostly -- they have no other incomes, but they are going to get a tax increase.

Every time now the municipality says, "We have to provide that particular service," so there is a new user fee and they have to pay. There is the increase in electricity or water rates or garbage pickup or the parks and recreation department. If you want to use a community centre, practically nowadays before you step into that community centre, which was built with taxpayers' money, you have to pay $2 or whatever the municipality is going to come up with.

Is this the intent of the government? Of course, Mr Goldstein was right a couple of years ago when he wrote this one saying: "Yes, Mike Harris said that." Is he saying now that he didn't mean it when he made this promise, that he lied to the people? Is this what he's implying? No wonder people are saying, "Absolutely." This doesn't come from us, it doesn't come from the opposition, it comes from a very conservative newspaper about a year and a half or two years ago. If Mike Harris made that promise at the time, as some others, he should keep it.

Very often we hear government members goaded when they say, "We have been elected to do exactly that." Well, hold on a second here. When members on this side of the House rise, we get automatically criticized as, "You are attacking the government." What's fair is fair. You are saying that you've been elected and you're doing what you are supposed to do. We happen to be on the opposition side, and it's our job to attack the government, to criticize the government every time you do something wrong. Of course you don't like it, because up to now, there has been very little that this government has done right.

Mr Chair, I have no idea how much time I am allowed to speak.

1710

The Second Deputy Chair: Now that you have given me this opening, there isn't a limitation, but we are discussing Bill 129 and it has 11 parts. I guess I should know the length of your question or comment.

Mr Sergio: I haven't even touched the first page yet. I know I should give a chance to other members. It's an important document and everyone, I'm sure, wants to have their input on Bill 129.

Sometimes the opposition members get criticized for, not attacking the government, but bringing to the attention of the government those things that are blatantly wrong. It's not only coming from us; we hear it from the public that elected us.

When we go into our community, especially during the days we reserve for constituency work, from morning until night we have people coming, especially young people just coming out of college or university, saying: "I can't find a job. I need a job."

We have people on welfare. We have people living in government-assisted housing, and they are saying: "I know what goes on in there, but I can't move. I can't talk; I can't speak; I can't complain. If I complain about what I see in the building, they're going to kick me out, and now, with rent control being pushed out of the way, I just can't afford another location. If I complain about what I see out of my window, the prostitution taking place in the hallways, the drug trading that happens in the parking lot, they're going to be threatening me to leave the building." This is indeed what we are doing to our people.

The government has the right to bring in a budget, but it's got to be something that is fair, is good and is going to be better for the people they represent.

I don't think we should be listening to the government members when they say, "We've been elected by 38% of the voters."

Mr Baird : It's 50%.

Mr Sergio: Even 50%, I hear from one of the members. Are they saying they have forgotten about the other 50%? Is this what they are saying? If this is what they are saying, they should not resent it when members of the opposition get up in this House and speak up for the other 50% who cannot speak for themselves. That is plain and simple.

As much as I desire to continue, I want to give a chance to other members to address Bill 129, to address the House. I hope the government will really come to their senses, will use any common sense they have left and really think about the 50% out there who cannot speak for themselves, from kids to single parents, handicapped people and seniors who will be extremely affected by this so-called fair budget the government has brought down.

The Second Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the member for --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad you remember, Mr Chair. I thought the only time you remember me is when you want to name me, but that's not true. I'm glad.

I've got something to say on this matter. This income tax cut is something that troubles me and troubles a lot of people. That's why we raise the issue, how much are those people earning in the area of $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 going to get back? That's why we repeatedly ask that question, because we know it's very little.

I want to refer the parliamentary assistant to what economist Arthur Donner said in response to a question with respect to issues of tax cuts. "I would say that, to some degree, all government instruments are blunt instruments, but I believe the tax cutting solutions being proposed and implemented today are basically ideologically driven." He goes on to say this: "They are not really designed to create jobs" -- that's an important point; I think it's quite clear -- "although they are sold that way to the public," which is what you're doing, member for St Andrew-St Patrick, parliamentary assistant. You're selling to the public that this will create jobs. Arthur Donner, an economist, says it's an ideological tool really not designed to create jobs, although there's a need for you and for all your friends over there to say, "This will create jobs, and the plan is working." But it's not working at all. It's not going anywhere because it wasn't really intended to go anywhere.

He says more, and I refer you to his comments because I think they're insightful. "The tax cuts are ultimately for the purpose of eroding the role of government and the expectations people have of government." That too is very instructive. I see that as being a very clear design of your government: to erode the functions of government. It's part of that strategy, but it isn't really about creating jobs because it doesn't create jobs. You have no evidence for that. Neither you, PA, nor your Premier nor the finance minister have any evidence to show that tax cuts create jobs.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Do they have studies? Where are the studies?

Mr Marchese: They may be coming, I'm sure. After they pass the bill, for sure.

Mr Wildman: No, before.

Mr Marchese: Before. I want to see them. I'm sure the PA is getting advice from the ministry people, because they're very knowledgeable types. We're getting objective opinions about this, no doubt, but clearly there must be contradictory views about what these people think, because this one has clear views about the fact that they do not create jobs.

He goes on to say this: "From what I've been reading in the papers lately, many ordinary citizens are not sure they really want a tax cut if the tradeoff is that their son or daughter will not be able to afford university, or the local hospital will close, or their aging parent will have to travel farther in an emergency." That's a fact.

People are saying, "I wouldn't mind getting money back," even though they don't know they would get much money back, "but if the tradeoff is that I get very little back but I lose a great deal of the services this government has to provide, that we deserve, then no, we don't want it." Many people are saying, "Don't do this tax cut, because we know there is evidence of an erosion of our social infrastructures." They know that. When they go to hospitals, they know the services have declined.

Mr Wildman: Except for people at the top.

Mr Marchese: Oh, please don't talk about the people at the top. You know who they're going to help? The bankers. They're going to help the bankers who earn about $1.5 million, $1.7 million. At the end of that 30% cut, they're going to make 120,000 bucks, more or less; I could be wrong about the number, but that's what I've heard. These are the people who are going to gain. That's why the member for Lake Nipigon was saying earlier that we're creating a society of haves and have-nots and that you people are quite happy creating that gap, because you're on the side of those who have a great deal versus those who don't.

1720

That's why you're clobbering injured workers. My friend the member for Hamilton Centre has talked about that a great deal. You're whacking injured workers, at whose expense? You eliminated the wage protection fund that supported workers when the company goes down. Workers would have been at the front of the line, but under your proposal, by eliminating the wage protection fund, the bankers are at the front of the line and the workers are no longer there; they get nothing.

Shelter homes are overcrowded, but these people, these guys over here, can afford to borrow $25 billion to finance this tax cut on the basis that it's going to create jobs. Arthur Donner doesn't agree with you. It's not me disagreeing with you. You can dismiss me because you can say: "He was just a teacher. What would he know about economics?" But this is an economics professor, an economic type, an economist, who I think knows a little more than I do, and he says you people are wrong, it's ideologically driven and it doesn't create jobs. Surely you've got to listen to him. I think you should listen to him.

Mr Pouliot: Not if you're at the trough.

Mr Marchese: But if you're at the trough, it's true, it doesn't really much matter.

He goes on to say, "I would target middle- and lower-income people," if you're going to give a tax cut. "Studies show that these groups of people are saving at record low levels, about 3%, and would tend to spend any extra income." Their spending would create jobs.

But you people really aren't doing that, because two thirds of this $25 billion you're giving away is going to the top 10%, the people who have money. Isn't that obscene to you? Doesn't it touch you a little bit? Doesn't that give a little murmur of the heart as to the wrongheadedness of that? Is there a heart? Does that heart feel it when you say, "Gee, 60% of this $25 billion goes to the top 10%"? Don't you feel that a little? I would. Even if I were there, I would feel guilty a little bit.

But I know that the people watching today know which side you people are on. The people watching this program are not Conrad Black, I can tell you that. He doesn't watch this program. The people who watch this program are ordinary folks, mainly seniors, who make, what, $10,000 a year, like my mom, maybe $15,000. Maybe some people make $20,000, I don't know. If you got a little more because you inherited some money or you had a great job, maybe you've got a little more. But most seniors, we know by the studies, are poor people.

You've got injured workers who are at home because they got injured on the job, due to no fault of their own; just ordinary people earning very little. These are the people watching, and they know which side you are on. People are beginning to understand that you are creating a society of those who have money and those who do not. You are redistributing the wealth once again from those who have little and giving more to those who already don't need your help. They don't really need your help. Why would you guys over there help those who don't need any help at the same time you whack those who have so little in life?

My question to the parliamentary assistant, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, is, what is your sense of what this economist is saying? Ideologically driven: You've got to hammer home that it's going to create jobs, but he says it really isn't designed for that.

If you're going to do the income tax cut, he says, give it to those people at the lower end. I think that makes sense. If you're going to give a tax cut, give it to those at the lower end, those who earn less than I would say $40,000, but even $50,000 if you want, because they would benefit and they would spend. Don't give it away to the rich people, Isabel. Don't give it away to them. Give it to those at the bottom. What do you think of the views of this economist? This is a question I have of her.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: I have two very specific questions to the parliamentary assistant. I've been interested in finding an answer to this question. I've asked it rhetorically here in the House on a number of occasions and no one has answered the question yet. It doesn't deal with part I, which is the tax cut situation. We've heard an awful lot about that in the last little while. It deals with part II, the Land Transfer Tax Act. I noticed there was a statement in the budget as well.

I just want to know whether it's the government's policy that the policy which has been in place since 1974, which is basically to protect our farm land, our agricultural land, our vacant land, our recreational properties etc -- there was a major concern some 25 years ago that a lot of these properties were being bought up mainly by Americans, particularly in the area where I live but I'm sure in many places in Ontario that are close to the American border. It was decided then by an enlightened Conservative government, rather than the Reform government we have now, to impose a 20% land transfer tax on Americans buying these kinds of properties.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): How many people collected it?

Mr Gerretsen: I will tell you something, Minister. I was in private practice at that time as a lawyer, and I can tell you that up until that time there was a fair number of Americans who bought recreational properties on an ongoing basis. In 1974, with the implementation of this act, it stopped it -- not entirely. Some Americans were prepared to spend the extra 20% in buying these cottage properties.

I want to know, is it now the government's policy that we are no longer concerned about who buys our recreational land, our farm lands, the vacant land out there? I would like to know that, because there was a statement in the budget that says effective May 6, 1997, the land transfer tax will be amended. The reason given is that non-residents of Canada will now pay a land transfer tax on the purchase of all land at the same rate as residents. It says the tax premium on foreign investments is no longer needed.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would file with the Clerk's office and lay on the table the studies that is based on. Is it the philosophy of the Reform party we have in power right now not to be concerned about foreign ownership? That's one question.

The other question, and I've been making this comment on a consistent basis for about the last two years, deals with the whole notion of a tax cut. I've been saying, as has the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, that basically the tax cut money is being obtained from borrowed moneys. Of course the government has been in total denial of that. I find it very interesting -- and again the parliamentary assistant could address this -- that in part I of this act we are talking about the tax cut, but in part XI of the act, which is the Ontario Loan Act, it states: "The bill enacts the Ontario Loan Act, 1997.... The act authorizes the borrowing of up to $7.5 billion, in total, for the consolidated revenue fund. It is expected that the public capital markets, the international loan market and the Canada pension plan will be the principal sources of funds."

Then it talks about schedule A. In schedule A it specifically states that these moneys can be borrowed "to discharge any indebtedness or obligation of Ontario, to make any payment authorized or required" by the act.

What this bill has shown to me better than anything else, parliamentary assistant, is that you are actually borrowing the money for the tax cut. It states so specifically in part XI, that you want to borrow up to $7.5 billion so you can pay for the tax cut you're authorizing in part I of the act. Will you now admit categorically that what we've been saying is correct and that basically you want to pay for the tax cut of $5 billion once it's fully implemented, on an annual basis, by borrowing that money? You're borrowing $7.5 billion in the same document.

I would like some answers to those two questions. They are asked in all sincerity and honesty. Would you please now admit that you have to borrow money to pay for your tax cut? This document indicates it. We all know that in your budget document the public debt of the province will go up from $100 billion to $120 billion over the next five years. I guess of the extra $20 billion, you're trying to finance $7.5 billion of that in part XI of this act.

1730

Come clean with the people of Ontario and say, "Yes, we want particularly the people who are better off in this society to have a tax cut, and the way we're going to fund it is by borrowing the money." Why else would you in the same bill have a tax cut provision as well as a borrowing provision? It makes absolutely no sense at all unless what I'm saying is correct, that you're borrowing this money to pay for your tax cut.

From a party that likes to indicate to the people of Ontario that it represents business interests in Ontario, it's certainly not running the financial affairs of the government in a very businesslike manner. I know of no other organization that runs on an annual deficit of $6 billion to $7 billion per year that at the same time would be borrowing money so that the people who are better off can get a tax cut. I'd be very interested in getting the answer to those questions, Madam Parliamentary Assistant.

Mr Kormos: I have a very specific question to put to the parliamentary assistant as well, and that is in the context of the history of this government since their election in 1995. I recall very specifically that one of the first things this government did in short order was to chop the assistance given to our poorest people, unemployed people, by 21.6%.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: I can't have these conversations back and forth.

Mr Kormos: What I find remarkable, and I wish the parliamentary assistant would respond to this in the context of the bill she is sponsoring here today, is that one of the first acts of this government was to reduce social assistance benefits to our poorest by 21.6%, followed in short order by a salary increase for MPPs to the tune of at least 10%.

Mr Pouliot: Point of order, Mr Chair: Does a quorum call apply to committee of the whole House?

The Second Deputy Chair: Is a quorum present?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: What surprised me was a full-page advertisement that I read in last Saturday's edition of the St Catharines Standard, in which a Tory backbencher, among other things, in this full-page ad spoke of there having been a reduction of MPPs' salaries by 5%. That simply didn't compute. This Tory backbencher, in a full-page ad in the St Catharines Standard -- it could well have been a typographical error, because we all know the government increased their salaries by at least 10% promptly after cutting the support for social assistance recipients by 21.6%.

Let's look at the numbers. The pre-Tory salary for MPPs was $42,000 a year taxable, plus $14,000 a year tax-free. If you want to compound that $14,000 a year to make it the equivalent of a taxable income, let's do it by 100%. That comes to $28,000, and $28,000 plus $42,000 comes to $70,000. So the pre-Tory salary was the equivalent of approximately $70,000 taxable. The post-Tory salary is a base of $78,004. At least one Tory backbencher spent a whole lot of money placing a full-page ad in the St Catharines Standard trying to tell the public of Ontario that increasing the wage from $70,000 to $78,000 constituted a 5% reduction in pay. As I said, there could well have been a typographical error.

Interestingly, some Tory backbenchers would try to indicate that adjusts yet more so for the $100-a-day, tax-free per diem that these guys were gobbling up during the course of lengthy, let's say, Bill 26 hearings, achieved only by virtue of the conduct of Alvin Curling, a Liberal caucus member who forced public hearings by virtue of a strategic stunt here in the House, and were it not for that, there certainly wouldn't have been those extensive Bill 26 hearings.

A Tory backbencher suggests, as well, that extra $8,000 is necessary to compensate the Tories for what they lost in the tax-free per diems. At $100 a day tax-free -- mind you, they didn't have to take the tax-free per diems; it wasn't compulsory to fill out the form, but they did -- when you calculate that to add up to $8,000, Parliamentary Assistant, you're talking about over 60 days, indeed over 70 days, indeed 80 days a year, which at four days at a week, 16 weeks per month, is the equivalent of five full months of sitting on committee when the House isn't sitting. It's never calculated out to constitute 80 days of per diems. Even if the Tories want to somehow justify replacing pure cash grabs by that extra $8,000, what we're left with is a 10% salary increase for MPPs in such short order after cutting off our poorest at the knees.

What's interesting about the salary increase for MPPs is that perhaps only six or seven of the whole Tory caucus collect only their base salary of $78,004. There's only a handful of Tory caucus members who collect that enhanced salary of $78,000. The new Mike Harris Tory regime that wants to beat the daylights out of the poorest in our society raises their salaries from what in effect was $70,000 to $78,000, but then only six or seven or eight at the most of all the Tories here at Queen's Park don't collect perks, let's put it, cash, payola, in addition to that $78,004 base salary. It ranges from the mere $4,500 for a Vice-Chair to the $8,000-plus for a Chair to the $11,000 or $12,000 for a parliamentary assistant, and to -- what the heck is it? Some cabinet ministers work very hard. They have very long days and a great deal of responsibility.

1740

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What are the qualifications for a parliamentary assistant?

Mr Kormos: What are the qualifications for a parliamentary assistant? I've got my speaking notes in here.

The qualifications for a parliamentary assistant: I know what the member for -- he's right here with us today. I suspect that if the member for Grey-Owen Sound didn't say this, this is his sterling opportunity to stand up and deny it.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: I didn't say it, but Bill Murdoch, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, who was a good parliamentary assistant -- darn, he was a good parliamentary assistant. He was among the most dutiful. He was. I know folks from up in his riding. The member for Grey-Owen Sound is popular in his riding. On Sunday in Welland at the Rose Festival parade, a fellow from one of the pipe and drum bands that was down came over and introduced himself, said: "Good to see you. I'm from up in Grey-Owen Sound. I'm one of Bill Murdoch's constituents. I want to tell you, even though Bill Murdoch was probably the best parliamentary assistant any government has ever seen, one of the best" -- that was a very parochial comment; it was one of his constituents.

We've got to get back because the member for St Catharines, who read the same full page -- what is the cost of a full-page ad in the St Catharines Standard? Maybe, if you're with the Tory government, Tubby Black gives you a little break. Is it possible? You're in his back pocket. At the end of the day, you're in his back pocket.

Mr Bradley: Conrad likes the Tories.

Mr Kormos: His name is Conrad, but it's Tubby, as we affectionately call him: Tubby, he who gobbles up small-town newspapers and spits out the editorial staff, leaving them unemployed, looking for jobs. The member for Grey-Owen Sound is the subject matter of some prolonged discussion here.

Chair, I put this to the parliamentary assistant: The full-page ad may well have been a typographical error when it talked about the Conservative government reducing MPPs' salaries by 5%. If it wasn't a typographical error and it wasn't the truth, there's an irresistible conclusion. If it wasn't a typographical error -- and we know there was no 5% decrease in salaries; there was a 10% increase in salaries for MPPs as a result of the Tories.

I suppose the money this government saved by cutting the allowances of the poorest people in this society, by cutting social assistance rates 21.6%, helped pay for the 10% salary increase for MPPs. I suppose having taken food off the table and taken food and clothing away from the kids of these families helped pay for the MPPs' salary increases.

I suppose that laying off, terminating the jobs of almost 300 workers in the family support plan and shutting down eight regional offices -- Ms Martel knows what I mean; she saw it with her own eyes. She filmed it; she videotaped it.

I suppose that shutting down eight regional offices of the family support plan and terminating almost 300 staff and leaving thousands of women and kids hungry, increasingly destitute in the fall of 1996, just before Christmas, without Christmases, women and their kids getting eviction notices, having the sheriff come knocking on the door, knock, knock, knocking with the writ of possession, in the fall of 1996 through into the winter and Christmas season, having utilities terminated, cut off because they couldn't pay them because the money this government saved by shutting down the family support plan denied these women and kids those support payments that their spouses -- not always spouses, but the supporting parent -- were paying into the family support plan. Almost inevitably that was the case. As often as not -- they weren't all fathers, they weren't all dads, because some were mothers paying support -- they were as upset as anybody else because they had already had these moneys deducted from their paycheques. Some actually scraped to try to find more, but there simply was no more, to help make sure their kids didn't go cold, didn't go without food, didn't go without clothes, literally.

If any of you people think that this is somehow an exaggeration, please, there are videotapes as well of many of the women and kids we met with. We came to this Legislature with the eviction notices, with the termination notices from Bell Canada and from Provincial Gas and from Ontario Hydro and from local water departments.

This wasn't a mere inconvenience. This wasn't merely having to call up the bank to say, "Look, let my overdraft carry me for a couple more days; I know the cheque is going to be here." We met with and talked to those women and kids whose support payments -- of what amounted at the end of the day to millions of dollars, I'm sure, over the course of that period of time -- whose support payments, being paid 100 bucks a shot, 200, 300 bucks at a time, didn't get to the people they were intended to because this government wanted to increase MPPs' salaries and wanted to provide a tax break for the very richest. Two thirds of all of that tax break goes to the top 10% of income earners, a tax break that, oh boy, is real attractive if you're making 150 grand to 172 grand a year. Man, oh, man, that's a tax break, if you're up there making six-digit incomes, not just modest six-digit incomes, upscale six-digit incomes.

This government has already taken from the poorest in our society, taken from the weakest, the most vulnerable, took from those women and kids who relied on the family support plan. That's where it got the money. That's where it got the six grand a year that it's going to pay back to the $150,000-to-$172,000 income earners. It didn't come out of thin air.

This government let kids go without Christmas in December 1996 so it could give a $6,000 tax break to somebody making 150 to 172 grand a year, the little kids we spoke to from all over Ontario. Not a part of this province was immune from the devastation this government imposed upon the family support plan and upon the kids and their mothers who relied on it. Not a single part of this province was immune from this government's attack on those women and kids.

We talked to those women and kids. We talked to the kids -- little ones, teenagers. We heard them tell us what it was like to not only have no gifts under the tree but not to have a tree either. Think about it for a minute, please. Think about what it must be like for a six-, seven-, eight-year-old kid to try to understand what it means when the sheriff comes knocking at your door with a writ of possession and when your clothes and the knick-knacks and the stuffed toys are all thrown into the green garbage bags along with the groceries and the onions from the crisper in the fridge and tossed out. That's how it happens. I'm sorry; it's not an orderly process.

You don't have King Movers pulling up with shipping crates. You don't have half a dozen uniformed livery people packing your items and putting bubble-wrap around them so they don't break while they're being carted away. I wish -- well, I don't wish that on anybody, but I regret that it's clear that our government counterparts haven't witnessed the indignity of that type of process.

The sheriff comes knocking with the writ of possession, and what possessions you have are unceremoniously and without any folding or neat packing dumped into green garbage bags. That's how it happens, friends. You tell me, for the life of me, how a six- or seven- or eight-year-old kid is supposed to incorporate that into what's anything akin to a healthy life experience.

Talk to the women who went to food banks for the first time in their lives, and who resisted it, who used up all the goodwill of close friends and then reached out to not-so-close friends until all the capacity of the people around them had been exhausted, who with humiliation called upon retired parents who can ill afford it, who have modest incomes in their own right. This is what happens when women and kids are assaulted the way they were assaulted by the abandonment of the family support plan so that people making $165,000 a year can get another $6,000 back on their taxes: women who go to their retired folks and plead with them, and those folks go out and put a second mortgage on a home, consuming whatever little equity they managed to have made. They thought they had some security. That's what happens.

Think about it. The prospect of a family with two or three kids having the cable cut off -- well, that's just the cable. You put a coat-hanger in the sockets of the television set. That's what you do. It's one thing to lose your cable; it's another thing to have the telephone shut off, so that you can't communicate beyond your home, so that you don't know whether the school's calling because your kid fell down and broke an arm or broke a leg or got sick in the classroom. It's one thing to lose your cable, but let me tell you, it's a totally different world to lose your telephone. We're talking about young families, young kids. We're talking here about moms, mothers, women who --

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Pursuant to the order of the House dated yesterday, the House is required to conduct a deferred division on the amendment to the motion to amend the standing orders at 5:55. I therefore suspend these proceedings until after the vote.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Deferred vote on the amendment to the motion for adoption of amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Sampson has moved an amendment to the motion for adoption of amendments to the standing orders. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1755 to 1800.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.	Grimmett, Bill	O'Toole, John
Bassett, Isabel	Guzzo, Garry J.	Ouellette, Jerry J.
Beaubien, Marcel	Harnick, Charles	Parker, John L.
Boushy, Dave	Hastings, John	Pettit, Trevor Brown, Jim
Jackson, Cameron	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Carroll, Jack	Johns, Helen	Ross, Lillian
Clement, Tony	Johnson, Bert	Sampson, Rob
Cunningham, Dianne	Johnson, David	Shea, Derwyn
Danford, Harry	Jordan, W. Leo	Smith, Bruce
Doyle, Ed	Kells, Morley	Snobelen, John
Ecker, Janet	Klees, Frank	Spina, Joseph
Elliott, Brenda	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
Eves, Ernie L.	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Fisher, Barbara	Marland, Margaret	Turnbull, David
Fox, Gary	Martiniuk, Gerry	Vankoughnet, Bill
Froese, Tom	Munro, Julia	Villeneuve, Noble
Galt, Doug	Murdoch, Bill	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Gilchrist, Steve	Newman, Dan	Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	Martel, Shelley
Bisson, Gilles	Grandmaître, Bernard	McLeod, Lyn
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Morin, Gilles E.
Bradley, James J.	Hampton, Howard	Patten, Richard
Castrilli, Annamarie	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Christopherson, David	Kennedy, Gerard	Pouliot, Gilles
Cleary, John C.	Kormos, Peter	Pupatello, Sandra
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Sergio, Mario
Conway, Sean G.	Lankin, Frances	Wildman, Bud
Crozier, Bruce	Laughren, Floyd	Wood, Len
Duncan, Dwight	Marchese, Rosario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion passed.

Report continues in volume B.

24 juin 1997