Journal des débats 1998-mai-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My statement is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. A year ago your ministry issued a document called Making Services Work for People: A New Framework for Children and for People with Developmental Disabilities. In it, you promised families of children with developmental disabilities that you would reshape services to meet the needs of the developmentally disabled. In Ottawa-Carleton, the hope rose that waiting lists would be reduced and the needed services for children and their aging parents would be provided.

Alas, it has become a cruel hoax, Minister, as you refuse to provide any new funding to meet these needs. Under your restructuring initiative for Ottawa-Carleton 90, sheltered workshop spaces and 35 residential beds must be closed to free up funds to meet these outstanding needs.

The loss of these programs will place unacceptable stress on families who must look after their disabled children, especially for aging parents like Ruby Shortt, Judy and Don Holmes, Patsy Henry, Mary Savignac and Jean and Hartley Stoddart, who are today in the gallery watching the proceedings. These people have gathered over 3,000 names on a petition asking that you halt this destructive restructuring initiative and provide adequate funding to serve the developmentally disabled. I ask you, will you do this?

FONTHILL PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mike Harris and his Tories' defunding of public education is generating fear across this province. I have in my hands now letters from 102 parents of students at Fonthill public school. They know full well that Fonthill public school is being targeted, as a result of this government's abandonment of the funding of public education, as one of the schools that may well be closed as a result of this government wanting to create a tax break for its wealthy friends but calling upon students like those at Fonthill public to pay the price for that tax break.

These families point out in their letter to me, and the 102 letters accompanying, that Fonthill public is more than just a school; it's a community unto itself. It's crucial to the wellbeing of the children of that student population that these types of small neighbourhood schools be allowed to survive.

They point out that bigger isn't better and that in fact Fonthill public's smaller size is one of its greatest assets. They point out that their school yard is safe and that, among other things, these things are going to end if that school is closed. They also recognize that the closure of this school is going to affect every other public school student in Fonthill, and the effect may well go on into Welland and Thorold.

These are 102 families which are clearly saying no to Mike Harris's policy of attacking publicly funded education because they're interested in the welfare and the education of their children.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN QUINTE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I rise in the House today to congratulate the management and employees of Halla Climate Control in Belleville, who, through hard work and dedication to quality, have created a world-class manufacturing plant capable of competing on the global stage.

That point was made obvious last week when the Korean-based automotive heating and air-conditioning component manufacturer broke ground on a 139,000-square-foot, $20-million expansion to the company's second production site.

At the ground-breaking ceremony, Halla's managing director, Yong Hawn Park, said, "Belleville is truly one of the best cities in the world to live, manufacture and compete in the global marketplace."

The expansion was necessitated by a new contract that Halla had won from General Motors for 1999 and 2000.

The expansion will be a boon to my riding of Quinte, with the creation of 200 new jobs for area residents and an additional assessment for the city of Belleville.

While the Halla Climate Control expansion is the largest recent business expansion in my riding, it is far from the only one. A string of recent business openings that have included a new Zellers department store, a Denny's Restaurant and a No Frills grocery store are all proof that the dramatic improvement of the economy in the past three years has really helped out. I know yesterday's budget will also help out the people in my riding of Quinte.

BUDGET

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): A message for voters: Who would have guessed that a budget-slashing province had so much money to spend or that a Reform-minded, Conservative government would devote so much to expanding social programs?

It was an eye-popping budget delivered by Finance Minister Ernie Eves on Tuesday. Meet the new caring, sharing Tories. After three years of radical surgery to rescue Ontario's economy from death's door, the government has suddenly turned its attention to getting re-elected. I must say, meet the Mike Harris hit-and-run budget. You hit them for three years, and now you're running for re-election.

Let me tell you what your budget meant to people in Windsor. The number one concern is health care. The number one concern is the condition of our emergency rooms in our Windsor hospitals.

May I tell you members opposite that your budget has done nothing to address the significant issues for hospitals in the Windsor area. Your announcements and reannouncements are nothing new to the people of Windsor because you've been doing this for three years. May I tell you that we have significant concerns, so that Mr Lyle Browning, who gets himself locked away with few or no nursing staff overnight for him in a hospital experience, has to look at yesterday's budget and say, "How is this going to change my life or that of seniors or young people or vulnerable sick people?"

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I would like to quote to you from the 1996 Ontario budget. This is Ernie Eves reading it at the time: "I am announcing today an enhancement of our child care funding that will provide over the next five years an additional $200 million in support above current levels...the highest in Ontario's history." In that year, 1996, $40 million of that $200 million was to be spent - not a penny spent from the 1996 budget.

Now let me read to you from the 1997 budget. Ernie Eves reading from the budget said: "You know the $40 million last year, let's forget about that. This year, we're going to provide an immediate $40 million in assistance to lower-income working families with child care expenses and that will be financed from the $40-million enhancement announced back in the 1996 budget. Well, we didn't spend it so now we're going to announce it again in 1997." Guess what? Didn't spend it.

Now, let me go to the 1998 budget in which Ernie Eves says: "In the 1997 budget I announced a $40-million child care tax credit. We now intend to combine that with $100 million of federal money and spend it this year." Three years running, the same money.

Under the original announcement there should be $120 million in additional child care spaces. Not a penny has been spent. I doubt it ever will be.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): This week is Drinking Water Week. As a province of hundreds of lakes and rivers, we are very fortunate to have an abundance of clean water, as many parts of the world do not have such a resource.

Many people in my riding and elsewhere across the province will be taking part in activities this week that celebrate our abundance and what we all need to do to protect and preserve it: by not pouring hazardous materials down the drain, by fixing leaking faucets and by installing water-efficient fixtures. We must all do our share.

Although most municipalities in Ontario are delivering safe, clean drinking water to their communities, an achievement that is the envy of the majority of countries, the environment ministry carries out annual testing as part of the ministry's drinking water surveillance program. The ministry also directs funds to municipalities to improve their water treatment systems, such as the recent announcements of grants totalling more than $12 million to five municipalities.

In fact, many of the people who help to maintain the excellent quality of our drinking water - the engineers, scientists and operators of treatment plants - are meeting this week in Niagara Falls at the annual convention of the Ontario Water Works Association.

I would encourage everyone across the province to be thankful and mindful this week of this very important resource. Let's not take it for granted.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The people of Ontario should know that the orgy of self-serving Harris government propaganda, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, continues unabated.

Radio advertisements extolling the virtues of the Conservative administration dominate the airwaves as Mike Harris uses hard-earned tax dollars to put out a clearly partisan message. Television commercials of the kind we have seen in months gone by are sure to follow. Full-page ads with an unmistakably partisan political slant appear in newspapers across the province, and even ads designed supposedly to convey important information for Ontario residents are tainted with political propaganda from the Harris regime - all at the expense of the taxpayers. Some publicly paid for commercials were even used to attack dedicated teachers who deliver education services in the front line.

Now the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, headed by former Harris principal secretary David Lindsay, now supposedly a non-partisan civil servant, is sending out newsletters that read like a partisan pamphlet for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

The Conservative Party is already awash in millions of dollars from its wealthy and powerful supporters who have shown their appreciation to the Premier for his policies, which are of the greatest benefit to the rich and the privileged. It need not use the levers of government money and taxpayers' dollars to purvey a clearly partisan political message.

1340

VISITORS FROM CALABRIA

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I think members opposite will be happy to know that I'm not going to comment on the budget today. I'll have a chance to do that at other occasions.

What I want to do today, Speaker, as I've done on a couple of other occasions, is to take the opportunity to express pride in an area of southern Italy that I come from, the region of Calabria, and to tell you and the members that among the many towns that populate that beautiful region is a town called Mammola.

We are happy today to have representatives from Mammola: starting with the mayor of Mammola, Antonio Longo, who's accompanied by the head of the police services, Luigi Scarfò. I welcome them to the Legislative Assembly. They are accompanied by Carmela Ientile, the president of the Mammola social club, and other representatives of the club. I welcome them as well.

This particular town now has about 4,000 people. It is a town from which many people have come both here to Canada and to other parts of the world. It is a town that continues to reflect the best of southern Italy and Calabria both in the natural beauty and certainly in terms of some of the amazing artworks of world-renowned artists like Nick Spatari.

I take pride in being associated with a region of the world that has that richness in culture and welcome again our guests to the Legislative Assembly.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): The Flame of Hope arrived in Oakville last week, signalling the start of the Ontario Special Olympics 1998 Provincial Spring Games. Tomorrow a group of enthusiastic, skilful young athletes will begin competing for a place in Ontario's sports history, demonstrating athletic prowess and the triumph of the human spirit that comes from doing their personal best.

Our community is honoured and proud that the torch has been passed to us this year to host over 700 athletes, their families, coaches, managers and officials. That pride is evident throughout our community, from the hundreds of volunteers and corporate sponsors to our own Halton Regional Police Service which is this year's official sponsor of the Special Olympics and celebrating their 25th anniversary of service. As the result of the efforts of our dedicated police force and many other community volunteers, this year has been the most successful of the Special Olympics in terms of commitment, volunteerism and fund-raising.

I invite Ontario to join us in Oakville May 7 to 10 to cheer on our athletes and revel in their courage, teamwork and personal victories.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Thank you for the opportunity to raise a very important point of order with you. You will know that earlier, a couple of weeks ago, I indicated to you by letter that I would be raising the issue of government advertising of a partisan propaganda nature. I mentioned to you in the letter, if I may, that on a number of occasions I raised with you the issue of the use of taxpayers' dollars by the government of Mike Harris to place in print and electronic media advertisements which are of a clearly partisan nature.

The ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Health, Education and Training, Community and Social Services, and Finance, among others, have engaged in the squandering of tax dollars on political advertising designed to shed a favourable light on the government's policies and legislation.

I recall that in response to one of my previous submissions to you in your capacity as Speaker, you stated the following in your ruling. I think this was extremely important, because while you found the government in contempt on one occasion, you also made an important statement to members of this House, both government and opposition, and for people in the future. You said:

"At this point in my ruling I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a particular position on a matter that is before the House. Let me be clear: I am not speaking here about politically paid for advertising, but rather about funds that are contributed to by every Ontarian, regardless of his or her political view. Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message. There is nothing wrong with members debating an issue and influencing public opinion. In fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds."

I concur with that particular ruling you made, with the statement you made, Mr Speaker.

Since that time, even after your reprimand, we've had a continuation of this. As you know, I do not object to - in fact, I believe the government has the right to and should provide basic information to people; nothing wrong with that. Ordinarily, in a request for proposal, that would be fine. Ordinarily, if you were advertising, for instance, that you're selling Ontario savings bonds, which I hope people will buy, that is fine. But even in those ads now we see that partisan message creeping in.

It's largely not the ministers themselves, I think, who are responsible for that. It is the geniuses who work in the Premier's office and who advise the government, who insist that they must make something particularly a propaganda message.

Here's an example again that appears -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No, I don't think ministers themselves, I say to my friend the Minister of Agriculture, are necessarily directly involved in this kind of thing. I think it comes from the central control. The central people want to get out a message.

As an example of this, here is a very legitimate advertisement on the surface. It's an advertisement which says, "Request for Proposals for Long-Term-Care-Facility Beds in Ontario." Nothing wrong with that, and we would hope that people would apply.

However, even within this ad you have the propaganda on the side telling why it's such a great program and why the government is doing such a good job. That's what I object to. That's what I think in our democracy is very unfair: for the government of Mike Harris or any government to use its propaganda organ even in ads of this kind. You spoil it.

I saw another one on property taxes where it said people could come to a particular public meeting. Nothing wrong with that. I saw another one, which was a good one - I want to say there are good ones and ones that are not - that said the government had made some changes to the family support program and there were three sessions where people could attend. Good ads. That's the kind of information that should be out there.

This is nothing but partisan propaganda.

I would like to get from the table, if could, the piece that I made reference to in my remarks, if I may receive from the table something that I submitted to the Speaker, and that is a newsletter from a government agency. That newsletter is put out by David Lindsay. David Lindsay used to be the principal secretary, a good Conservative with his party, and so I don't object to that when he was with the Conservative Party and that was his role. When he's principal secretary to the Premier, for instance, I don't expect he's going to be doing anything other than trying to make the government look good.

Here we have something called a Report to Taxpayers: Jobs and the Economy. This is from David Lindsay, and this is the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. David Lindsay may have at one time been working for the Conservative Party or for the Conservative Premier. Now supposedly he's a civil servant. This could be a document that would be useful to investors and so on. It's just full of Conservative propaganda. I would find Tory advertising during a campaign which would be less partisan and less propagandistic than this particular document. I don't think it's right for governments to use its agencies to do this.

1350

Mr Speaker, I am going to resubmit this to you. I left a copy with you. I am going to leave this with you and I will send to you some other items as well as the text of some of the radio ads that have been on that talk about the tax cut. It's strictly propaganda. It has no other value at all except propaganda.

In conclusion, I want to say to you and to -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Oh, we have a new Speaker. The member for Durham East is the new Speaker.

I simply want to say to the government, I encourage you to provide basic, non-partisan information. That's your job. I will support that. I discourage you from -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to speak to this point of privilege with regard to Ontario government advertising and I want to speak specifically to the radio advertisements that ran in April.

I have a transcript which I can supply to you, Speaker, of a radio ad. This ad is about the government's tax scheme. I guess since most Ontarians haven't felt the effects of this government scheme, the government felt they had to resort to radio ads to inform them of how good they have it in Ontario.

I would argue that the language in these ads is blatantly partisan in nature. They are clearly designed to put forward the message on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, not the government of Ontario. It is not a message that is put forward to give information to taxpayers as they prepare their income taxes to be sent in before the deadline. These are not ads that are intended to give information to taxpayers. The taxpayers of Ontario have had to foot the bill for these ads, not the members of the Progressive Conservative Party. In our view, this is completely unacceptable.

One of the ads I have before me, a transcript, talks about the tax cuts and then it says: "And that's helped boost retail and housing sales and contributed to the creation of more than 340,000 net new private sector jobs since June 1995. That's more new jobs than the rest of Canada combined. Ontario tax cuts: They're working for all of us." I wonder if this is really non-partisan information or rather an attempt to advertise on behalf of a government policy that is set forward by the Conservative Party.

This is a time when the government is resorting to using taxpayers' dollars to get their message out. There were also ads about Bill 160 in which they bashed our education system and our teachers. At that time, as my friend from St Catharines mentioned, you made the statement that you had expressed concern about the nature, tone and propriety of advertisements or similar distributions made by the government. You indicated, Speaker, that you have reservations and strongly encourage this and any future government to consider the power and influence that a government wields when a government makes these messages to the public. We've also seen in the past the advertisements on the city of Toronto bill. At that time you also expressed concern about the use of public funds that were not available to all sides of the House.

The Premier seems to misunderstand the role of the taxpayers and the funding for the taxpayers. Are we to believe that this blatant partisan advertising should be provided at taxpayers' expense or, as the Speaker has indicated in the past, if this kind of advertising is to be carried on, it should be done at the expense of the political party involved?

I submit to you the transcript of the radio ads to which I referred.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The first point I would like to make, Mr Speaker, is if this is indeed a point of privilege, you should deny it on the basis that it has not been brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity -

Mr Wildman: The House wasn't sitting in April.

Hon Mr Sterling: Section 115 of Beauchesne states: "A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap - "

Mr Wildman: The House wasn't sitting in April.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm sorry. There are rules that we follow in this House.

The Speaker: Members, I think there was a fair opportunity to put your positions forward. I think you should allow the government House leader to do the same.

Hon Mr Sterling: "Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House." On June 9, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux of the Canadian House of Commons ruled that a matter of privilege which has been brought to the attention of that House was refused precedence because it was not raised at the earliest opportunity. At that time, the Speaker cited the 17th edition of Erskine May as stating, "A matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be a subject which has recently arisen."

Erskine May goes on to provide an example of how "a matter which occurred during the recess was refused precedence as a matter of privilege because it was not raised at the commencement of the session," which was the earliest available opportunity.

On the occasion of a June 9, 1969, ruling, Speaker Lamoureux stated:

"In my view, the fundamental rule that a question of privilege should be raised immediately and without delay should be enforced. I appreciate that in some cases there might be extenuating circumstances, as where a newspaper is published in a remote section of the country, or if the offending article is published in a language other than that of the aggrieved member. In such circumstances a delay might be permitted. Such mitigating circumstances do not seem to exist in the case now before the House."

So too with the matter before us today. This is now the 11th full day, complete with routine proceedings, where the member has had an opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House. If it were an urgent and pressing matter, it should have been raised on the first day back or, at the very least, some time last week. Sorry, this is the 11th sessional day; I guess it's the seventh full day.

The ads in question have stopped running for some time, and though we contend that they did not represent a breach of privilege, their relevancy for this House no longer exists.

Precedence for this point of privilege should be denied and the House should be allowed to proceed with matters which are of a more pressing nature.

The Speaker: I'd like to reserve on this. I'll hear more points of privilege, but I'm going to reserve on it and report back to the House with respect to some of the issues. Would you please provide me with a copy of that newspaper as well as the copy you quoted from earlier? Thank you.

Point of order? Do you want to go again on the same issue?

Mr Wildman: Just a very brief response.

The Speaker: Okay. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: The ad my friend from St Catharines referred to I believe appeared in today's paper, so the defence, if you want to call it that, put forward by the government House leader does not apply. This is the first possible date. The advertisements to which I was referring on the radio in April occurred during the recess, it's true. I was not in possession of a transcript. I provided you with a transcript. The defence put forward by the government House leader is one of technicality on timing rather than on the substance of the issues.

Mr Bradley: In regard to this as well, you'll know I provided you with a number of items that have been over a period of time. But in terms of this one - I provided a copy of this, the one from David Lindsay's organization - I received it today from an angry constituent who happened to get this newsletter - by the way, a constituent who is normally a supporter of the government, but that's neither here nor there - about this being propaganda. The other was an ad from the Toronto Star today - I imagine it's in other papers - and indeed the transcript is one which we've only been able to obtain very recently.

So some of this material has just been obtained recently, and I find it passing strange that the only defence the government has is some technicality to try to prevent this from being heard in the House. I do understand their embarrassment, however.

1400

Hon Mr Sterling: If members did not understand my initial argument, where I put forward that this is a matter with regard to the relevancy of the information, I'll put forward that argument as well.

This honourable member has raised a number of concerns about the advertisements that were put forward. I did not hear in his allegations that these were a matter of contempt or made in advance of consideration of legislative measures. I did not hear that in his allegations. I did hear him comment with regard to the fact that he did not like the information that was presented.

I would argue that the concerns of my colleague the member for St Catharines are unfounded and raise neither a prima facie case of privilege nor of contempt.

I would like to address the allegations that the advertisements in question are self-serving and partisan. Governments have a responsibility to communicate with the electorate and are often criticized when they do not. We are not the first government to spend money on advertising. Indeed, if I look to the recent past, the Liberal government in 1990 spent almost $36 million on advertising, and the NDP government in 1994-95 spent $24 million on advertising.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Northumberland, come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: The purpose of our advertisements, as undoubtedly of those of previous administrations, was entirely informational. The government was informing Ontarians at income tax filing time of further cuts to their personal Ontario income tax. The government situated that information within the context of its long-term fiscal policy.

If I may, I would like to emphasize the long-term nature of this policy. In May 1996, the Minister of Finance first stood up in this chamber and formally presented to this House this government's fiscal policy and philosophy: Tax cuts create jobs. We have an obligation to inform the public that this policy is indeed effective.

As Speaker Sauvé ruled in the Canadian House of Commons on October 17, 1980, on a point of privilege raised with respect to government advertising on constitutional reform: "The spending of public money cannot be the issue, but when a person or government attempts to interfere with [Parliament's] deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or act in contempt of the House, such action could constitute a prima facie case. However, the interference must be such that the member or the House is truly hindered or intimidated."

The advertisements in question in no way interfered with the deliberations of this House or hindered any honourable member of it. Further, the advertisements are in no way disrespectful of this House and its processes.

As has already been noted, the standing orders of the House, specifically standing order 21(a), provide that, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Examples of privilege often cited in the House include freedom of speech, freedom from arrest and civil actions, exemptions from jury duty, exemptions from attendance as a witness and freedom from molestation.

In this House on January 22 of last year, Mr Speaker, you spoke to a precedent ruling made by Speaker Sauvé in the Canadian House of Commons, a ruling that dealt with concerns about the propriety of a government of Canada advertising campaign. As you noted, Speaker Sauvé ruled in that instance that there was no prima facie case of privilege and stated, "There must...be some connection between material alleged to contain the interference and the parliamentary proceeding."

Mr Speaker, I submit to you that in the matter now before us, there is no connection between the material alleged to contain the interference and a parliamentary proceeding. Indeed, the advertisements do not speak to legislation but rather speak to a well-known, formally announced policy that has been debated in this chamber on more than one occasion and will undoubtedly be debated further. Thus I submit to you, Mr Speaker, there is no prima facie case of privilege.

Mr Wildman: When you cut through all of that verbiage, the government House leader is essentially saying that while he does not believe there to be a prima facie case of privilege in terms of the privileges of the members of this House, he does not deny that the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has used taxpayers' money to advertise a policy of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Speaker: This is absolutely debate at this point. Member for St Catharines, I'll give you a brief opportunity, but I want to move on.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I wanted to help out my friend the government House leader by letting him know what I had raised with you because, to be brief, I didn't contain the whole letter. I'll read the last part of it. I said:

"Once again the Harris government has embarked upon an expensive political propaganda campaign using taxpayers' dollars, a campaign that any objective, informed observer would conclude is of a highly partisan nature."

I'll skip the next two lines. I'll go to the last line for the member.

"I am writing to request that you investigate the latest barrage of government advertising to determine whether, in your view, it is in contempt of the Legislature.

"In addition, I am asking you to comment upon the compliance of the Premier and his government with the request that partisan advertising be ended."

That is what I was asking. In fairness to the government House leader, I want him to know that.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On the same point of order Mr Speaker: Now that you are taking in hand evidence, I just want to say that some of the advertisements - and I'll be happy to provide a transcript - start by saying, "The following is a paid political announcement." It then goes on to talk about the tax cut. Then it closes by saying, "The preceding was brought to you by the government of Ontario."

In my mind, Mr Speaker, that's fundamentally inconsistent. I will submit that evidence as well, as you look at it.

The Speaker: If you would provide me with that, I would appreciate it. Okay, that's it. I will take it under advisement and report back as soon as possible to the House.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege: I feel that my privileges as a member and as a critic for post-secondary education and training have been infringed, and I want to explain why.

On March 10 of this year my colleague from Sault Ste Marie -

The Speaker: For a point of privilege you needed to supply written notice, and I don't think I received written notice today from you.

Mr Lessard: On March 10 -

The Speaker: No. What's your response to the fact that I didn't receive written notice an hour before this session?

Mr Lessard: Oh, an hour before. Okay.

The Speaker: If you provide that tomorrow, I'll hear your point of privilege tomorrow.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister. I want to speak to you today about one of the more glaring omissions in your hit-and-run budget yesterday.

One of your government's first moves was, as you know, to hit Ontario hospitals. You've hit them now to the tune of $800 million in cuts and now you're trying to run from it. Because of those cuts, we've seen declining levels of care in our hospitals right across the province. We have seen patients stacked up in hospital corridors and we've heard from patients who are experiencing what happens when you lay off 10,000 nurses.

One of the things Ontario hospitals were looking for in yesterday's budget was some offer of assistance. Specifically, they were looking for $300 million. They're about to run deficits in Ontario this year. There was nothing in your budget that's going to help them.

I want a direct answer from you. Since you're not going to give hospitals any more money, what do you suggest they do?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would like to refer this question to the Minister of Health, who I am sure can provide details to the leader of the official opposition.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We are in the process right now, actually, of having meetings with the Ontario Hospital Association. We're quite aware of the fact that a meeting was held this week. As has been indicated, the third year of reductions to hospitals, I think we need to confirm, will not be taking place, so we have not made those reductions to hospitals that are being talked about. In fact, any money - any money - that has been taken has been reinvested in health care. We have been reinvesting in priority services in the hospitals in the areas of cardiac care, cancer care, hip and knee replacements and dialysis. Every cent of money that has been saved is being reinvested in health services for people in this province.

Mr McGuinty: The Ontario Hospital Association, Madam Minister, tells us that this year 40% of Ontario hospitals are going to run deficits. You will know that Ontario hospitals are not supposed to be running deficits. Because of you, almost half are planning for them.

Alan Hudson, the CEO of Toronto Hospital - that's the largest hospital in this country - says that unless he gets more funding he's going to have to start shutting services down. That means closed wards, longer waits and reduced emergency services.

You've hit hospitals. Don't try to run from your responsibility here. What advice do you have for Mr Hudson at Toronto Hospital? What services are you recommending that he cut?

1410

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have received the additional information from the Ontario Hospital Association; in fact, I will be meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association. However, I would again indicate to you that we have reinvested $350 million into hospital-based programs.

Also very recently, when we had the situation of the emergency room overcrowding, we very quickly had a task force up and going, in consultation and in partnership with the Ontario Hospital Association. The day the report was issued, we indicated within hours that we were prepared to respond to every one of the recommendations and that we would be reinvesting $255 million.

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: That money is going to ensure that 1,700 long-term-care beds are going to be up and running in this province by the fall to take pressure off the acute care beds. It also means there are going to be community-based services available to the tune of -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: Hospitals and patients paid very close attention to your budget, delivered in this House yesterday. There is nothing in that budget, nothing of any kind whatsoever, which is going to restore the number of nurses that you took away from our hospitals. In fact, there's no money there for any nurses.

The other thing is that there's nothing there to help our hospitals, which are about to face a very difficult choice: Do they run a deficit, something they're not supposed to do, or do they cut services? I told you about the Toronto Hospital. The Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa ran a deficit last year of $400,000. This year they're going to have to run one of $500,000 - either that or, once again, cut services.

Hospitals are waiting for your advice on this front and they want to know: Should they run a deficit or should they cut services? Which is it?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's rather interesting that the leader of the official opposition is suddenly concerned about deficits. I think I need to make it clear that when a hospital submits a deficit, they also have to submit a recovery plan.

But I would ask you, why was your government, in the year 1989-90, not concerned about deficits? In the last year of your government you had 52 hospitals with deficits. In the first year of NDP rule we had 61 hospitals with deficits and in the last year of NDP rule we had 68. I don't think you are in any position to criticize this government. I would also indicate to you that at the same time, you cut 11,000 beds from the system. Now you are forgetting that we've actually increased health care spending by $1 billion.

BUDGET

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, when you delivered your budget speech, you said 15 times, "A promise made, a promise kept." I want to give you the opportunity now to respond to questions relating to promises that you did in fact make.

During the televised leaders' debate at the time of the last election, Mike Harris, your Premier, said, "Certainly I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." So far you have planned to close 35. My question is very straight up. For the benefit of all Ontarians, would you please tell them, did you keep your promise not to close hospitals?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As the leader of the official opposition will know, the health care system is being restructured. He was part of a government, and indeed the NDP were part of a government, in which during your 10 years of office you closed 11,000 hospital beds in the province of Ontario but you didn't do anything about the administrative functioning and cost of closing those institutions where the beds were closed.

The health restructuring commission was put in place to go across the province and talk about eliminating waste and administrative costs in the health care system in the province. They're amalgamating certain hospitals together as we shift towards long-term, community-based care. What have you got against spending $1.2 billion in long-term care?

Mr McGuinty: Here's another one, Deputy Premier, that's just as straight up as the last one. You promised in the Common Sense Revolution, "There will be no new user fees." Since coming to power, your government has created $225 million in new user fees for seniors and for the poor. Furthermore, you've delisted $170 million worth of OHIP services. What was covered before by OHIP will now have to be covered by people out of their pockets. That's what we call a user fee.

My question once again is very simple. Keeping in mind that you promised no new user fees, did you keep that promise?

Hon Mr Eves: I believe the commitment was to create no new taxes. In fact, we have created no new taxes in the province of Ontario.

The leader of the official opposition would know a lot about tax increases, sitting in a government that increased taxes 33 times between 1985 and 1990. The people over here to your left would also know a lot about them. They increased taxes 32 times between 1990 and 1995. In three budgets, we've reduced taxes 66 times, more than the two of your tax increases together in a 10-year period of time.

Mr McGuinty: This is becoming painful to watch, but I'll throw out another one.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: It's just that they said 15 times that they kept all their promises, so I wanted to give them an opportunity to set the record straight.

When it comes to gambling, on February 8, 1995, Mike Harris told the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, "My friends, I am committed to this: No casinos." Today you have plans to open up 44 neighbourhood casinos right across the province. You said no casinos. Now you plan to open up 44.

Once again, very straight up, Deputy Premier, tell me, did you keep your casino promise?

Hon Mr Eves: There hasn't been a new casino opened in Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Name it.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: For a party that let hundreds upon hundreds of roving casinos operate in the province each and every single day, and contributed only $10 million to charities, to now complain about 44 charity gambling establishments that will raise $200 million for charities, not the $10 million that your hundreds raised, but will contribute $480 million to the health care system in addition to the $19.2 billion being spent today - and you didn't contribute one cent when you were in government.

In yesterday's budget we rhymed off 15 major commitments that we made to the people of Ontario that we have delivered upon. I know that coming from the Liberal Party of Ontario, you would find that very difficult to believe.

1420

PAY EQUITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Finance, and I hope we get some answers on some of these questions because they're very serious. The packaging on your budget was, oh, so pretty yesterday, but then we remembered that with your government it's not what you say, it's what you do. Last year what you did was you tried to abolish proxy pay equity for the lowest-paid women in this province. The courts caught you. They said it was unconstitutional and they forced you to pay the money that was due to those lowest-paid women.

I looked in yesterday's budget and I saw that you are going to finance 31 new corporate tax write-offs. You're going to find the money for 31 new corporate tax write-offs, but there is no mention anywhere in the budget about finding money for the lowest-paid women in Ontario, who are due their pay under pay equity. Can you tell me, how can you find the money for the corporate tax write-offs but not for the lowest-paid women in Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't know what the leader of the third party refers to as corporate tax write-offs. If he is referring to the small business men and women of this province and he doesn't think they deserve a tax break, he should say so. I think he's going to severely restrict even more than he has to date the percentage of the populace he can look to for support in the next provincial election, if that's possible.

There are a lot of hardworking men and women in Ontario, who pay taxes, who are law-abiding citizens, who deserve a break. It's their money, not your money, not the government's money, not anybody else's money. All we're doing is allowing them to keep more of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on. Member for Riverdale, member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order, please. I wanted to hear the Minister of Finance's response and I couldn't. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: As I said, it's not what this government says, it's what this government does.

The reality of what they're doing is that they have no trouble finding money to finance write-offs of corporate taxes across this province. We've been keeping track of them: 50 of the tax breaks are for corporations. That's what's happening here. But the reality for women is this: We're talking about some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario. We're talking about women who work in child care centres, about women who work in home care, about women who do some of the most importance services in this province and who are some of the lowest paid, and your government can't find the money to help them. In fact, you're going to pay KPMG consulting for advice on whether you should take the money from child care workers, from home care workers, from people who work in homes for the aged.

Minister, can you tell us how much you're paying KPMG to give you advice on how not to pay the lowest-paid women -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: I have no idea how much KPMG is being paid by a particular ministry. If you'd like to send me the details, I'd be more than happy to look into it for you and see that the appropriate minister responds to you.

With respect to the issue of pay equity, this government is spending half a billion dollars a year on pay equity, more than any government ever before in the history of the province of Ontario, and that includes the great Bob Rae government that supposedly was so committed to this principle.

Mr Hampton: The minister makes a valiant effort to cover up his tracks here. The reality is your government has no trouble finding money to finance corporate tax write-offs, but these are some of the lowest-paid women in the province. They do some of the most valuable work in the province, in home care, in health care, in child care, in community services, and you're paying a corporate giant like KPMG consulting big money to tell you how to avoid having to pay the money, the pay, that these women are due under the law.

Do they have to do what the hepatitis C victims did? Do they have to come back and go after your government until they get you to do the right thing? What are you going to do, Minister? Sacrifice these lowest-paid women to give your corporate friends more write-offs?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party keeps on talking about corporate write-offs and the contents of yesterday's budget. Would he consider the $170 million given to children's aid societies to be corporate write-offs? Would he consider the $140 million this year and $200 million next year to modest-income, hardworking, taxpaying families that are finally going to get a break on child care, which your government refused to do, a write-off to corporations?

Most of the initiatives in the budget yesterday were aimed at modest-income, hardworking, taxpaying Ontarians. They were aimed at small business men and women. If you have something against small business men and women, you should stand up and say so. We will stack our record on pay equity against yours any day, dollar for dollar, position for position: half a billion dollars a year, $140 million in retroactive payments made with respect to pay equity. That's what we've done in the last year: $640 million -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Finance, come to order, please.

1430

NURSING STAFF

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Minister of Finance and it is along the same theme. It is not what you say, it's what you're doing. We heard all this about child care before. You said it last year, you said it the year before. No money made its way into the hands of families who need child care.

My second question is about nursing care. You announced that you are going to add $5 million for community nursing. We called officials in the finance ministry. We said: "Is it going to home care? Is it going to public health units? Is it going to community health centres?" They said they didn't know. They had no idea where it was going. But then we looked at the budget from two years ago and we discovered that you cut $9 million from nursing care. So you don't even know where the $5 million is going to go this year. It doesn't even make up for $9 million that you cut out of home care two years ago. I want to ask you, where is this $5 million in nursing going to go? Into home care? Community health centres? Where is it going to go?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I refer this question to the Minister of Health, who will explain to him what is happening with the money.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We have been meeting with the nursing profession in Ontario. We have indicated that we are prepared to respond to the needs they have identified so that we can continue to provide the high-quality patient care in this province, and recently we made an announcement that we could provide more paediatric oncology nurses at the Hospital for Sick Children. We also indicated that we were going to set aside $1 million to train more emergency room and critical care nurses, and the announcement yesterday is an announcement that is extremely important: The $5 million that was announced yesterday is going to ensure that we have nurses available, nurse practitioners available in the community-based system and in some of the underserviced areas. We are going to be working with the nurses so that we can determine the criteria.

Mr Hampton: I repeat it's not what they say, it's what they do. I want to contrast what this minister just said with what has actually happened. Over the last two and a half years this government has taken $800 million out of hospitals. Most of that $800 million was in the form of 10,000 nurses who are no longer in the hospitals. Here we got a paltry announcement from the government yesterday about $5 million to be reinvested in nursing care after they took $9 million out of home care nursing services, after they had taken the equivalent of $800 million out of hospital nursing services.

Minister, can you tell us please, how is $5 million going back in going to make up for the $9 million in nursing services you've already taken out of home care and the $800 million in nursing care you've taken out of hospitals?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again stress that as a result of consultations with the nursing profession, we are now creating more opportunities for nurses in this province than ever before. In fact, it was in February this year that we officially proclaimed the nurse practitioner legislation, and this $5 million which was allocated in yesterday's budget, which is a very important announcement, is going to ensure that we can provide nurse practitioners in this province to communities that are most in need. I would also remind you of our $1.2-billion announcement regarding community care-based services. That is going to create and additional 7,900 nursing jobs. There will be opportunities, and we are responding to the needs that the nurses themselves have identified.

Mr Hampton: I say again, you have to watch what they say and then watch what they do. We've seen this government take $9 million out of home nursing care. We've seen them take the equivalent of $800 million out of hospitals. What that's done is, sick people are being pushed out of hospitals sicker and faster than ever and are being told, "Go home and you'll be able to get home care." But you've cut the home care budget. We didn't see any announcement, we see nothing here, for nurses, more nurses or more nurse services in home care. The announcement you've made in terms of putting nurses back in the hospitals is completely inadequate. Minister, what is the $5 million you announced yesterday going to do about the deteriorating services in hospitals because there aren't enough nurses, and the deteriorating services in home care because there are not enough nurses?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously, all the information is not reaching across the way. I would just remind the member that nursing opportunities have increased under our government. In fact, the number of individuals who are being provided with community based services means that we have been able to expand the number of nurses working in that field.

I would also remind the member that as a result of our Healthy Babies, Healthy Children initiative we have more public health nurses than ever before helping people in communities. These are people who are most in need, babies that are most at risk.

If you take a look at every area of the health budget, you will see that more and more nurses are being used in order that they can provide the high-quality care that is so necessary for people in this province.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I see by the budget that you plan to move aggressively on slot machines. You indicate in the budget that when you fully implement the slot machines, Ontarians will lose about $1 billion in slot machines. That's how much money they will leave in the slot machines.

Coincidentally, I might add, all the tax cuts yesterday added to $1 billion. So you cut taxes by $1 billion and you are clawing back $1 billion through slot machines. I can only assume the government has done some economic analysis of the negative impact on the economy of taking $1 billion from the hardworking taxpayers in the slot machines.

Will you agree today to make public the economic studies that would indicate the negative impact of people losing $1 billion in slot machines in Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): With respect to tax reductions costing the Ontario government money, since we came into power in 1995 the revenues from all forms of taxation in Ontario have gone up by $4 billion while we've reduced taxes some 30 times prior to yesterday. When you reduce the taxation level on people - I know it's a foreign concept to the Liberal Party and the NDP - you actually encourage them to invest in the province, to hire people. It brings in more money, people spend money; that in turn creates more employment and more people contribute to the economy and have the dignity and meaningful occupation of a job.

I know you find that difficult to understand. You mentioned in the preamble to your question that we gave away $1 billion in tax cuts. It doesn't cost money, it raises money when you reduce taxation.

Mr Phillips: Back to the question. In the budget, you indicate that people will lose $1 billion. They're going to put $1 billion that stays in the slot machines, $1 billion coming from hardworking taxpayers in Ontario. Surely when hardworking taxpayers lose $1 billion in slot machines, it has to have a negative impact on the economy. I can only assume that you are embarking on this having done some studies that indicate what the impact is of Ontarians losing $1 billion in slot machines. This is a huge grab on the taxpayers of Ontario, $1 billion. I want to ask a very simple question: Will you table the studies to show the people of Ontario the negative economic impact of them losing $1 billion in Mike Harris's slot machines?

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is making a lot of assumptions in posing his question. I have never relied on, nor has the government relied on, the income from slot machines to balance the books, to provide essential services to the people of Ontario. What we have said is that as we set up permanent charity sites across Ontario, when fully implemented, several years out, $480 million that the province will see in revenue from those will go directly on top of what we're spending on health care today. That is a commitment we've made to the people of Ontario. We will deliver on the commitment.

1440

JOB CREATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. In your glossy brochure yesterday about jobs in Ontario, you take credit for various job growths. One of them that you talk about is trying to take credit for 250 new jobs at Babcock and Wilcox in Cambridge. You've been running ads about this. There was an ad, in fact, that ran with the Premier. You put it in your embarrassing throne speech, and now it's the lead story in your expensive brochure.

But as we're discovering more and more with you, it's not what you say, it's what you do, and what you did - or didn't do, actually, in this case - is you didn't mention that the new jobs are only a fraction of what was lost in massive layoffs at this company in 1996, when a contract that had been announced by Premier Mike Harris fell through.

Minister, my question to you is simply this: If you're taking credit for the 250 new jobs, shouldn't you also be taking responsibility for the more than 800 jobs that were lost at Babcock and Wilcox in the time that you were in government?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): We will be quite prepared to stand on our record when the time comes with respect to job creation. The member will be quite aware that between the period of February 1997 and February 1998, 265,000 net new private sector jobs were created in the province of Ontario, the largest 12-month increase in the entire history of the province, over 340,000 net new private sector jobs created to date, and we're expecting that this year will top last year's record performance.

We will deliver on our commitment to create jobs in the province of Ontario. The people of Ontario can judge us on it at the end of the day.

Mr Silipo: Minister, I'll be happy to debate your job record now, down the line, at the end of your term. That's not what my point is to you today. My point to you is that we have another clear example that it's not what you say, it's what you're doing that people need to notice.

We found in this particular announcement promises that just aren't there. When we look at the fact that you're bragging on the one hand, the first success story that you put in here about this company bragging about the fact that they have increased by 250 jobs - we're happy that they have increased by 250 jobs, but you conveniently forget that that company went from 1,700 jobs during the time that we were in government to 825 jobs in the time that you were in government. As the Kitchener-Waterloo Record said:

"Major layoffs hit the plant in 1996, after two major international power deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars fell through. The largest setback was a deal in Indonesia which was announced in early 1996 by Premier Mike Harris during a Team Canada tour."

Again, my question simply is this: If you're prepared to take credit for all the success stories, why aren't you taking responsibility for the losses of jobs, as happened in this case? Answer the question this time.

Hon Mr Eves: I said that at the end of the day we will be judged on the entire job creation record during our term in office, for the entire term. We're quite prepared to stand on our record.

Speaking of doing what you do and doing what you say, why did you keep two sets of books when you were in government? The only person besides -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Excuse me. Between you two opposition parties -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. MPPs have received many calls in their constituency offices over the last few days with respect to the company that wants to export Great Lakes water to Asia. My question is this: What is being done by your ministry to rectify this situation?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not support, nor does my government support, the exporting of Ontario water resources or any diversion from the Great Lakes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Hamilton Centre, Hamilton East, Ottawa West, come to order, please. I can't hear the minister. And I don't need any help throwing members out. I have a few on the other side who are just as bad. Please come to order. Member for Lambton, you may be one of them, actually, so please come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: As you know, Mr Speaker, the whole matter with regard to the exporting of water is a federal responsibility. However, in the interim, while we are dealing with this situation with the federal government, we are considering a number of options to prevent the situation from ever happening again. In addition, I understand the federal government plans on taking action with regard to this issue in the very near future.

We are fortunate that the proponent has indicated - in fact, he was calling my office shortly after this issue broke - that he would withdraw his permit, and we are in the process of dealing with that matter.

Mr Barrett: I am reassured by your ministry's position because, like many Ontarians, many of us in the House are concerned about this very important resource. Much of my riding borders Lake Erie and is also under Lake Erie, and I have an abiding interest and a deep concern for our rich resources of fresh water.

Minister, is it wise to rely on the federal government for assistance on this matter?

Hon Mr Sterling: I believe it requires action on behalf of both levels of government.

With regard to the federal government, I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, earlier this week to ask him what he could do with regard to this situation, which neither government has ever faced before. I spoke yesterday with Mr Axworthy and I spoke with Mr Axworthy again today, and he is announcing in the House of Commons today that is he referring this matter to the International Joint Commission under article III of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in order to ensure that some action can be taken by the federal government or the provincial governments in the future.

I believe this is a very, very serious matter and that both governments should work cooperatively towards seeking a solution which will see that this never happens again.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, in your first budget you hit universities and colleges with a cut of $400 million. Yesterday you put back a small amount of money for universities. You gave virtually nothing to community colleges.

For the past two years, colleges have been coping with your cuts. They have cut student support services, they've reduced staff, and they've been given no help with severance costs. Now, one third of our community colleges are facing deficits and they have no place to go for more cuts except to cut the programs. Today we find out that St Lawrence College in Kingston is looking at shutting down all of the science labs at their Brockville campus, and this is just the beginning.

I ask you what you have to say today to the colleges that are in a deficit position just trying to run their day-to-day programs. What do you say to St Lawrence College, "Just go head and shut down the science labs"?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I think we had several initiatives in yesterday's budget with respect to the college and university sectors and with respect to assisting and training of young people in both the college and university sectors.

There is the $150-million program Access to Opportunities, a response to industry and to demand for meaningful - and high-paying, I might add - jobs for young people in the province of Ontario; $30 million this year for strategic skills investments, relating again directly to both the college and university sectors; $150 million over 10 years for graduate and research awards in the post-secondary sector; a $135-million acceleration of the R&D challenge fund to match the Canada Foundation for Innovation; and the $9.5-billion fund, of course, with respect to Ontario workplace training, a lot of which relates directly to the college sector; a $30-million confirmation -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.

1450

Mrs McLeod: None of those funds are going to help keep the science labs open at the Brockville campus of St Lawrence College. None of them are going to help gerontology programs keep going or early childhood programs get going, and none of those funds are going to replace all the student support services that have already been lost because of the cuts you made to college budgets.

There is only one answer you've given to the colleges and, for that matter, to the universities, and that is to say, "Just charge the students more tuition." That's your answer to the cash-strapped colleges. You want the students to cover the cost of the damage you've done. You have forced colleges into debt and now you want to force students into even greater debt.

There is less than nothing for college and university students in yesterday's budget. Your new student assistance plan is only words, and the only thing new about it is the name. You didn't put any money into this so-called new student assistance plan to cover the cost of skyrocketing tuition. Minister, how do you have the gall to talk about a new student assistance plan when you are forcing students into greater and greater debt and offering them no relief at all?

Hon Mr Eves: There were several community colleges centred out in yesterday's budget announcements of several kinds. There were nine community colleges referred to in the learning disabilities program that is going on over the next five years, announced by Dr Bette Stephenson. We announced very specific projects at Georgian College, at Conestoga College, at Humber College, and more are coming, on the way. The announcements will be following shortly.

With respect to the program that she talks about with respect to student assistance, I agree that it's time the federal government and the provincial government put their efforts and their money together to have one comprehensive program that will best assist students, instead of working at cross-purposes.

Very directly, I say to her, in response to the fact that there's no new money in there, there is in fact some $300 million of new money in that program.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the finance minister. Minister, in the budget yesterday you said you are tripling the number of children who benefit from child care assistance in Ontario. Well, like so many other things we've heard today, that's what you say but that's not what you are doing. You are taking the same old $40 million that you've announced for three years - let me show you: in the 1996 budget, in the 1997 budget, in the 1998 budget; the same $40 million - and you're saying now that you're going to wrap that up with $100 million of federal dollars and you're going to get a cheque to as many families as you can before you go to the polls.

Minister, what I want you to tell us is, how is a maximum of $85 per child a month under the age of seven going to help the 30,000 Ontario families right now who are waiting for a child care subsidy to get the child care they need?

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member should know, the first instalment of that child care tax credit was in place for last year's tax year. Families were able to claim that. We have enriched that by $100 million for this year. Next year that will be enriched yet again, up to $200 million. That is money for low-income families who have never been able to access that support before. If she doesn't think someone with annual earnings of $5,000 a year deserves a thousand bucks to help with child care, she should say so.

Ms Lankin: Let me say that the minister should tell everyone that they've scrapped the tax cut, because just like we told her last year, people can't afford to pay for it up front. That's why you're moving to what is an income supplement. And you know what, Minister? I agree with an income supplement, but call it that. A thousand dollars is not going to buy quality licensed child care for one family in this province.

We have a deficit in this province. We're spending $155 million less on quality child care in this province than when you came to power. You have cut child care payments. It is not what you say, it is what you do. Your record is abysmal. This $40 million has been recycled three times. It's washed out. It means nothing to the families of this province.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I appreciate the honourable member's commitment and concern about child care, but we are spending over $500 million on child care; plus $140 million for the child care supplement, which she said; plus the $25 million for LEAP, the Learning, Earning and Parenting program, which will result in new subsidies; plus the additional $10 million for Ontario Works day care, which is on top of the $30 million last year for Ontario Works day care.

We have 14,000 more licensed spaces today. We've made it a mandatory service for municipalities. Every time child care advocates and the people out there in child care said, "Do more for parents," this government has been doing more for parents, and they still keep saying that it's not working. With all due respect, it is, and more parents are going to be able to access the child care supports they need through the actions of this government.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. I, like many of my colleagues, was pleased and excited to see that our government is recognizing the importance of science and technology by creating a Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. Sixty-seven per cent of new jobs created in Ontario between 1987 and 1997 were in the high-tech, knowledge-based industries.

I know at first hand the demand that exists for such skilled workers. In Scarborough, Eli Lilly recently opened a new research facility housing both an analytical lab and a bioanalytical lab. It required over 100 new R&D employees.

Minister, as you're probably aware, this is biotechnology week in Ontario, and I'd like to know what your ministry has done since its creation to support biotechnology in Ontario.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the honourable member for the question. I think it's a very important question, given that over the past decade, as the honourable member pointed out, 67% of the new jobs in Ontario have been created in the high-tech, high-knowledge-based scientific areas of our economy. Some 60 companies in the biotechnology field met with me over the last couple of months to tell us what the government needs to do to help foster an innovative society, an idea-based and knowledge-based society.

One of the major issues that was addressed yesterday in a big way in Mr Eves's budget was the skill shortage. Some 10,000 jobs go unfilled today in Ontario. You mentioned Eli Lilly. That's just one of hundreds of companies literally, some of them very small, some of them very large, who cannot find the workers today. Part of the problem is a backlog with respect to applications in our colleges and universities.

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

Hon Mr Wilson: The Minister of Finance announced yesterday unprecedented money to double the number of spaces in computer software engineering and biotechnology fields and in a whole pile of high-tech fields -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr Gilchrist: Minister, you've outlined several measures which obviously demonstrate your increased awareness of the biotechnology sector, but you also have a mandate to support research. I wonder what specific measures in yesterday's budget will result in new biotechnology research in Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: It's difficult to get into in the short time we have. Science and technology were the clear winners, along with health care and education, in yesterday's budget - some 20 expenditures in yesterday's budget, more than at any point in the history of our province: a $30-million critical skills fund to address the needs of young people in this area, to make sure they have access to the college and university positions in order to get the skills required to work in biotechnology and high-tech things; $150 million to the Access to Opportunities program to, as I said, double the number of spaces in computer science and high-demand engineering programs; $29 million in annual grants to universities to increase students' access to post-secondary education and jobs; $75 million to increase graduate scholarships for university students in specific science-related fields; and another $75 million to recognize the excellent brain power we have in this province and ensure that we stop the brain drain.

This is what the colleges and universities and the companies asked for. Our government delivered in a big way in yesterday's budget.

The Speaker: I remind members, if you're going to ask the questions, you should stay in your seats so you can hear the answers.

1500

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, your finance minister on 15 occasions stated, "A promise made, a promise kept." Let me remind you of a promise made on June 5, 1995, three days before the election, to the Toronto Star by your Premier: "I don't think you'll find a cent cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts without cutting the environment." Mike Harris, June 5,1995.

Minister, with your own budget numbers yesterday you have reduced the budget of the Ministry of the Environment by an additional $15 million. That brings it to a total of $115 million since you have taken office. You have been the minister who has overseen the total dismantling of the Ministry of the Environment. You have made more cuts to the ministry than any minister in the history of this province. You have abandoned air quality, water quality and land quality in this province. You have neglected and abandoned any commitment to the environment.

Minister, do you believe you have kept the promise made by the Premier on June 5, 1995, that there would be no cuts to the environment?

Hon Mr Sterling: We have done an amazing number of changes to the Ministry of the Environment structure: the legislation; the regulations with regard to environmental control, monitoring and enforcement in this province. And you know what? We're doing better for less.

Mr Agostino: You aren't doing better for less. You're doing absolutely nothing for the environment. Prosecutions are down over 50% since you took office; fines are down over 50% because you don't have the staff to enforce it.

The Environmental Commissioner said, and I quote her report of a week ago: "Little substantive improvement in the actions taken by the province towards protecting the environment."

Minister, you have been slammed by every credible organization in this province for your abandonment. You abandoned Windsor. The report said Windsor has chronic air quality problems. You abandoned Windsor with your cuts yesterday. You have abandoned Hamilton; you have abandoned Sudbury; you have abandoned Toronto. You've shown absolutely no vision or any leadership in this.

Again, your Premier made it clear there was not going to be a cut in the environment. It comes down to a couple of things: Either you as minister don't have the clout or the ability to defend your ministry in cabinet, and I would suggest that you then hand in the keys to the limo and let someone else do the job, or clearly your government has no commitment to protecting the environment.

I ask you again, do you believe that the promise made on June 5, 1995, by the Premier that there would be no cuts to the environment has been kept, in view of the $115 million that you've cut since you've taken office?

Hon Mr Sterling: We're even doing better than what the Premier promised. What we're doing is providing better environmental protection in this province at a lower cost to the taxpayer. We're proud of that.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday's budget was an example of some pretty packaging, and in it, you wrapped up a couple of $9-billion goodies for post-secondary education and training. But it's not what your government says, it's what your government does.

What you said is that you're going to create a new student assistance package. What you're doing is reshuffling existing money. You're combining it with money that you hope to get from the federal government and telling students or having them believe that there's going to be an improvement. But the federal Liberals have been cutting funding to colleges and universities. Why should students believe that there's going to be any improvement? What is it that's new in your announcement yesterday?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As I said in part in response to the member for Thunder Bay, with respect to the $9 billion, it is the money that has already been announced by the federal government in its Millennium Fund of $1.2 billion, which is there - that's the commitment on behalf of the federal government - the amount of money that the province of Ontario is already spending on an annualized basis with respect to student aid, plus $300 million of additional money.

Mr Lessard: Minister, you've tried to fool Ontario students, but they're smart enough to believe that what you say is not what you do.

Here's what the Canadian Federation of Students had to say yesterday: "This government continues to allow tuition fees to rise and refuses to invest new money in student aid. It is absurd that the government would attempt to take credit for existing federal funding."

There are no new dollars here. Why should students believe anything you say? Why should parents believe anything you say when you're not telling the whole story?

Hon Mr Eves: There are 300 million in new dollars in yesterday's announcement, and in addition to that, there are all kinds of other things we did with respect to post-secondary education and training for young people in yesterday's announcement.

We went through some of them before. We can go through them again if you wish: $150 million for the access to opportunities program, unless you don't think those high-paying, high-tech jobs are important for the additional 17,000 students per year who will graduate out of that program. If you don't believe in that, say so. Another $150 million with respect to scholarships and endowments for post-secondary graduation over 10 years. If you don't believe in that, say so. Thirty million dollars for learning-disabled students - implementation of the $30 million for learning-disabled students at nine community colleges and four universities across the province of Ontario. If you don't believe those students should have a post-secondary education and get the assistance they deserve, say so.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'm on the leading edge of the baby boom and there's a rapid population increase that's going to set a demand on health care. We're living longer, whether you would like to or not. As this population increases, the government is recognizing that demand by investing in 1,700 temporary hospital beds as in your significant announcement made recently also on long-term beds. At this time, can you tell us how your recent announcement will increase both the quantity and the quality of those long-term beds?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member has indicated, last week we did make an announcement indicating that we were investing an additional $1.2 billion into the long-term-care services in this province.

I believe the question related to how this is going to increase the quantity of long-term-care beds. This announcement is going to ensure that 20,000 new beds are going to be built in communities across the province. It will also mean an additional 13,000 beds are going to be renovated in order that they can meet the new design standards.

In the member's own community of the region of Peel, it's going to mean 2,287 new beds and in the first call for a proposal, it will mean that 1,000 new beds will be built within the next two years. Not only are we going to improve the quantity of beds available, it's the first award of new beds in 10 years. This area was totally neglected by previous governments. We also have new design standards.

Mr Spina: The 850,000 people in Peel county are very appreciative that we are now getting our fair share of funding for beds and for health care.

Talking about the RFPs that you spoke about, Minister, would you be kind enough to please explain how the request-for-proposal process will work and what kind of time frame the government is following to ensure that we get these beds in our region as soon as possible?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously, we need these beds. These beds are certainly going to help alleviate the overcrowding in emergency rooms and also the situation in the acute care beds in the hospitals.

We did this week on Monday already put an ad in the paper indicating that there was a process. We have indicated we will be building 6,700 beds immediately. We have called for tenders and in subsequent months we will be calling for additional tenders in order that we can get those 20,000 beds open as soon as we possibly can.

Any individual in this province is eligible to submit a proposal. There will be very strict standards that they must adhere to. We certainly look forward to having those first beds open in the summer of 2000 and in the spring.

1510

PETITIONS

INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the report has been submitted by the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommending the closure of the Institute of Psychotherapy established over 30 years ago in Kingston, an 18-bed cost-effective hospital which provides voluntary treatment to patients with resistant depression disorders to learn to cope with their problems at $130 per bed per day provincial funding, an average of 25% of the cost of other psychiatric treatment centres; and

"Whereas the Institute of Psychotherapy supplies efficient and effective short-term care to residents of Kingston and the surrounding area, it also provides their service to patients from Ottawa, Cornwall" and other places in eastern Ontario. "This hospital also provides anonymity to health care professionals who would/ could otherwise face receiving treatment at their place of employment with colleagues or, the worst scenario, not seek the lifesaving treatment they require;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the September 1998 closure of the Institute of Psychotherapy in Kingston, Ontario, and have the commission review the cost-efficient and effective short-term care provided to patients who would not/could not seek treatment for this life-threatening illness. As a result of their work, this hospital provides a much-needed service to the community and an inexpensive operation to the province of Ontario as a whole."

It's signed by about 200 citizens, and I affix my signature as well.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Last month, April, was Cancer Awareness Month, and I have petitions here which read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas cancer claims in excess of 20,000 lives annually in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas cancer treatment costs Ontario taxpayers in excess of $1 billion annually; and

"Whereas the best way to fight cancer or any disease is through preventive measures; and

"Whereas the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer has advised the government to set realistic and realizable targets for phasing out the release of environmental toxins; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly on April 18, 1996, passed a resolution to that effect with support from all three parties;

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

"The Premier and the Minister of Health should immediately implement the April 18 resolution and strike a working committee to begin the task of setting realistic targets for the phase-out of persistent bio-accumulative environmental toxins."

I have about 10,000 signatures here and I proudly affix my name to this petition.

LAKE ERIE FISHERY

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition signed by over 500 people due to the good work of the Fort Erie Conservation Club and Port Colborne Conservation Club about the bass fishery. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest the early opening of the black bass season in Lake Erie. Fishing before and during spawning will do great harm to fish stocks."

In support of my constituents, I affix my signature.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by over 3,000 residents in Ottawa-Carleton.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton Restructuring Advisory Group has prepared a preliminary report for the Ottawa-Carleton Development Services Restructuring Project; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another, regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services' corporate agenda is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas this corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and likely the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring project and provide adequate funding for quality services to the developmentally disabled."

I affix my signature to this.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's a declaration of support to eliminate income-contingent repayment plans.

"Whereas income-contingent repayment plans increase the period of repayment for graduating students, thereby causing lifelong debt in many cases; and

"Whereas income-contingent repayment plans have inherent inequities that make low-income earners pay more for their education; and

"Whereas income-contingent repayment plans provide the government with a mechanism to increase tuition fees and deregulate tuition; and

"Whereas in every international example where income-contingent repayment plans have been implemented they have been accompanied by massive increases in tuition fees, such as the 584% increase in Australia; and

"Whereas income-contingent repayment plans do not reduce the debt levels of students and in many cases increase debt levels;

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately scrap the pursuit of income-contingent repayment plans and immediately address the levels of debt by improving the current Ontario student assistance plan."

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such unjust discrimination."

I've signed that.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature and to the Premier, to Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding of chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventative care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding of chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I'm pleased to join 2,000 of my constituents in signing this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Nancy Hutchison, who is the health and safety coordinator of District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America. The petition is signed by Steelworkers from across Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario, approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several hundred thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations - and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenues because of government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and service sectors; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts, for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I proudly continue to support these workers and sign my name.

1520

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I continue to receive petitions about rural health care.

"Whereas there is an urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities, and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is currently engaged in a restructuring process across all communities in Ontario which will affect all people and their families supported by developmental services; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another, regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the MCSS `corporate agenda' is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas this corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and likely the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring project and provide adequate funding for quality services to the developmentally disabled."

This has been signed by many people - hundreds - from my riding, and I thank them for that.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations - and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenues due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

This is sent in by CEP Local 32, Smooth Rock Falls, and I'm proud to affix my signature.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been waiting to make a statement on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre, to present the Safe School Act petition -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I guess there's something new every day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1998 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I believe we have unanimous consent not to have the clock show time today, in respect for the leader in his response to the budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I will take the opportunity today on behalf of my party, the Ontario Liberal Party, to deliver a response to the budget introduced in this House yesterday by the Minister of Finance. I will take some time in doing that because I think it's a subject that warrants some careful consideration. I will be urging the people of this province to take their time as they review the budget. Most people of course won't see the actual document itself; they will learn about it bit by bit through the media. But I will ask them at the end of the day always to trust their own instincts and to understand that this government has a record. That record is very clear, especially when it comes to what has happened to our hospitals and to our schools and what's happening in our communities right now when it comes to things like downloading, property taxes going up and the casinos, 44 in fact, being placed in communities throughout this province.

Just big-picture stuff, because I think a lot of people outside this Legislature who don't pay a tremendous amount of attention to politics would get this impression, the impression was that what we've had in years past, the first three years, is a government that has cut, cut and cut some more. They've attacked our hospitals; they've attacked our schools. Yesterday we had a budget where they talked about spending a lot of money. I think it's important to look at that.

First of all, people's impressions about the first part are absolutely correct. I've taken to calling this budget a hit-and-run budget. In fact, for three years this government has hit the province, hit Ontarians, especially hit our schools and our hospitals; now they're running for re-election.

When we look at this budget, it's important of course to understand what the government is trying to do. They're trying to give the impression now that they're about to give something back. They're trying to give the impression that the economy is running on all eight cylinders because of something this government has done, in particular because they've cut taxes. I want to touch on those things.

First of all, I looked at the budget yesterday, and I looked at the promises. I would say this budget, just roughly speaking, must consist 90% of announcements that have been made in the past. This government has achieved some special expertise, when it comes to making an announcement, and then reannouncing it and then reannouncing it over and over again. Announcements made are cheap. There's no cost to them. This government makes them on an ongoing basis. So there's not much new in this budget at all. That means it's "steady as she goes" for this government. That means that when it comes to education, no good news; when it comes to our hospitals in Ontario, no new good news.

The other thing I noticed, and I think this is probably unique in the history of this province, is that this government made promises found in this budget that are to be delivered on over a two-year period, a three-year period, a four-year period, a five-year period, an eight-year period, and in fact there were four promises, as I counted them, that are to be delivered on over the course of the next 10 years. If you have a government that says, "We're going to spend $150 million on this important area vital to the future of the province and we're going to spend that over the course of the next 10 years," suddenly the promise really pales, understanding that this amount of money is to be spread over such a lengthy period of time.

1530

The other thing to keep in mind is I thought it was just a little bit presumptuous on the part of Mike Harris to make promises to be delivered on over the course of the next 10 years. What are we talking about? He'd have to win three more elections to be there for 10 years. It's just a tad presumptuous - not only presumptuous, but I must also say for myself, my colleagues and I think for Ontarians, that's a frightening thought.

It's important to understand too that in these expenditures there were two, possibly three, maybe even more, promises of delivering federal dollars into programs. They're going to spend all kinds of money when it comes to the student aid program and a training program which was based on federal dollars. They're trying to take credit for spending federal dollars, money that's going to come from the federal government to be spent on a program which you would get none the less in the province of Ontario.

It's important to cut through that smoke and that heavy film and through all of the fireworks and all of the celebration connected with this budget and understand that really there's not a heck of a lot in there that's new. There is a lot that is to be delivered on over the course of up to 10 years, and some of those promises are conditional upon the feds coming up with money for their own programs.

The other thing to keep in mind too is that this government says, "It's our tax cut that has this Ontario economy now firing on all eight cylinders." Apparently, there is no other influence on our province which would help our economy to enjoy this period of recovery. I just want to remind Ontarians that what Mike Harris or Ernie Eves or any member of the government says is, "The reason our province is doing so well, the reason we're creating jobs in this province, is because of our tax cut." I want Ontarians to understand the other important influences on our economy.

First of all, the governor of the Bank of Canada has been very kind to all Canadians. He has kept interest rates low.

Secondly, the rate of inflation in this country has been low. That too has nothing to do with Mike Harris.

The third thing is that the people to the south of us, Americans, have enjoyed a sustained economic recovery. They happen to be our biggest trading partner. They happen to buy most of our goods and our services. When you combine that with a low dollar, our exports have shot up. What does that all mean? It means that too has been a tremendous influence in helping us to enjoy an economic recovery.

So when Mike Harris says, "It's my tax cut that has sent us down this path," it's important for Ontarians to understand that this is not the case and that there are many other provinces in Canada which are enjoying a wonderful economic recovery as well, and that has nothing to do with Mike Harris.

The other thing that is important for Ontarians to keep in mind is that Mike Harris will say: "Listen, I've given you a tax break. It has put more money in your pocket."

When I've had the opportunity to talk to people in this province, one of the questions I raise with them is, "So what have you done with your tax cut?" Most people will say, "What tax cut?"

I say to them: "Did you pick up a fridge? Did you buy a stove? Did you put a down payment on a new car?" Again, people say to me, "What tax cut?"

There was a story in one of the papers today. The heading is, "Tax Breaks Barely Felt by Middle income Family." Sometimes we become removed from everyday reality -

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It's better than a tax increase.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Quinte.

Mr McGuinty: Sometimes it's not a particularly flattering thought, but most people in this province don't pay a lot of attention to politics and they hope that somehow we are doing things inside this place that will be of benefit to them.

I just want to tell you about a family outside there that's talked about in today's paper. There's a family here, a couple. They have three children. They have a combined household income of $62,000. The tax break for them means they'll pay about $444 less provincial income tax this year than they did last year. It says that comes to $18 every two weeks. The father says: "That won't go far in a family with three children. I wouldn't even notice that. It would probably get us a hamburger and fries."

There's something else that people should understand when it comes to the tax cut. I can tell you this from my own personal experience. This middle-income family - two parents, three kids - say they're going to get $18; that will be the benefit of the tax cut. I want that family and others in the province to contrast that with what's happening in our hospitals. For the sake of $18 now - okay? - we're losing our hospitals. For the sake of $18, we're having trouble admitting our patients in our hospitals. For the sake of $18, we've laid off 10,000 nurses. For the sake of $18, we're losing junior kindergarten programs in Ontario. For the sake of $18, we're losing adult education programs in Ontario. That's $18 every two weeks.

Perhaps I could just tell you about a couple of things that have happened in my own community, and I see there are a couple of my colleagues here from Ottawa-Carleton. I heard that in Ottawa, Mr Speaker, and you'll be familiar with this, the city of Ottawa has just increased fees for the use of swimming pools by children. This is the result of the downloading exercise.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): They've paid for swimming pools forever in Mississauga and it's -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Mississauga South.

Mr McGuinty: I've also learned that they're now going to charge more in our parking meters in the Ottawa area. Again, this is something in order to pick up the slack as a result of the downloading.

Any parents today who have children who are pursuing or who hope to pursue post-secondary studies have got a real fear now. They've got to be concerned about the cost of post-secondary education. This government is going to drive up tuition fees by 60%.

I think it's important for Ontarians, when they talk about a tax cut, first of all, to try to calculate how much really is there. I think they'll quickly assess that there's not much at all. Then I'd ask them to contrast that with the damage being caused to our schools and our hospitals, and I'd ask them to calculate the user fees that they're going to be paying. I'd ask them to compare it against property tax hikes that they're about to experience, against the new user fees, maybe at the library, maybe at the swimming pool, or maybe it's the parking meters downtown.

But believe me, if Mike Harris used to tell us something that we all understand, he used to say there's no free lunch. That means that if you're going to give away some money on the one hand, you're going to have to make up for it. Somebody at some point along the line is going to have to recover that money elsewhere.

Coming back to this notion of this being a hit-and-run budget, for the past three years Mike Harris has hit our schools, our hospitals. Now of course he's running for re-election. I'm telling Ontarians one very simple thing: You can't trust him. Mike Harris is going to say now: "I'm the health care guy. I'm the education guy. Trust me on those scores."

1540

Everybody remembers Mike Harris at the time of the last election. He didn't say, "I want to be your Premier because I care about your health care," and he never said, "I want to be your Premier because I care about the education that we're going to deliver to our kids." He never said those things. He said, "I care about the size of government and I will cut it down to size, whatever it takes." If that means our schools are going to have to pay a certain price, then so be it. If it means our hospitals are going to have to take it on the chin, then so be it. That's what this guy is all about. He's the cut guy. That's what he does best. He's not a builder. He's not a grower. He's not there for health care and he's not there for education. Oddly enough, he's there because he's against government.

He doesn't believe that government can be a powerful positive influence in our lives. He doesn't understand that the very purpose of government is to help us do things like deliver quality education to our kids and to make sure that when we get sick, when our bodies break down, when people are injured in accidents, there's a health care system there to help them. He doesn't understand that and that's not why he's in government in Ontario.

One of the things I always try to do is to remind myself why I'm here, why I'm in this place and why I enjoy the privilege of leading my party. It's because we're here for the people who are outside of this place. I don't want to talk so much about the numbers in the budget for a moment.

Mr Rollins: Of course you don't

The Acting Speaker: Member for Quinte, I don't want to tell you too many times to keep quiet.

Mr McGuinty: I want to talk about its impact on people. I want to talk about the impact of this budget on everyday, ordinary, average Ontarians. I want to talk about some of the people I've met along the way and their impression of this budget.

First of all, I want to talk about a young couple I met. They're young parents with three children; their oldest is four years of age. That child is just right for junior kindergarten. The mother has heard about the studies, and she's even so keen that she's actually read some of them, about how important junior kindergarten is to making sure our kids are ready to learn, making sure they can do so well in primary, secondary and even post-secondary institutions. In fact, this mother has also heard that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, that leading business group, came in to see this government, the Harris government, and pleaded with them to fund junior kindergarten. She heard that her school board may offer junior kindergarten and then on the other hand that it may not. What she wanted from this budget is that she wanted to know that this government would make enough funding available to make junior kindergarten available in her community and in fact in every community right across the province.

This budget doesn't do that, so what I'm doing today, on behalf of those young parents, citizens of this province, who have placed all of their hope and optimism in their children and have learned that their government has not done what they think is very important - they have not funded junior kindergarten to ensure that it is available to their child in their community.

I also want to tell you about a couple I just met, about 15 minutes ago, sitting in the gallery over here. They gave me a letter. These parents are in their 80s and they have a 43-year-old son. Their concern is for their 43-year-old son, who is mentally disabled. I just want to read part of this letter. It says:

"Our son Peter was born in Toronto 43 years ago. He was diagnosed at birth with Down syndrome and a missing lung. On the advice of our doctor, we applied to Orillia for placement if it should become necessary but we never took that option. After his birth, we joined the local association in Richmond Hill called Thornhaven. We became active in volunteering, raising money for the new school building, helping in various programs etc. We raised a fine young man even if he was handicapped. We saved the government a lot of money and are still doing so.

"Since Ontario decided to close the institutions, families like ours have been left to fight with little success for all of the services we worked so hard for in the 1950s and 1960s.

"The crisis-oriented system has let us down and will continue to be unfair unless more money is made available. The real needs of real people need to be determined and their right and requirement for adequate funding recognized" - and this is important - "as a priority over cutting taxes."

The last sentence in that paragraph in a letter written by an 80-year-old couple is, "You know, we pay a lot of taxes too."

Do you know what they were looking for in this budget, just a couple out there doing their best? A child was born to them that had some serious problems. They assumed that responsibility with tremendous relish. They took on that responsibility, looked after their child. They're in their 80s; he's 43 years old now. They're getting old, they're growing tired. They can't manage. They want a bit of help from this government. They don't want a tax cut. This government has been cutting services to the disabled, cutting the special services at home program. They don't want special services at home, in fact. Do you know what they want? They want to know that when they can no longer do it, their child will find a home somewhere.

We don't have that service today in Ontario. We have been cutting that. We've been proceeding with a process of deinstitutionalization. What that elderly couple wanted from this budget was some money to help fund some kind of home or an institution where their son might live after they have gone or after they can't manage. Just an ordinary couple. That's what they were looking for, and this budget let them down.

Now I want to tell you about a son I know. He's 51 years of age. His mother is 83. She's frail. She can't cope on her own. He's got to get her into a long-term-care facility and he's worried sick about her care. You know who is taking up most of the slack here? It's his wife. She's providing a lot of the care to the son's mum. She's exhausted. She works, they've got children of their own. They are living in Ottawa-Carleton.

The mother is right now on a waiting list of 1,500 people for long-term-care beds. You know what this budget does? The budget confirms something that was announced. In Ottawa-Carleton, they're going to pay for 1,300 beds. There's a waiting list of 1,500; the government has promised 1,300. Furthermore, those beds are going to be delivered to us over the next eight years. The first bed won't be available for at least two years. I can tell you that this man, after my conversation -

Hon Mrs Marland: No, the answer's in the paper now and it takes about -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Mississauga South.

Mr McGuinty: I can tell you that in my conversations with this man, he has nothing against tax cuts, but he's saying long-term-care beds should come first.

He raised a very important question with me this morning when I chatted with him. Do you know what he said? He said, "If we have enough money to speed up the tax cut, why don't we have enough money to speed up the construction of new long-term-care beds?"

Here's another couple that I met. She's 67, he's 73. He's seriously ill. He's been in hospital now for seven weeks. She goes in every day. She helps to feed him, she helps rearrange his bedding, makes sure he's got enough to drink. She's also, by virtue of being in the hospital every day for at least eight hours, become somewhat of an expert as to what's happening inside our hospitals. She has taken to helping out other patients with some basic things like feeding and rearranging their bedding because she has noticed that there aren't enough nurses in the hospitals. She's wondering about what would happen if she couldn't go in to be with her husband. She notices that there aren't enough nurses. Those who are there are run off their feet. Those who are there have morale problems. Do you know why? Because they can't do the kind of work they're supposed to do. They don't have enough time. She also notices that many of the nurses aren't there on a permanent basis - kind of contract work. A lot of them spend time at different hospitals.

1550

Do you know what she was looking for in this budget? She was looking for more nurses in our hospitals. Do you know how many nurses are going to be delivered into our hospitals as a result of this budget? Zero. We let go 10,000. Everybody who has spent any time in a hospital knows that if you don't have nurses, you don't have care. It's a very simple equation. We've lost 10,000 nurses, which means we've lost a tremendous amount of our ability to provide care. What this woman was looking for was nurses in our hospitals, and this budget let her down.

One final story, this one about a 24-year-old: He's a new Canadian, he's here in the Toronto area, he's got his grade 9 equivalent and he wants to complete high school. He is married and the father of two young children. This man hates welfare in a way that nobody in this Legislature will ever understand. He's embarrassed to be on it and he's ashamed, but he has no options. You know what he wants to do? He wants to make his kids proud of him. He wants to complete his high school - 24 years of age. He wants to pull up. He didn't come over here for a handout. He's not looking for a free lunch. He wants to pull himself ahead.

He had been pursuing education at the adult high school full-day program. The Toronto Board of Education is cutting that program. They are cutting that program because of this government's cuts.

You know what that man was looking for on behalf of his whole family? He was looking for a message in this budget that this government felt that was an important program, not only for him but for up to 20,000 adults who used to be enrolled in those programs across this province; that this government felt those were important programs. There is nothing in this budget that will restore that program. He is shut out. He's on his own. That's what he was looking for from this budget and this budget did not deliver.

What could Mike Harris have done in this budget? He could have invested in nurses to help patients in our struggling hospitals. When it comes to nurses, do you know what this government announced? They're putting together a Nursing Services Task Force.

Interjection: A study.

Mr McGuinty: Yes, a study. The people of this province don't want a Nursing Services Task Force; they just want nursing services. They understand that taking away nurses equals taking away care. It's not a complicated issue.

Do you know what else they could have done in this budget? They could have invested in our schools to help prepare our kids for the challenges of the next century. The government now is becoming fairly adept at using the language. They are now using things like "knowledge-based economy." They're saying that brain power is important. In all humility, I've been talking like that now for two years, so I can only suspect that they picked it up on this side of the floor. So they're using the words but they're not putting their money where their mouth is.

One of the things we understand now is that the early years are of vital importance in getting our kids on the right track. If this government is really serious about education in Ontario and making sure that our kids can embrace the 21st century, they will make sure that they provide enough funding for every school board in every community in this province to offer junior kindergarten, and they're still not doing that.

You know the other thing that I'm convinced of? When it comes to our budget, do you know what Ontarians really want? They want balance, they want fiscal responsibility and they want compassion. They want their government to look after their dollars, but they also want their government to look after health care. They want their government to look after education. They want their government to make sure it does everything that it can reasonably do to care for kids who are growing up at risk, to care for our disabled, to care for our homeless, to care for our seniors and to care for people who happen to be out of work. That's what balance is all about.

Perhaps nothing symbolizes the one-sidedness of this budget and the one-sidedness of this government's priorities better than the special booklet than accompanied the budget. I'm not sure if this sets a new precedent in Ontario, but together with the budget documents there was a booklet issued. It says Jobs for the Future, Today: The Ontario Success Story, and inside that booklet there are some, I am prepared to admit, real success stories for Ontario businesses and that's a good thing. I'm always very pleased to hear when business is succeeding.

But you know what? I looked at my package and I thought, "There must be an oversight." I said, "Where are the other booklets?" Because this one says Jobs for the Future, Today. I was looking for the one that said Education for the Future, Today: The Ontario Success Story. I looked in here and it was nowhere to be found. Then I looked for the booklet that said Health Care for the Future, Today: The Ontario Success Story. It wasn't in here.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It can't be written.

Mr McGuinty: It couldn't be written. Clearly, not even this government has the nerve, the audacity and the effrontery to try to pretend that in Ontario we have a success when it comes to health care and education.

Something that I made reference to today in question period was the fact that on 15 separate occasions when he delivered his budget speech the Minister of Finance said, "A promise made, a promise kept." Mike Harris said during the campaign - and it's important to remember this because this government is deathly afraid of history. They don't want to be made to confront what they have said in the past, and of course, I take special delight in reminding them of what they said and I'm going to do that again right now.

Mike Harris said during the campaign that he could cut taxes and balance the budget without cutting health care. He has cut $800 million from our hospitals and he has fired 10,000 nurses. He said that he wouldn't close hospitals. He's closing, so far, 35, and it's early days yet, I'm afraid, when it comes to hospital closures in Ontario.

He said that he wouldn't cut education. He's cut it by $1 billion. He specifically said that he would never cut classroom spending. I say, ask the parents of the 60,000 four-year-olds who have been shut out of junior kindergarten whether or not Mike Harris has touched classroom spending. I also say, ask the 20,000 young adults who have been shut out of adult high school whether or not Mike Harris has cut classroom spending.

Mike Harris also said, and this was another promise, that he wouldn't cut funding to seniors or the disabled, and he said that he wouldn't bring in user fees. The fact is that he has brought in $225 million in user fees for drugs for seniors and our poor and our disabled.

He said he wouldn't make cuts to the environment. He specifically said that. In fact he cut the budget by 44%. He's laid off one third of the staff in the Ministry of Environment, and with yesterday's budget we learn of still another cut, this one to the tune of $15 million more cut from the Ministry of Environment.

He said that he wouldn't cut a nickel - I recall the words now - from agriculture. He's cut $45 million. That's a lot of nickels.

He said he wouldn't cut culture and the arts. He's cut $88 million. Yesterday he came up with a new fund of some kind. Mike Harris is kind of like the arsonist. He starts the fire and then he shows up later on and says, "Here, I'm going to help you put it out." That's what he did to hospitals. He caused them damage. He says, "Give us a little bit of money." He's the guy with the bucket. He's going to throw a bit of water on it. He has caused terrible problems in our schools. He says he's going to help resolve that.

1600

He caused some serious problems to culture and arts. Let's be clear. This is not a government that has any understanding of the fundamental value of culture and arts in Ontario, and I'm not talking now about the economic advantages of our culture and arts community. This is a government that is given to utilitarianism. Everything is measured in terms of its immediate economic value, and for that reason this government will never, ever understand the important role that culture and the arts play in lending shape to the quality of life that we have come to enjoy in Ontario. They'll never understand that.

They said they'd never cut funding to the north. They cut $49 million. They said that students who attend university in Ontario shouldn't have to pay more than 25% of the real cost of their education; today they're up to paying 35% of the real cost of their education.

Mike Harris didn't keep those promises, and for the sake of brevity, those are just 10 that I have listed there. But maybe I could throw in one more, and this was the mother of all promises made by Mike Harris. He said that if he broke any of his promises he would resign. That makes promise number 11. That one he broke as well.

When I left the chamber yesterday and went outside and had an opportunity to speak with some of the media out there, I also had the opportunity to bump into some of the representatives of Ontario farmers, and I can tell you they were not a happy group. They told me that this government has let them down. They told me that this government does not understand that although they're not asking for a lot, they expect the government to, at minimum, understand that agriculture is the second-largest industry in Ontario and that they're going to need a little bit of help, at least in so far as research and development is concerned, to keep our farmers on the cutting edge. They were looking for something in this budget to help them.

You know what they heard just recently from the Minister of Agriculture? The minister said, "There's going to be an increase in your funding." They thought this was wonderful news. But then they learned yesterday that - do you know what this increase really consists of? It's special one-time funding to help out with the greatest natural disaster that has occurred in living memory, and that's the ice storm that occurred in eastern Ontario. This government is trying to pass off one-time special assistance funding as somehow being a boost to agriculture in Ontario. I think the farmers of Ontario are beginning to gain some better understanding and insight into the real intentions of the government and, in particular, the Minister of Agriculture.

Let's talk about the deficit for a minute. This year Mike Harris is going to run a deficit of $4.2 billion. That means he's adding another $4.2 billion to our debt. Let's understand what has been happening outside of Ontario. First of all, the federal government has balanced its budget and now they're looking at what to do with their surplus. The government of the United States of America balanced their budget and they're expecting a $50-billion surplus. Most of the provinces in Canada have already balanced their budgets. Governments around the world are balancing their budgets and getting ready for the future and making important investments in health care and education. That's what our competitors are doing.

We still have a deficit in Ontario. For those Ontarians out there - and there are many of us - who are concerned about the economic shape of this province, they should understand that we are still running a deficit this year when we didn't have to. People should understand that we are borrowing money, $5.5 billion, for our tax cut, and as a result, we're running a deficit this year.

Did you know, Mr Speaker, that the credit rating agencies, those international agencies that tell us something about the risk associated with lending money to our province, are now giving us the same credit rating today, May 6, 1998, as during the Bob Rae years? You know why that is, Mr Speaker? They all offer the same reason: because this government is doing something that doesn't make any financial sense. They're giving a tax cut before they balance the books.

Anybody who has any head for business, for economics, knows that's a serious mistake. First you balance the books and then you can talk about what to do with the surplus.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North.

Mr McGuinty: I'm delighted to see that I've aroused the interest of some of the members opposite. With any luck, perhaps they'll be taking a few notes and bringing this kind of debate into their caucus.

One of the things this budget makes clear is that Mike Harris knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Let me give you just one example.

Experts everywhere agree that every dollar we spend up front helping a child get off to a good start saves $7 down the line. Last month, Mike Harris eliminated the food allowance for Ontario's poorest expectant mothers, money that was used to buy fresh fruit, vegetables and vitamins. He said that expectant mothers who are poor are different from others. Apparently they do not and will not have the best interests of their child at heart. What they were going to do with this money is spend it on beer.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's what the Premier said.

Mr McGuinty: That's what the Premier said. Not only does he not understand anything about motherhood; he also does not understand that every time a low-birthweight baby is born here in Ontario, medical costs can easily - easily - attain the price of $100,000, additional health care costs. In addition, that baby develops in such a way that he or she is more likely to have lifelong learning problems, to drop out of school, to end up on social assistance and, in worst cases, end up getting into trouble with the law.

What does that mean? That means that if we spend $37 a month up front during the seven months of the mother's pregnancy when she's entitled to that supplement, we could end up saving $100,000 in medical costs, and all kinds of heartache and hardship and financial costs that come when a child just isn't equipped to find success in the world.

Let's talk for a moment about what's happening to our universities in Ontario. I can tell you that people who work in our universities, people who believe in the value of universities and in the value of university education, were looking for something in that budget that wasn't there.

They were looking for some sense that the government understood the importance of post-secondary education. They were looking for some kind of understanding, at least, shared by our American cousins to the south. Last year, 48 out of 50 American states increased funding to the publicly funded universities. Why did they do that? They did it because they understand and recognize and believe that if you're going to cut it in this new economy, you've got to invest in brain power; you've got to invest in your people. So the Americans, in 48 states, increased funding to their universities. What did Mike Harris do in Ontario? Cut funding to our universities by 15%.

In addition to that, we find that the debt load for our students has increased. It's skyrocketing. The average student now is graduating with a debt load of $25,000. When did we suddenly decide in Ontario that public debt was a bad thing but that huge debts for our graduating students was a good thing? Talk about downloading costs on to the backs of our students, and talk about a duplicitous approach. This government says debt is a bad thing so they're going to do what they can to get rid of their debt, are going to do what they can to keep down their expenses, but what they're doing is downloading on to the backs of Ontario students.

1610

It's important for Ontarians to understand what we're all about in my party. We represent a new generation of Liberals who understand that reckless cutting is just as dangerous as reckless spending. Unlike Mike Harris and the members of the government, we also understand that borrowing money and cutting health care just to give a tax cut is reckless. We won't spend money we don't have - I want to make that clear - and once the budget's in balance we will keep it in balance. I can also say that we will not raise taxes.

Mike Harris and I have different values - that's perfectly clear - and different priorities. Mike Harris is willing to borrow for a tax cut. I say, no tax cut before we can afford it.

One of the things that people say on an ongoing basis when it comes to this government is, "They tell us that everything they're doing is going to lead to a healthier and stronger economy." What I'm telling them to understand is that over the long term, to sustain a healthy and vibrant economy, what do we need? We need quality health care and we need quality education.

In fact, health care in Ontario is a competitive advantage for our employers. Our employers pay, on average, $700 per employee when it comes to health care. Do you know what they pay in the States? Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,000 and $5,000 per employee. It's a competitive advantage for us to maintain high-quality, accessible, publicly funded health care.

Some people say: "Hang on a sec. What if we just had a second tier, a different system, something outside the existing system where Ontario people could go to get health care? Wouldn't that be a good development?" I want employers to understand that if that development was to take place, you can bet your bottom dollar that employee groups would go see the employer and say: "Listen, there is better health care available in that second tier. We want benefits that will enable us to get into that second tier." The business community should understand that there is no long-term saving to be generated by the opening up of a second tier of health care in Ontario.

Mike Harris sees education as an expense; I see it as an investment. Mike Harris sees teachers as obstacles in the way; I see them as absolutely indispensable partners in the delivery of quality education. And when it comes to health care, Mike Harris sees that, really, as a hindrance in the way of government cost reductions. Do you know how I see health care? I see it as an absolutely essential part of what helps to make us a truly caring and compassionate province.

A budget, any budget, isn't just a statement of finances; it's a statement of our values. I'm saying to the people who are watching at home today that our values are your values. We value health care. We value education. We value making sure our kids get a good start in life; we value fiscal responsibility and compassion.

I said earlier that this is a hit-and-run budget. Mike Harris has hit our hospitals, he's hit our schools, and he's done that for three years now. Now he's running for re-election. My advice to the people of this province is, quite simply, don't trust him.

As an election draws closer, Mike Harris is going to make every effort he possibly can to run away from his record and try to make us forget about all those promises he made not to cut. But there have been too many witnesses for him to simply drive away.

What Mike Harris is going to have to understand is something that I understand and something that I know Ontarians understand. That is, quite simply, that it's our hospitals and our schools and our sense of compassion that have made Ontario the greatest province in the most blessed country on the planet.

Something else that I'm confident that Ontarians understand is that there is more than one bottom line in our province. Ontarians finally, perhaps most importantly of all, understand that a government that fails to grasp these things is not worthy of re-election.

I have concluded my remarks. With that, I want to move an amendment to the motion moved by the Minister of Finance on May 5, which I'll read as follows:

That "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government" be amended by deleting the words after "That this House" and adding thereto the following:

Recognizing that this hit-and-run budget is designed to distract the people of Ontario from three years of cuts, chaos and a record of broken promises; and

That Mike Harris broke his promise not to close hospitals; and

That Mike Harris broke his promise not to expand casino gambling; and

That Mike Harris has cut $870 million from hospitals and has fired over 10,000 nurses and front-line workers since taking office; and

That Mike Harris broke his promise that there would be no new user fees in Ontario when he forced seniors and the poor to pay an additional $225 million in new user fees for prescription medication; and

That the Mike Harris government has delisted over $170 million annually in OHIP services; and

That the Mike Harris government has left 17,901 patients on waiting lists for long-term-care beds in Ontario; and

That the Mike Harris government cut $533 million from classrooms and plans to cut an additional $900 million from our schools through his new funding formula; and

That 22 school boards have cut junior kindergarten, 53 boards have cut special education and 21 school boards have cut adult education; and

That Mike Harris has raised tuition fees by 60% and has deregulated tuition fees for graduate, professional and some college programs; and

That Mike Harris has cut $65 million from child care; and

That Mike Harris has failed to implement the recommendations of the coroners' juries to prevent further cases of child abuse and death; and

That Mike Harris has cut $50.4 million to services for developmentally disabled children and adults, $8 million to children's mental health services and reduced access to dental services for children; and

That Mike Harris has failed to listen to the public's concerns over deteriorating patient care; and

That after all this, Mike Harris has failed to balance the budget because of his irresponsible tax cut; and

That Mike Harris has proved that he simply cannot be trusted to protect our health care, to improve our education or to take the steps necessary to make sure our children get off to the best start in life;

Therefore, this House has lost confidence in this government.

The Acting Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has moved the following:

That "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government" be amended by deleting the words after "That this House" and adding thereto the following - dispense?

Interjection: No.

The Acting Speaker: Recognizing that this hit-and-run budget -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I've already asked if it was dispensed, and the answer is no.