Journal des débats 1998-juin-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of my colleagues, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 52 years ago, June 2, 1946, the establishment of the democratic Republic of Italy. June 2 is of great historic significance and sentimental value to our citizens of Italian heritage and indeed to the people living in Italy, a country not only of monumental buildings, famous explorers and noted scientists, but also a trusted friend and ally, a loyal trading partner, and a committed supporter of democratic and civil rights around the world.

We recognize the valuable contribution that Italo-Canadians have made to the cultural and economic development of Ontario and Canada. Our province has become enriched because our Italians friends on coming here have brought with them their love of art, music, architecture and education. More than that, they have strengthened the pillars of our multicultural society by adding their traditional respect for hard work and family life. We have benefited greatly from their participation in sports, business, professions and, more recently, government and law.

To celebrate this day, I am honoured to recognize in the gallery a representative of the Italian government. His name is Deputy Consul General Paolo Scoccimarro. To him I say today, viva Italia and viva Canada.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Later today I will be introducing a bill to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act. I am proposing amendments which would give teachers across the province control of the college and make teaching a truly self-governing profession.

I am introducing a private member's bill that would increase the percentage of elected members of the College of Teachers council to 75%. Also, in order for the council or its committees to hold meetings, they would each have to have a quorum of a majority of elected members. If the bill passes, the council would elect one of its members to be the chair of the council. As members know, the elected members of the council are elected by teachers across Ontario and the appointed members are chosen by the provincial government.

My bill would make the Ontario College of Teachers accountable and responsive to the teachers of the province. It would ensure the decisions of the college which affect all teachers could not be made without a majority of elected members of the council or its committees present.

The New Democratic Party recognizes the wider community in Ontario must be represented on the council of the College of Teachers but believes that teachers must provide policy direction for the profession. Questions related to teacher certification and competency and disciplinary cases should not be decided by a college where the council has the majority of non-elected, appointed members. Teachers should be the majority on the council. New Democrats are committed to ensuring the Ontario College of Teachers -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Today I'm very proud to speak on behalf of the Italian members of our caucus, the members for Simcoe Centre, Ottawa-Carleton and York Centre, in celebrating our national day marking the foundation of the modern republic of Italy.

Italian National Day is a time when all Canadians can reflect on the tremendous and varied contributions to Canada made by Italians in this country, who made this their adoptive home as far back as 1497, starting with Giovanni Caboto.

Millions of Italians have come to this country, including my two grandfathers, Giuseppe Spina in 1921, and Giuseppe Sicoli in 1911, my own father, Geniale Spina, in 1929 and my mother, Linda, in 1937.

Besides myself as an MPP, we're proud that other members of our family have also made a contribution to this Parliament in terms of my cousin's two sons, Andrew Carricato, who served as a page in 1995, and currently in the House today, Anthony Carricato, who is a page for this session.

Thanks to Canadians of Italian background, Italian culture and traditions have been ably transplanted here to enrich the lives of all the citizens of our country. On behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I congratulate and thank not only our ancestors who brought us and allowed us to make a contribution to this country, but all of the Italian Canadian community for their contribution to Ontario and Canada.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to take the opportunity today to call on the Minister of Health to increase the funding for the northern health travel grant program, a program that is absolutely crucial for people in northwestern Ontario requiring specialized health care in southern Ontario, but a program that no longer meets the needs of many of my constituents.

The problem, as many of my northern colleagues will know, is that the distances between most communities in northwestern Ontario and Toronto are so great that patients needing care must almost always travel by air. But the cost of air fare has increased dramatically in the past three years while the subsidy for travel under the program has remained the same. Minister, is it not fair to at least make adjustments based on that reality? Because the truth is many people can simply not afford the upfront costs required and, as a result, I fear that some are not receiving the treatment they should.

There are other areas in which the system must be changed. A constituent told my office today that she went to Toronto for treatment in October 1997 yet did not get reimbursed until April of this year, a six-month delay. Surely this can be speeded up. As you know, Minister, we do not yet have an MRI in Thunder Bay, although we're hopeful we will have one in place soon.

But until we have an MRI in place, can you not acknowledge the fact that many people in Thunder Bay find travelling to Duluth, Minnesota, for their MRI more convenient and far less stressful? Can you not allow people to use those services a mere three-and-a-half-hour drive from Thunder Bay and make them for the first time eligible for northern health travel grant assistance?

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Today is the second anniversary of the tragic death of Theresa Vince. Theresa Vince had been sexually harassed in her workplace and finally murdered.

Yesterday at a press conference her daughter, Jacquie Carr, said this:

"Sexual harassment belongs on the continuum of sexual violence and should be treated with the utmost seriousness. If it's effectively dealt with, then they can diminish the consequences or divert them altogether."

There was an inquest into the death of Theresa Vince last December and there were several recommendations made as a result of that very sad inquest. What we found out was that she had complained and spoken of her difficulties and nothing was done.

A couple of those recommendations are being made to this government, and this government has refused to act. One of them is to move the complaints process into the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which I personally think is a good idea. The people at the press conference yesterday called for that.

The Solicitor General yesterday said that he wanted to move slowly and carefully. I can appreciate that, but on the other hand this should be done now. Sexual harassment is not a joke - it can lead to very serious consequences - and I ask the government to act immediately.

1340

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP FARMERS' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): For a corporation to celebrate their 100th anniversary is indeed a very special milestone. On May 16, I attended the 100th anniversary celebration of the Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This successful insurance company started in May 1898 as a way to protect farmers from the threat of fire in the small township of Hamilton, located in Northumberland county. One hundred years ago, insurance companies were not interested in taking on farmers as clients. There was no way to assess the value of a farm, and it was a big risk to insurance companies to provide the farmers with coverage.

Now the company is a growing and a thriving business, not only in Hamilton township but right across Ontario. It is run very efficiently by their president, Scott Robinson, and the general manager, Ross Thompson. All of the employees have undoubtedly put in countless hours of dedicated service and have provided immeasurable benefit to the community and to the citizens of Ontario.

I applaud the Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co on a wonderful milestone. This demonstrates how successful small business can be in Ontario.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This morning the London Free Press reported on a survey of school bus drivers who counted 218 vehicles that passed a school bus while red lights were flashing and children were getting on or off the bus. Let me put that in perspective for you. In one city, over a four-day period, there were 218 times that children were at risk, and yet the government will do little to solve the problem.

Last week, with great fanfare, the acting Solicitor General crowed about his initiative to create community safety zones to protect children. The minister said, "There are too many irresponsible drivers who are just not getting the message." I agree. But your government is also not getting the message. Increased fines do nothing to stop these offending drivers. In the words of Mike Murphy, owner of a London area bus company, "Bus drivers were not reporting all the incidents because it happens so often." They also know that without a clear description of the driver they cannot get a conviction.

In the last session, this government refused to pass Bill 78, which would have introduced vehicle liability. We constantly see more evidence that the current law is not working. Increasing fines has not worked. Vehicle liability is the only means of stopping those who show no regard for the safety of the 810,000 children who ride the school buses every day. Introduce vehicle liability.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today I too rise to commemorate the particular importance of Italian National Day and want to say, with great pride because of my cultural heritage, that I mark this day and that I ask members to join with me in marking this particular day.

As a country, Italy is only 52 years old, but as a culture, it is much older and much deeper than that. Probably the greatest strength that the country has offered has been the strength of its people; the ability to go through incredible change; the fact that it has gone from a constitutional monarchy to a republic today, but more significantly than that, the fact that it has developed into one of the most industrialized countries in the world with a relatively high standard of living paralleled by very few countries across the world, and a country whose people seem to know how to adapt continuously to change.

One of the interesting changes that is going on now is major discussion in Italy about making changes to the electoral system, making changes to the way in which they govern themselves, and particularly, Italy is playing a leading role in the movement towards one European currency and a greater closeness among the European countries.

But it is also important to note, particularly today, the great contributions of Italians throughout the world, because that has been one of the contributions that Italy has made, that is, to send to the four corners of the world Italians so that we too can partake, in this country, in rejoicing in today's event.

LEAHYS OF LAKEFIELD

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I rise today to bring the attention of this House to the achievements of a remarkable family of performers in my riding of Hastings-Peterborough, the Leahys of Lakefield, Ontario.

Since 1825, six generations of Leahys have called Lakefield home. The present generation numbers 11 children, all of whom are involved with the group. Their parents, Frank, an accomplished fiddle player, and Julie, a champion step dancer, encouraged all the children to sing, dance and learn to play at least one instrument.

The Leahys' unique interpretations of Celtic and Canadian folk music and French Canadian step dancing, as well as their mastery of traditional instruments such as fiddle, piano, mandolin, guitar, drums, keyboards and saxophone, attest to the many years they have spent developing their talents.

During the 1970s, some of the family members were already performing at weddings and fairs and competing professionally on the fiddler circuit, but it was not until 1996 that nine members of the family decided to present the Leahy style of music, song and dance to a wider audience, first with a self-titled album, Leahy, later picked up, promoted and distributed by Virgin Records, and then a series of television appearances and performances at Irish and Celtic festivals in both the US and Canada.

The Leahys were honoured by the Canadian music industry this past March with two Junos for best new group and instrumental artist of the year. They are the opening act on Shania Twain's North American tour, which kicked off in Sudbury recently, and will be appearing on their own CBC special on Sunday, June 14. I encourage all Ontarians to watch this wonderful family as they bring their host of talents to your homes and communities.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent to wear the blue and gold ribbon here in support of the May 30 to June 6 campaign to raise awareness about violence, organized by the Catholic Women's League, Thunder Bay diocese. This campaign hopes that by raising awareness of positive actions and values that promote harmonious communities -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Okay, let me just seek unanimous consent. For today, unanimous consent to wear the ribbon? Agreed? I heard a no.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD CARE SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COLLECTE DES RENSEIGNEMENTS NÉCESSAIRES À L'OCTROI DU SUPPLÉMENT DE REVENU POUR LES FRAIS DE GARDE D'ENFANTS

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28, An Act to permit the Collection of Personal Information for the Payment of the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families / Projet de loi 28, Loi permettant la collecte de renseignements personnels en vue du versement du supplément de revenu de l'Ontario pour les familles travailleuses ayant des frais de garde d'enfants.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Just a very brief comment, Mr Speaker. This bill, if enacted, would permit the collection of sufficient personal information to determine individuals' eligibility for the Ontario child care supplement for working families announced in the 1998 budget. It provides that the information collected must be destroyed if the legislation establishing the supplement has not been enacted by March 31, 1999, and it repeals the authority to collect this information effective April 1, 1999.

The Ontario child care supplement will provide support to some 350,000 young children in working families in the province of Ontario.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29, An Act to increase teacher representation at the Ontario College of Teachers and to make other amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant à accroître la représentation des enseignants au sein de l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications à la Loi de 1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This bill amends the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. The composition of the council of the college is changed, increasing the proportion of elected members of the college so that they will make up 75% of the council. Provisions are added to provide that the council or a committee will not have a quorum unless a majority of the elected council members are present. The council will be required to elect one of its members to be the chair. All committees will be required to have a majority of elected council members. A provision is added requiring the prescribed requirements for the issuance of a certificate of qualification and registration to include requirements that a one-year teacher education program and a one-year paid internship program be successfully completed.

1350

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30, An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 30, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Recent events in Ontario have demonstrated once again a need for action on substance abuse by our youth. Just last week in my own riding, 14 young people, most of them students, were charged with drug trafficking at a high school. A summer weekend doesn't go by that we don't hear about teenage accidents or deaths related to drugs or alcohol. We've been a society in denial.

My bill addresses this insidious problem by focusing the responsibility for curtailing substance abuse on students and their parents, with support in our schools.

MAIMONIDES SCHOOLS FOR JEWISH STUDIES ACT, 1998

Mrs Ross moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Maimonides Schools for Jewish Studies.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I could ask the government member why he opposes the raise-values-about-violence campaign?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. Member for Port Arthur, you sought unanimous consent and you didn't get it. That's just the way it goes.

Motions?

Mr Gravelle: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, I'll hear a point of order, but I don't want to hear a point of order on the same thing.

Mr Gravelle: I seek unanimous consent to ask for an explanation as to why that is the case.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I appreciate the fact that you're a dean of the rules, but the fact is, they don't have to give an explanation. It's just a "yes" or a "no."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, I'm not debating with you.

Motions? No motions?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm very pleased today to advise members of the Legislature that the Ontario Disability Support Program Act was proclaimed on June 1, yesterday. This government has kept yet another promise. We have created a separate income support program for people with disabilities that meets their unique needs. One more important commitment of the Common Sense Revolution has been realized for the benefit of these Ontarians.

For many years, people with disabilities in Ontario have said that their needs were not being met through the welfare system. They said that it was time for governments to focus on the supports that they required to participate fully in Ontario society. Our government agreed. We decided that people with disabilities and those who worked with them were the best possible advisers we could have in developing this new legislation and the new program. We've consulted over the past two years. We've listened and we've heard their messages.

They said it was unacceptable for them to be in a category that labelled some of them as permanently unemployable. They told us that the new program must be flexible and sensitive, and recognize fully that disabilities are diverse, unique, complex and often changing.

They called for employment supports with a focus on abilities instead of disabilities, on the possibilities instead of the limitations, and on their opportunities instead of impairments.

The heart of the ODSP is a comprehensive and flexible definition of disability. The eligibility criteria recognize substantial mental or physical impairments that are continuous or recurrent and that are expected to last for a year or more.

The criteria also recognize restrictions in the activities of daily living in one or more of three areas: personal care, functioning in the community or in the workplace. This ends the automatic assessments and reassessments of disability that had occurred which were both demeaning to those individuals and also wasteful of scarce resources.

This new program removes people with disabilities from the welfare system, where they should never have been in the first place, and it creates for them an entirely separate system of income support. In addition, all those who were eligible as persons with disabilities or because of age under the old family benefits definition are being grandparented into the new program.

Improved supports for independence are a key feature of the Ontario disability support program. It provides for much more generous rules, for financial assets and for contributions made by families of people with disabilities.

ODSP supports to employment focus solely on the needs of people with disabilities who want to prepare for employment, find work and keep a job. These supports provide people with disabilities with real help in overcoming barriers to seeking, obtaining and keeping employment. When the new system is fully in place, spending on employment supports will almost double, from roughly $18 million today to close to $35 million. And the rules will also allow for the rapid reinstatement of income support if a job doesn't work out - a very distinct and significant improvement.

The members of this government are very proud of the Ontario disability support program. We have begun to phase in its implementation and we're taking the time to do it right.

The Ontario disability support program meets all the criteria we set for public policies and programs in the Common Sense Revolution. ODSP is fair and accountable to the people it is designed to serve: those with disabilities who are in need of income support, those with disabilities who are able and want to work. It also respects taxpayers' dollars.

This is an initiative that has been very well received by the community that serves people with disabilities. Yesterday the president of the Ontario March of Dimes, Mr Duncan Read, said his organization has supported the ODSP and worked with the government throughout its development. He said: "What's positive is the program's recognition that people with disabilities have the desire and the ability to work. The removal of the label `permanently unemployable' and the elimination of a financial penalty if attempts at employment fail are fundamental to persons with disabilities achieving independence."

The proclamation of the Ontario disability support program marks the start of a new era of fairer treatment and more opportunity for people with disabilities.

In closing, I would like to thank the staff at my ministry for their hard and excellent work at bringing this program into being and also to most especially thank those individuals with disabilities and those who act on their behalf for their excellent advice and counsel in bringing this new program into being.

1400

SENIORS' MONTH

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): Earlier today the Premier and I had the pleasure of officially launching the government's Seniors' Month activities in honour of the almost one and a half million Ontarians who built our province and continue to make a meaningful contribution to our society.

We were joined by the members for Essex South and London Centre who participated in this important and joyous occasion. We were also supported by the Burlington Seniors Choir. Their stirring rendition of O Canada, I'm told, caused all three caucuses to rise in this building. That's how loud and how strong and how wonderful they were.

I want to acknowledge as well our country's most recent Order of Canada recipient, Gordie Tapp, who was master of ceremonies and who is with us in the House today; radio personality Earl Warren; and Lieutenant Ted Lancefield, a Second World War veteran who was featured as the senior in our Seniors' Month poster that was unveiled earlier. Could all of them stand up?

The government's efforts to expand and improve the quality of long-term-care health services represent our heartfelt appreciation for the contributions that seniors have made to the quality of life in Ontario.

This government has listened to seniors' suggestions and responded with very important initiatives, such as the 43 new community care access centres. During last year's Seniors' Month we announced an annual funding increase of $100 million to enhance the services in long-term-care facilities.

After an eight-year period in which no new long-term-care beds were added to the system, this government has addressed the waiting list for our seniors. On April 20, my colleague the Minister of Health announced 1,700 temporary long-term-care beds as part of our strategy to make better use of hospital beds. On April 29, the Premier announced $1.2 billion to expand facilities and community long-term-care beds. Twenty thousand new long-term-care beds will be added to the system over the next eight years and tendering has already begun on the first 6,700 new beds. This funding will create 27,500 new front-line health care jobs in Ontario.

As we expand the long-term-care system, there is an opportunity to make life in these facilities more homelike for our seniors. We all recognize how difficult it must be for those seniors who live separately from their spouses for no other reason than because of a waiting list at the facility where one spouse already resides.

Today I am announcing these regulatory changes under the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act. Starting June 15, a person applying to join his or her spouse in a long-term-care facility in Ontario will be placed in a higher category for admission. Only persons in crisis circumstances and those who are at risk if they don't get admitted immediately will be given a higher priority.

This change will assist spouses currently living in the community who need facility care, as well as someone who might temporarily have to be admitted to another long-term-care facility before joining his or her spouse in the preferred facility of their choice.

Although this problem occurs relatively infrequently, when it does occur it is a major problem for the couple and for the loved ones around them. As family caregivers continue to support their parents when they move from a community setting to a facility, it is more considerate for our system to recognize the importance and the added convenience for all family members to visit their parents and grandparents together.

In this spirit, we launch Seniors' Month with the first of four weekly themes:

Intergenerational Week is a salute to everyone in Ontario who is working to bring seniors and youth together. United Generations Ontario has done outstanding work in this regard. Supporting, mentoring and grandbuddying programs are all prevalent in our province. Several representatives have been in the House with us today.

Next week is Caregivers' Week, where we pay tribute to the real angels of our health care system: those family members who care for a frail spouse or for another loved one.

During Safety and Security Week we will address difficult issues like elder abuse and fraud.

Finally, during Volunteerism Week we will have a celebration of the outstanding efforts in communities for all of our seniors.

This month's activities will set the stage for 1999. That is the year the United Nations has declared will be the International Year of Older Persons. At this time, I would like to thank the countless seniors' organizations that have offered their suggestions on how to properly celebrate this important year.

Our government has asked Mrs Lois Neely, past chair of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Aging, to represent Ontario on the Canada coordinating committee for this year's activities. Mrs Neely is also in the gallery with us today.

This government is deeply committed to improving the quality of life for Ontario seniors. Along with our enhancements to long-term care, we've added 525 new products to the Ontario drug benefit plan. We've started the most ambitious pneumonia-prevention vaccination program in North America and reinvested new health care dollars into priority services like cancer care, cardiac care, kidney dialysis and breast cancer screening. We launched an important study to determine the shelter needs of abused older women for the first time in the province. We redressed the unfair treatment of widows under the workers' compensation system. A safer and simpler driver's licence renewal system is now in place for seniors over 80. We've made retiree discounts on seniors' auto insurance premiums mandatory.

I join all members of the Legislature in paying tribute to Ontario's 1.5-million seniors, not just in June but in every month of the year. It is our way of saying thank you to our seniors who built a province that is the envy of the world.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): When we learned that the Minister of Community and Social Services was making a statement today relating to people with disabilities, my caucus was expecting the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We're not getting that today. Again, every individual in Ontario today affiliated with any advocacy group has been asking the government for months on end for some kind of response on the Ontario Disability Act.

The ODSP plan that was proclaimed yesterday and is now in effect in Ontario in essence wants people to move into the workforce, and what better way to help people do that than to advance the Ontario Disability Act. Just two weeks ago, all MPPs in this House received packages from their local groups asking them, begging them to take them back to the Premier to honour his commitment made during the last election that he would be bringing this act forward, yet he has not.

The minister today reaffirmed that the most critical one word in that statement is the word "substantial." Will people be substantially disabled in order to qualify? This is the government that refused the Liberal amendment to allow a medical professional to be the one to make that designation because any supervisor in any office can make that determination under this government's legislation, and this minister continues to operate in a vacuum without realizing what other ministries of this government are now doing to the disabled community in Ontario. We have to talk about social housing; we have to talk about special services at home. The elderly parents who have helped their adult children and keep them at home are now suffering cuts by this same government that purports to be in favour of those with disabilities.

We cannot let this go by without saying that as late as last week, for those with disabilities, people they deal with to help them get into the workforce, vocational rehab was going to be privatized. Now it's not going to be privatized. These same counsellors had layoff notices. Maybe they won't be laid off. There is complete chaos within this very ministry, constant change so that the employee themselves don't know if they're coming or going, yet this minister today says that they're doing the best they can for the disabled. I want to say on behalf of my party that they are not doing enough, nor are they doing it well.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want to say in a non-partisan way that we want to join you and everyone in this Legislature in paying tribute to the seniors of Ontario at this, the beginning of Seniors' Month in Ontario. It has been mentioned that this week is Intergenerational Week, where we encourage the younger generation to interact with seniors and vice versa, the seniors to contact those younger people and bring them into their lives so that both can be better enriched and educated about the others' feelings about themselves.

1410

After that we have Caregivers Week. A lot has been said about the care of the frail and the elderly in our province and a lot has been said about those who work in that field. Many of them work for wages and under circumstances that we wouldn't want to, but the bottom line is that they have a dedication, a conscious, compassionate dedication in taking care of the seniors and the frail elderly in our province.

Safety and security, of course, are always on everyone's mind. Yesterday in my statement I raised the ugly question of elder abuse in this province, of abuse by spouses, abuse by family members, both physical and psychological. I think we have to set our direction towards solving that problem and helping those who are less able to help themselves to care for themselves.

Of course the final week of Seniors' Month will be Volunteerism Week. The volunteers who serve our elderly and seniors in this province are invaluable, and we should give all the recognition we can to their efforts.

This will go beyond, I hope, just the month of June, that we will all year think of the seniors in our province, what they have contributed to our past and what they are still able to contribute to our future, that every day we'll be thinking of those thousands of seniors who live on the edge of poverty and will bring them into our hearts and into our consciences.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the Ontario disability support plan. The minister and members of the government caucus will know that I and my caucus have supported the implementation of this plan. I have said on a number of occasions how strong our support is, but also where we have some cautionary comments and where we'd like to ensure that implementation goes smoothly.

But I have to say that this is the third or so time the minister has announced this in the House and I'm getting tired of having to stand up and support her. I wish she'd quit it. As I understand it, she told us today that she has proclaimed the bill, but they're phasing in the implementation, so I suspect we're going to have a few more of these announcements. I understand that yesterday they didn't proclaim the employment supports section of the bill. That is an incredibly important section of the legislation and of the plan, and I would hope - I'm sure - the ministry is scurrying quickly to bring all the needed regulations and mechanisms into place and that the minister will be moving ahead very quickly with that. I tell her she doesn't need to wait to have another date to come into the House and announce it. She could just go ahead and do that.

I too want to pay tribute to the ministry staff who have worked on this. It's an incredible product. I think they have worked extremely well with members of the disability community. Members of the community, who have long awaited such a plan, have put a lot of time and energy and heart and soul into the development of this plan and they've worked well with the ministry staff, who have produced an excellent product for all of us as legislators. I'm pleased to pay tribute to them.

I want to indicate that there are a couple of things we'll be watching as this is implemented. There remains concern, despite the assurances we heard today from the minister, that all those who are currently receiving disability supports will be grandparented. There are people who are currently on general welfare awaiting family benefits approval for disability, people who are in the stream. Assurances have been made centrally, but at the regional or area office level there is a great concern that those are not being lived up to, and I would ask the minister to keep a close eye on that.

I have to say that we also remain concerned about some of those people who were in the category of permanently unemployable. While I support what the minister has said, that persons with physical disabilities have wanted to find ways back into the workforce and not to be labelled as permanently unemployable, there are some people who may not even be physically permanently unemployable but who may be socially or economically disabled to the point of being permanently unemployable, or to such a degree that the kinds of supports they require to have a hope or an opportunity of returning to employment are much greater than anything the minister has envisioned or put in place. Those people are being cut out of the disability system and are being put on to Ontario Works. There is a great concern about what will happen to them, particularly if they are unable to live up to the obligations of the Ontario Works plan.

There is still a remaining concern about the interpretation of the definition of disability and eligibility requirements. It's not so much in the words; it's in how it is interpreted and how it is applied. There has been an anecdotal sense that there has been a tightening up not just of the purse-strings but of the interpretation of eligibility. I think the minister will have to watch that closely.

I too think it is very important while praising this, on the other hand to say to the government, you have failed miserably with respect to the issue of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I know the Minister of Citizenship has said that she is working on a plan, that a proposal will be coming forward. The commitment was within your mandate of office. We are three years into that at this point in time and there has been no plan out there. We need considerable consultation with the community. I am hopeful that we will see that come forward in the very near future.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am pleased to join with others here to congratulate the seniors of the province as we begin Seniors' Month. We in the New Democratic Party will be participating in activities in our communities, and one of the things we will be doing is talking with those seniors and bringing their voices here: those seniors who are finding it difficult to manage because of the copayment on drugs; those seniors who are finding it difficult to keep their homes because of the increase in their property taxes; those seniors who are finding it difficult to deal with home care at home with the constant reductions that have occurred because of the cutbacks in hospitals that have resulted in a flood of subacute patients taking over the long-term care. We also will be there with those families who now will not be able to have their seniors admitted to long-term care at home because of the change the minister has announced today.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period of April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998, and the Ombudsman is in fact in the gallery today.

Is there any chance that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is going to be here? I would like to rule on his private member's bill. Then I will hold that ruling. I tell the member for Algoma, I will hold the ruling until tomorrow I think.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yesterday the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised a point of privilege relating to the questions asked by him and by the member for Lambton, during oral questions on May 27 and 28, of the Minister of Natural Resources, relating to Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt alleged, in effect, that the member for Lambton and the Minister of Natural Resources combined in the design of a question on the subject of Ipperwash, and the response to it, in a way that would lead listeners to the view that he had misled the House on the previous day or, at the very least, that the essence of his question was based upon inaccurate information and that this incompleteness had the effect of portraying a misleading picture, whether deliberate or not. By planning this "attack," as the member termed it, and by refusing to respond to his questions, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt asserted that he was being obstructed in his ability to perform his parliamentary duties and therefore his privileges had been breached.

Having been in the chair during these events, I am fully aware of what transpired that causes the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to raise his point.

With respect to his concern that the Minister of Natural Resources has declined to answer his questions during question period but did answer the questions of the member for Lambton, I say that complaints of this type have been commonly raised. The Speaker, however, possesses no authority to compel ministers to answer questions; indeed, the standing orders explicitly allow ministers the discretion to decline to answer questions altogether. Therefore, the member's grievance on this issue enjoys no recourse.

On the issue of the competing views that exist concerning the underlying veracity of the comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Lambton or the Minister of Natural Resources, again the Speaker possesses no ability to address the matter. As the presiding officer, I must assume that all members are honourable members, that all members speak truthfully in this House, and indeed I am bound to call to order, and sanction if necessary, any member who accuses another member otherwise. I believe that circumstances such as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has brought forward fall into the category of reasonable people having to agree to disagree, and otherwise drawing their own private conclusions beyond that. In the absence of a clearly unparliamentary statement, it is beyond my jurisdiction to select one member's version of accuracy over that of another member. In my role as Speaker, I must assume both views are accurate, each honestly arrived at through different or opposite analysis of the information at hand, each honestly held and each equally valid.

As is often the case when heated and controversial issues are debated in this House, the form of that debate and the conduct of the members may not always cast this Legislature in the noblest light; all of this is in the nature, the culture, of this place, and certainly does not constitute a breach of the members' privileges.

I cannot find that any of the issues complained of by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt impeded his ability to perform his parliamentary duties. I therefore find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I want to return to the issue I raised with you yesterday. You will know that an issue of grave concern to every member in this Legislature is the fact, as alleged, that apparently the man who was given responsibility to run a competition for the winning of a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars also had a financial connection with one of the bidders, and as it turns out, that same bidder won the competition.

You said yesterday that you hadn't had enough time to look into this matter. Another 24 hours has transpired. I'm asking you today to tell us what you have learned and whether in fact Mr French was indeed in a position of conflict of interest.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): First of all, your preamble is factually incorrect. Mr French, Coopers and Lybrand, did not run the selection process. They were hired to give advice on this independent process, which was very similar to the NDP process that was set in place, where you have a selection committee, you have expert panels to give advice on different criteria of the request for proposals and then you have a review team.

The allegation that has been raised - unlike other innuendo and muckraking, this innuendo is very, very serious. As a result, I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into the matter and give me a report on that. So far, I have not received their completed report. I will wait until I get that completed report, and when I do, I'll make it public and we can take the appropriate action at that time if it is deemed to be true.

Mr McGuinty: I want to ask you this, then. First of all, the question here is very simple. I don't really understand why it is that you have to ask for a complicated report that takes a lot of time to provide. Did Mr French have a conflict of interest here or not? Did he have a financial connection with one of the bidders at the same time that he was offering advice, as you put it, to the Ontario Casino Corp? That's a very simple issue. Was he in a position of conflict or not? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition must realize that this isn't just a simple little matter. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into this matter. I know that he and all members in this House would want to have the facts and want to have a completed report from the OCC so they can base their decisions and their opinions not just on rumour and innuendo but on a full report from the Ontario Casino Corp.

Mr McGuinty: I think, Minister, that if you treated this matter with the seriousness it deserves, you would have an answer for us here today on that very issue.

Tell me something else. I understand that your officials are continuing to address this contract, to negotiate the contract and to determine which company is going to get the contract. Do you not feel that under the circumstances here, in light of all the questions that are being raised regarding this contract - is it not appropriate, is it not prudent, is it not responsible to put a freeze on those negotiations until we get to the bottom of this? Will you at least provide us with that assurance, that you have now directed your officials to put a freeze on all of this until the necessary information is put before this House?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The specific innuendo is serious, and it's because it's so serious that we want to take our time. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to give me a full report on the specific innuendo. When we get that full report, we'll make our decisions based on the facts. If it weren't so serious we could carry on like the opposition do and just throw all kinds of accusations against the wall regardless of the consequences. It's because it's a serious innuendo that's being raised here that I've asked the OCC and their legal counsel to give me a full report.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question's also for Chair of Management Board. I thought it was appropriate that while we're talking about money and influence, we should talk about your plans to buy the next Ontario election. You have a proposal you are putting forward that is going to double the amount a candidate will need to spend to run in a provincial election. You're going to change the rules and stack the deck so that you can spend piles of dough to buy the next election. On top of all of that, you're going to fire the referee who's in charge of this whole undertaking.

My question for you is very simple. Why are you so intent on exposing Ontario to the kinds of money-style politics that are so prevalent in the United States of America?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I know the Leader of the Opposition likes to throw accusations around and use scare tactics. He knows full well that what's taking place here was directed by the House leaders, the member for St Catharines and the member of the NDP and our House leader, to allow for the parties to get together and discuss the results of the election finances committee report.

That was an all-party report. You had two representatives from your party and the NDP had two members of their party; the chair was Jack Murray, a past provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party, and our party appointed two. So the opposition got five votes out of seven. They issued a report that your House leaders gave responsibility - you delegated a representative from your party to meet with me. We met once last week; we're going to meet again tomorrow night.

If you have no confidence in who you selected to discuss these changes, why don't you tell your representative that you don't want him talking about this? You have no confidence in his ability to take back to caucus what's going on, so you ask these silly questions.

Mr McGuinty: You are talking about bringing about some very dramatic changes to Ontario. You want to change the way we govern ourselves when it comes to campaign rules. You want to change the amounts we can spend and the amounts of money we can raise. I take serious issue with that.

No matter who lends advice to us in this Legislature, ultimately we have to assume responsibility for any rule changes. We have a very good history when it comes to these matters in this province. That history says that none of these proposals can go forward without all-party agreement.

My question to you is very simple: Will you now stand up and provide us with your assurance that no changes of any kind will go forward affecting election rules in election spending unless you have all-party consent?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you have no confidence in your House leader, tell him so. You instructed your House leader two weeks ago, who gave directions to one of your caucus members, to have meetings on this issue to discuss the report of the Commission on Election Finances. This was an all-party commission that worked on this for five or six years. They recognized that the act hasn't been changed since 1986 and that changes have taken place in the way elections are held, as well as inflation and the GST and other factors. They deliberated on this a long time.

You've publicly stated you have no confidence in your party's representation in that process, and now you're stating before the House that you have no confidence in your representative to our private meeting to discuss this.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Back to the issue at hand: The history in this House and the federal House with respect to election finance reform, with respect to electoral reform, has required unanimous party consent at the time the legislation was brought forward. Last week what you presented was a compendium of changes that have been proposed over the last seven years that were dealt with separately and not together. This is the first time this discussion has ever happened. Indeed, one of your proposals is to do away with one of the commissions, the finances commission, that has recommended some of these changes.

1430

Before we proceed, before you try to put all these seats up for sale to the highest bidder, will you assure this House and the people of this province that there will be unanimity between the current parties in this House today before you bring forward any legislation that attempts to amend any statute governing the fair and responsible electoral process in this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sure we all want to hear the response, and it's very difficult.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the opposition doesn't want to carry on with their House leaders' directions to have meetings on this to discuss -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members for Essex South and Windsor-Walkerville, come to order. Ottawa Centre, come to order.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The opposition obviously doesn't want to follow their House leaders' directions to have meetings with party representatives to discuss their recommendations, which have been deliberated on for a number of years by the Commission on Election Finances, or to look at recommendations from the chief electoral officer, who had suggestions on how to streamline the process to do away with duplication and bureaucracy and save the taxpayers money. If they want to make political hay on this -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Obviously, the opposition, the Liberals in particular, want to get their spin lines out on this. They don't want to do the hard work of meeting to set up a process -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Liberal Party and the opposition know that the Election Finances Act hasn't been changed since 1986 - 12 years. They know there's been a process, that the election commission has deliberated over this. Now they ask for unanimity. They can't even agree on the process that we were going to set up to discuss this. The member for Renfrew North calls to introduce the act. His House leader calls for a process where we could discuss and consult the recommendations according to the tradition of this House. If they don't want to do that process, they can instruct our House leaders on the process they would like to take.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the announcement of hospital funding for this year.

Minister, we've heard no announcement from you about hospital funding, no statement in the Legislature. Instead, you quietly sent out a letter on May 25 to hospitals across the province in effect telling them that their budget is being cut by another $200 million this year. What it means is that in three years you have now taken $1 billion out of hospital budgets. Can you tell us how it is that your government can afford to give the wealthiest people in Ontario a tax gift, a $5.5-billion tax scheme, but you don't have $200 million to help hospitals with their budgets this year?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): It's important to first of all indicate that the individuals who are getting tax refunds or rebates, however we want to word it, are not those people who are rich. They are the people who earn $25,000 up to about $70,000. I think it's important to at least set the record straight.

Having now established the fact that it is those people who receive the greatest refund, if we take a look at the hospital funding, it's important to also take into consideration the fact that we have been meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association. We've also been meeting with individual hospitals. We are requesting additional information regarding funding and we will be making those announcements. We have certainly been reinvesting in our hospitals in the past two years as well.

Mr Hampton: I find it interesting that the Minister of Health in this province has more to say in defending the government's tax scheme than she has to say about defending the budgets of hospitals.

The letter you sent acknowledges that hospitals are facing $200 million in additional costs. Your letter acknowledges that. But then you tell them that to cover that $200 million they should go inside, that they should in effect cut hospital programs to cover the $200 million in additional costs. That's what you're doing.

I want to read the reply from the president of the Ontario Hospital Association to you. It says:

"Many hospital boards will have no choice except to begin immediately the process of reducing services in order to live within their operating plans. We believe that this process could cause immediate and substantial media and public concern over consumer access and service."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I ask you again. You've got money to finance a tax scheme that's mainly going to benefit the wealthy. Why can't you help -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been helping the hospitals. In fact, as you know, originally it was scheduled that there would be a reduction for three years, and we've made it known that there will be no third-year reduction. That money will stay in the hospital budgets. It's also important to know that we have reinvested $350 million into hospital-based programs and services. Recently, when we received a report of the emergency task force, we indicated that we were reinvesting $225 million to ensure that the support was going to be there for hospitals.

I would stress again that we are continuing to meet with the Ontario Hospital Association. We are meeting with individual hospitals. Certainly we are doing more for hospitals than any previous government to ensure that the priorities, services and programs that people need are going to be provided.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

1440

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): You're certainly doing more to hospitals than any other government. There's no question about that.

Minister, you know this is a cut. You know you announced that you were not going to implement a $500-million cut, but you also know that the new costs that are associated with items like the cap on the OHIP technical fees, which amounts to $120 million, and the recent Ontario Nurses' Association contract award of $76 million - the hospitals have to meet this from within existing budgets. They also have to use those dollars you talked about for emergency procedures to improve their services in that area. This amounts to a cut. There's absolutely no way you can get away with continuing to pretend that your government is not cutting hospitals.

Minister, did you even read the letter from the president of the OHA? What are you going to do to stop the cuts to hospital services that are going to result from this edict which was secretly put out?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at the letters that did go out to the hospitals, they indicate that there is absolutely no decrease in the hospital base allocations for 1998-99. It also stresses the fact that we are continuing to meet with the hospitals in order that we can continue to make priority reinvestments into the hospitals.

I think also we need to emphasize the fact that hospitals in this province actually suffered more under both the Liberals and the NDP. In fact, when the Liberals were in power in 1989-90 we had 52 hospitals with deficits; the first year of the NDP we had 61 hospitals; and the last year of the NDP we had 68 hospitals with deficits. That is far more than we are seeing today. In fact, there were greater problems for hospitals.

We're working with hospitals. They are getting additional money and we are targeting the money specifically to the programs that are required for patients in this province today. We are specifically addressing the needs and we've -

The Speaker: Can you stop the clock, please.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the members' west gallery is Mr Eric Cunningham, the former member for Wentworth North. Welcome.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is a question for the Premier, but in his absence I will ask the Chair of Management Board.

Minister, all last week we raised issues with you regarding the Niagara casino, regarding the fact that the same people who advised your government on setting up casinos and then selected the successful bidder at the Niagara casino were also working for the bidders. For over a week we raised these issues.

When we first raised them you said, "Oh, there's nothing wrong here." Then suddenly, yesterday, your tone changed. You said: "The allegation that you make specifically, that was mentioned in the Toronto Star article, I believe, on Saturday, is a new allegation to me. The first time I saw it was on Saturday. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare potential conflicts of interest. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records to see if this is true...."

Minister, this wasn't raised on Saturday; this was raised over a week ago. I can show you the press reports that detail it. Why did it take you a week to respond to this conflict-of-interest situation? What were you doing in the week that you didn't respond and you tried to deny it all?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): There's been a lot of innuendo and a lot of mud-raking around this issue.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Before I was interrupted I was just pointing out that the specific innuendo about Coopers and Lybrand and the conflict of interest in the processes that took place is a new allegation that I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into with their lawyers and give a report back. I haven't received that complete report yet, and when I do I'll make that open to the members and we'll take the appropriate action if it turns out to be true. If it's just like other innuendoes and rumours that have been floating around this issue - I must remind the member that he was involved in the 1993 process around Windsor; there were innuendoes and allegations at that time, and we followed a similar process.

Any time you have large contracts with winners and with people who aren't successful, you are subject to this kind of innuendo in an environment around muckraking and other forms. Specifically, to answer your question, I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into it and when they give a complete report we'll find out if it's true or not.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you keep trying to miss the point. This issue was raised by me on May 25. It is now June 2. This issue around Michael French and how he lobbied your government to bring in casinos, how he decided who was going to get the Niagara casino, and how he worked for the people who eventually got the casino, was raised on May 25 and you did nothing about it. My question was, what did you do in the week that you denied it?

It gets deeper than that. The person who is the head of the Ontario Casino Corp, David Nash, is equally a Conservative insider. He's a former Mulroney hack. He's a former fund-raiser for the member for London North. And you're going to ask him, somebody who is also involved in this up to his neck, to now conduct an investigation, after you've denied it for a week? Minister, you haven't taken your responsibility, and now trying to fob this off on to Mr Nash, another Conservative hack, won't work. Where is the independent investigation of the conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party knows full well that the first time this allegation was made specifically with facts alleged in it was on the weekend, with certain companies that were alluded to. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp with their legal counsel to give me a report back on the facts of this issue. When I receive that completed report, we'll make that public so we're all dealing with the same facts and we'll take the appropriate action if it turns out to be true.

Mr Hampton: What the minister's answer reveals is that until you come here with a lead-pipe case, this minister won't do his public duty and protect the public of Ontario. These allegations were raised here and in the media over a week ago. You tried to ignore it. You tried to cover it up and pretend nothing was happening. We know from media reports, and the media reports are also clear, that two insiders have said the decision to have Michael French run the Niagara process came from the highest levels of the Conservative government.

Minister, I want to know from you, who was it in the highest levels? Was it Leslie Noble? Was it Tom Long? Was it the whiz kids in the Premier's office? Who was it who directed that Michael French would decide who gets the Niagara casino after he lobbied your government to bring in casinos and had worked for the bidders who got the casino? Who decided that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: You've been told time and time again that that is wrong, that it's just muckraking, that it's innuendo of the worst kind. If you're so confident in your facts, make it outside the House where you're held accountable for what you say.

1450

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is directly to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it's specifically regarding the Ombudsman's report that was released this morning. Of all the criticism that was layered on the government today by the Ombudsman, your ministry was specifically singled out as having a number of problems in it - never such a huge number of backlog cases with the social assistance tribunal that you say was to be more streamlined and efficient, over 6,000 people waiting just to hear an appeal.

The Ombudsman said over and over again today at her press conference that the government is not accountable. I'd like to know what the minister has to say about this today.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The whole reason we introduced legislation last year, Bill 142, which contains significant provisions to amend the Social Assistance Review Board, was because we knew the processes that board had been operating under, under the two previous governments, were not working. People were waiting far too long and there was far too much red tape. The Ombudsman has certainly highlighted that in her report today. That's one reason that legislation was passed in this Legislature. Those reforms are taking place this year.

Mrs Pupatello: The Ombudsman reports that this year is the worst she has ever seen it, and your ministry was specifically singled out for its mismanagement, but specifically, the leadership in that ministry chooses to deny a problem even exists. What the Ombudsman said was that the gap between what the government says we're entitled to by way of public service and what the public receives is becoming a gulf, not just a gap. Your response instead is to deny you're having problems there.

The Ombudsman for the first time outlined your government's blatant partisan appointments, the first time an Ombudsman has addressed the issue of patronage. The Ombudsman specifically targeted your ministry for inefficient resources where the public service simply can't do their job for the very people of Ontario your ministry exists to serve: the vulnerable, the disabled.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Pupatello: Instead, under your leadership, you're not accountable and you're just not keeping up. Minister, we'd like to see action -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member across the way would like to see actions today. Where was she last year when we debated Bill 142, which brought -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I repeat, where was she last year when we passed legislation to address the issues that the Ombudsman has pointed out are problems with the old Social Assistance Review Board? The new Social Benefits Tribunal, the new board, with a more streamlined process -

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: She doesn't want to hear the answer, obviously - that will not take applicants, people on social assistance with appeals, and tie them up in administrative red tape, that legislation for the Social Benefits Tribunal came into effect yesterday.

I don't know where she's been, but the legislation was passed. She had the opportunity to support it. I don't recall her thinking those changes were very important last year. Now she seems to think they are. They came into effect yesterday. We are addressing those concerns that the Ombudsman pointed out, because we agree that there should not be useless red tape and administration, that people should get the answers they need as quickly as possible, and the new Social Benefits Tribunal will do that.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Chair of Management Board again, this whole casino affair reeks of political payola. It reeks of the Patti Starr kind of political influence.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I want to go back to the beginning of the Niagara casino process. Do you remember Domenic Alfieri? Mr Alfieri was the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. He negotiated the interim casino contract with the Navegante Group and we now learn he is working for a company that is financially connected to the Navegante Group. We asked you to disclose that contract for the interim casino and you refused to do that.

Minister, why have you avoided opening up this process to the public? How is it that Mr Alfieri can work at the Ontario Casino Corp, negotiate with the Navegante Group for the interim casino, and then go work for that company? Doesn't that raise the issue of conflict of interest with you? Why won't you open that up and disclose it to the public?

Interjection.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I see that the Liberals say this sounds like the 407.

I do want to point out to you that the past president of the Ontario Casino Corp was an NDP appointment. He's chosen to leave the Ontario Casino Corp as president. Whatever guidelines were in place under your government, I can assure you that we have the same ones, or maybe even stricter.

Mr Hampton: The Chair of Management Board, in order to avoid accountability, wants to refer back to the NDP government and the Windsor casino. Minister, you ought to check the records, because the contract for the Windsor casino was made public, completely public.

I want to ask you, Minister, why don't you employ the same process here with the contract for the Navegante Group and the interim casino at Niagara Falls, and while you're at it, why don't you open up the selection process for the permanent casino at Niagara to public scrutiny as well? Why don't you just do what we did in Windsor when the operator for that casino was selected? Do the same thing: Open it up to the public.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The key word, I guess, that the leader of the third party wants to talk about is when the contract was signed and when it was selected and the end of the process.

As he's fully aware, the negotiations with the highest-ranked proponent are still under way on the Niagara project. I should maybe go back and get the quotes that their government used to do when they were in negotiations on the 407 on why you can't disclose all the details when you're in negotiations.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Education. In my riding of Quinte, Loyalist College concluded an extremely successful fund-raising initiative, cash and pledges totalling $3.1 million, including $800,000 pledged to the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. With matching dollars from the province, an endowment fund of $1.6 million will be created.

Minister, my question to you is, how many students could you predict will benefit from this trust fund?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I do thank the member for Quinte for raising this issue. I'm delighted that I was on a campus of Loyalist College in Bancroft just a couple of weeks ago with regard to the opening of a community resource centre, and certainly Loyalist is doing a lot of good work.

This particular fund, the student opportunity trust fund, is one that this government is particularly proud about. The total amount of money is now in excess of $300 million, and that amount will be matched by the government of Ontario, making over $600 million to help our students.

To answer the question directly, our reckoning is that this amount of money will help about 185,000 students over the next 10 years.

Mr Rollins: Can the minister share what other initiatives the government has put in place to ensure student accessibility to post-secondary education throughout the province?

Hon David Johnson: There have been a number of other initiatives. Certainly this government has increased the amount of moneys available through the Ontario student assistance program. Since we've taken office, the financial support has gone up by about 33% and there's now over $300 million a year in direct support. That, I might say, doesn't count the interest forgiveness, which would be about $105 million. So there is over $400 million in direct financial support to post-secondary students.

For the first time ever, this government has specified that if the institutions do increase tuition, they must set aside 30% of any increase to assist students. That will amount to about $86 million just this year in terms of direct assistance to students, plus the access to opportunities fund, with $150 million over three years. The participation rate in our post-secondary institutions is the highest it's ever been and we want it to go even higher.

1500

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the property tax situation. The minister will know that a year ago we started with Bill 106. You then introduced a bill to fix Bill 106 called Bill 149. Then there was Bill 164, and now we've got Bill 16.

We were expecting last week that you were going to call the bill to be passed and you decided at the last moment to change that. I gather you actually have a whole bunch of amendments that you're going to propose to the bill tomorrow, although you said last week it didn't need amendments.

The assessment rolls were supposed to go out on Friday and for some reason or another there was a glitch and they didn't go out. We now find that the municipalities are behind the eight ball. They can't get their final property tax bills out until perhaps two to three months late. As you know, Minister, every month that it is delayed costs the municipalities $40 million in interest costs.

My question is this: Seeing as it was the government's responsibility for this delay, are you going to reimburse the municipalities the $40 million a month they have to pay in interest costs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario were in, talking to the ministry this morning, as the member may well be aware. We are proposing to deal with several suggestions the association raised last week, as he knows. The offer to meet with them actually has been out there for two to three weeks.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That's not what they're saying.

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Kingston and The Islands can laugh if he wants. The offer to meet with them, I will repeat, has been out there for over two weeks. However, they came in and talked with Finance officials this morning. We gave them a complete briefing on the bill and we also talked to them about several suggestions they made in their 12-page letter and memo of last week, and we hope to address as many of them as we possibly can in committee tomorrow.

Mr Phillips: Of course you forgot the question, which is the $40-million question. I hope you'll consider that answer in the supplementary.

Frankly, the municipalities are laughing at the Legislature. I remember it was last Wednesday Mr Leach said you were meeting at 3 o'clock that day. He said, "...we are meeting...at 3 o'clock, I believe."

We returned to our offices and found there was no such thing. There was mass confusion out there symbolized by - actually the clerks and treasurers perhaps summarized it best. They said: "Surely this illustrates better than anything that this government, in its haste, is making legislation by the seat of its pants without proper thought or planning. Yesterday's bill is amended by today's, which will likely be amended by tomorrow's."

The issue is, this was supposed to simplify property taxes and it has got far more complicated. But I return to the question I asked first. It is going to cost our municipalities, our property taxpayers, the hardworking people of Ontario, $40 million a month in lost interest payments. Will you reimburse those municipalities for that $40-million cost?

Hon Mr Eves: We are indeed talking to municipalities about any cash flow problems they may have in addressing exactly the concerns the member has raised. But I want to point out a couple of measures we have already taken. First of all, we've deferred any realignment responsibilities of municipalities. They have not had to pay for any of them. That totals a deferment of $590 million to date province-wide.

Despite the fact we are not asking municipalities to come up with this money, we have advanced the community reinvestment fund to them in the amount of $335 million, so they are $590 million plus $335 million ahead. I think that will more than cover your $40 million a month. Despite that, we will still address the very problem the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raises.

You've now got the answer, of almost $1 billion of adjustments that we've already made this year to date for municipalities, and we will make sure that municipalities do not lose money in this process.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you stood in this House yesterday and said that doctors who performed abortions at Wellesley Hospital have now got privileges to do those procedures at other Toronto hospitals. You said: "All of the physicians who performed the abortion procedures had their privileges transferred to another hospital. That has taken place and is in the course of taking place."

Would you tell us what processes you've put in place to facilitate this? You see, no one we've talked to knows anything about this. Rather than question your honesty, I ask you this: How many doctors from Wellesley Hospital have now got privileges at other hospitals to perform abortions, and at which hospitals do they now practise?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): When hospitals go through the process of restructuring, obviously there are decisions that are made within communities. Hospitals have joint executive committees that are struck in order to facilitate the transfer of services and to transfer also the physicians. Physicians then have the opportunity to get privileges elsewhere. As we go through the process of restructuring, as you well know, there are going to be some services that some hospitals deliver and others will deliver other services.

Mrs Boyd: It's pretty important for you to answer these questions, because the Premier this morning said in a scrum, "The key for the Minister of Health is to ensure that services are available to the public, if not in one institution, then another." He went on to say, "The reality and the practical application of the Canada Health Act is that those services are available and people know where they are."

The transfer of services has resulted because of the closure of Wellesley Central. The commission ordered that those services and budget be transferred from Wellesley Central to Toronto East General, and the services at Doctors Hospital were to go to the Toronto Hospital. Minister, has this happened? Can you guarantee that this means the 1,300 or more abortions that were performed last year at the Wellesley will be performed in the next year at the Toronto East General and that 1,700 additional procedures have been funded at the Toronto Hospital?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, I would just indicate that as we go through the process of restructuring, the hospitals involved in the restructuring process set up committees in order to facilitate the transfer of services from one to the other. In this case, it was a transfer between Wellesley and St Michael's Hospital and also a transfer between St Michael's Hospital and some of the services to other hospitals in the city of Toronto.

Not all hospitals in this province deliver the same types of services. However, these services are available to people throughout the province. These services that are no longer going to be available at Wellesley Hospital, if they're not available at St Michael's Hospital, will be available at other hospitals within the city of Toronto.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is for the Minister of Labour. On Friday, the minister joined me and my fellow colleague the member for Lambton, Mr Beaubien, in Sarnia to celebrate the construction of a new product development plant for the next generation of plastics at Dow Chemical. This is Dow's first new plant in Sarnia in almost a quarter of a century. I am pleased to say this project will create over 400 construction jobs for three years, and 50 permanent, highly skilled, good-paying jobs in Sarnia once the facility is complete.

This is great news for Sarnia, but this should only be the beginning. There are obstacles that are keeping Sarnia from reaching its full potential in attracting thousands of quality jobs. The number one obstacle is Ontario's construction competitiveness. The petrochemical industry can build their plants anywhere in the world. What is the Minister of Labour doing to improve construction competitiveness and encourage the petrochemical industry to build their plants here in Ontario?

1510

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I am committed to creating job opportunities by making Ontario more attractive for investors and I was delighted to join the member for Sarnia, and also the member for Lambton, in Sarnia last Friday to celebrate the construction of a new product development plant for the next generation of plastics at Dow Chemical and the next generation of jobs. This announcement is great news for Sarnia and the surrounding area of Lambton.

Construction competitiveness is an obstacle to attracting new investment in jobs. Ontario is losing millions of dollars in investment and all the jobs that go with that investment because some of our labour laws, particularly in the construction industry, are not working for Ontarians. If we can build a framework that will bring contractors and building trade unions together, they will be able to bid competitively for multimillion-dollar global investment and create thousands of jobs in Ontario.

Mr Boushy: I appreciate the minister's commitment to Sarnia and the Lambton jobs for the entire province. The minister's commitment to ensure Ontario is competitive in our construction costs for projects that could bring hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in Sarnia and Ontario not only tells the world that Ontario is open for business but will bring investors through the doors, creating thousands of jobs for Sarnia and this province. Minister, to date, what steps have been taken towards improving the construction competitiveness in Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: My staff and I and my ministry have met with the building trade unions, with trade union leaders in carpentry, sheet metal and all the other trades, general contractors, subcontractors, local construction associations and provincial construction associations, all in an effort to come up with an industry solution, a solution that everyone at the table knows is essential to bid competitively for investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

As late as last week the parties were meeting, and I encourage them to continue to make every effort to negotiate a solution. The negotiations have met with some success, but to date a solution has eluded them. For this reason, the government is considering options that will directly address the competitiveness issue while ensuring a productive and stable labour relations environment. New investment in jobs for Ontario is a priority for this government. I am committed to making Ontario more attractive to investors to continue the creation of job opportunities in communities like Sarnia and Lambton county around Ontario.

LANDS FOR LIFE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In your very short time in this place, you've been able to create a second crisis in your career, this time a crisis with Lands for Life. You've started a war among Ontarians over crown land management with this process. Your let's-divide-up-the-pie approach to management is pitting north against south; it's pitting the forestry and mining industry against tourism and conservationists in this province. It should be obvious to you that the potential breakup of your Boreal West Round Table that is falling apart is proof to you that this process has failed.

Minister, why not a more holistic approach and manage our resources from their prospective values? We can protect, we can even enhance, biodiversity in Ontario if you were to allow some of the new ideas that are being discussed across this country to be considered here in Ontario. Admit today the Lands for Life is not working and that the answer lies in taking a more modern approach to resource management.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): Lands for Life, as the member may or may not know, is a process that has been going on for some time in Ontario. It really is an attempt to involve the public in a conversation about the planning of public land use. This process involves three round tables of people who are committed to the future of Ontario, committed to making sure that we use those natural resources wisely and who have been engaged in a public consultation that has taken literally hundreds and hundreds of meetings with people right across the province to ask them what they believe we should do for the future of the province.

I think it's the right process. It has certainly engaged a lot of very interesting conversation with people who are committed to that future. I welcome it as a public process for public input, to make sure that the public has a say in the use of public lands.

Mr Ramsay: The minister thinks it's the right approach, but the Timiskaming Municipal Association in my riding is discussing the idea of a separate northern Ontario province, an idea that personally I don't like, but that's the type of powder keg you have ignited in northern Ontario with this process. By the way, the last time this idea was discussed, it was your party that was in power here in this province.

You have proceeded with this idea of reducing resource-based economic activity without producing any sort of economic impact statement to tell northerners how their economy and their communities will be affected. You have frozen further prospecting and developing on mining claims without any discussion of compensation. Minister, that is theft. Any sort of confiscation without compensation is theft, not only from those who put their work and money into developing those claims but to all of us because it steals from potential development in our northern communities.

Minister, this is the wrong approach. It is not working. When are you going to take a different approach and tell northern Ontarians they have an important part to play in this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If the member opposite is accusing this government of having northerners, the people who, by the way, comprised the membership in the round tables, be engaged in a public conversation, particularly in the north, about the use of the resources in the future, the resources that people, particularly in the north of Ontario, have relied on for many generations, if he's accusing us of having a public conversation about the use of public lands, then he's right, that's exactly what we're doing, asking the public what they want to see on public lands in the future.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I also have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. In February, Ontario's Divisional Court ruled that your Conservative government had broken the law by allowing commercial logging in Temagami, Out Lake and Upper Spanish forests. The court found that you had violated the requirements of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and breached seven conditions of the class EA on timber management, and the court ordered you, in one year's time, to comply with the act, the EA requirements and the Forest Management Planning Manual.

The Conservative government appealed this decision and argued in court that you couldn't comply because you've cut your staff and forestry expenditures by 55%. Last week, the court ruled against you again. They told you to comply within the prescribed time, and I understand that you intend to appeal this decision now to the Court of Appeal on June 18. My question is this: Why do you think you're above the law? Why don't you do what the court has ordered you to do?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member opposite has indicated in the question, this matter is still before the courts. In respect for those courts, I don't believe I can comment on the matter.

Ms Martel: That's not good enough because this court case makes it abundantly clear that your Conservative government has put Ontario's natural resources at risk because of your deep cuts to the Ministry of Natural Resources. You had your legal staff argue in court that you couldn't comply with the law to protect forestry resources because of the deep cuts you've made to ministry staff. Your government has made the decision to lay off 2,000 staff. That's a decision you have to assume some responsibility for.

Now we see in the estimates for this year that you intend to cut another $41 million from the operating budget at MNR and that will surely mean more staff layoffs. It's irresponsible for you to argue you can't meet the law because you don't have the staff. Why are you and your government putting the natural resources of this province at risk?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that we have done nothing that would put the natural resources at risk in Ontario. As the member opposite discussed in the last set of questions, we in fact are undertaking a very ambitious public consultation about the use, the preservation and the conservation of those natural resources, so that is the track record. I can assure the member opposite that with respect to the courts - and this matter is before the courts as she discussed, it is before the courts now - I can't comment on that until they make a judgement.

1520

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We know that Ontario's agrifood sector is getting stronger and a strong agrifood sector builds prosperous communities. By way of example, the strength of both the tobacco and the ginseng export markets strengthens communities like Tillsonburg, Delhi and Simcoe in my riding.

I'm sure the opposition would be pleased to hear that Ontario is one of the most popular locations for attracting investment in the agrifood industry. Minister, will you share this good news with the House?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To my colleague from Norfolk, yes, Ontario is number one in the food processing industry in Canada and we're pleased to say that some 50% of the food processing and manufacturing is done right here in Ontario.

In 1996, Ontario attracted some $580 million in new investment in the agrifood processing industry alone, and that's more than Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee, and we're nipping at the heels of states like Wisconsin and Texas. Clearly the policies of the Harris government are not only attracting new investment but keeping present investment and acting as a magnet to the agrifood processing industry here in Ontario.

Mr Barrett: From that answer, I think we all realize why Ontario is such a great place to live, work and raise a family.

Minister, in my riding there's an excellent working relationship between the Ginseng Growers Association of Canada, the Ontario Ginseng Cooperative and the Ontario government. One goal is to expand the export of high-quality Ontario ginseng to Asian markets. Can you inform the House about some of the recent successes in Ontario's agrifood industry, including an agreement which will have a positive effect in my riding?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The honourable member mentioned ginseng. Ginseng has made major inroads here in Ontario, particularly into the Chinese market. I read a headline here that $9 million of Ontario ginseng will be sold to China in a deal inked during the trade mission in March and April, led by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs officials. The ginseng industry is an outstanding example of how versatile Ontario's agrifood sector is.

"Cambridge Pig Firm Shows How to Compete" - a headline on an editorial in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of May 8. More money again being invested: "Chatham Ethanol Plant Seeing Double," London Free Press, April 17; Ontario's "Wheat Industry Poised to Grow Over Next Five Years," Chatham Daily News; "Frozen Food Company" - I could go on for the rest of the afternoon. However, I think the point is made. Ontario is a magnet for the agrifood processing industry.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to 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 for 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 preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm presenting a petition that I've been asked to present today on behalf of Mr Bill Whatcott, who is a resident in Beaches-Woodbine and who is here today to hear his petition being read.

"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 and/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 of 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 coercion and unjust discrimination."

As I have informed Mr Whatcott, while I am not in agreement with the content, I'm very pleased to present it on his behalf.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

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

"Whereas physicians in Ontario are often pressured to give referrals for medication, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"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 conscience and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

This petition is signed by hundreds of people from my riding and across Ontario.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition joins thousands of others on the topic of the restructuring advisory group in Ottawa-Carleton.

"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 for the developmentally disabled."

I affix my name to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to present three petitions today which are the same as the petitions that were read by the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Mississauga East. They were prepared by St Boniface Catholic Women's League in Zurich and The Life Centre in Goderich. They were dropped off to my office in Wingham by Linda Burns and again deal with conscience of health care workers.

1530

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a new petition which has arrived at my office and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the Harris government abandon its attempt to place more emphasis on money in the election campaigns of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition which I've been asked to read in its entirety.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): As you know, the government is imposing closure once again this afternoon, for the 56th time -

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Read your petition, please.

Mr Gerretsen: - so this petition is very much in order. It states as follows, Madam Speaker:

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

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

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

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

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

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

I am in full agreement with this petition and have signed accordingly.

REZONING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 159 signatures from the town of Caledon in my riding. It's addressed to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the town of Caledon.

"We, the undersigned, object to the rezoning of the Rockford property, Old Base Line and Winston Churchill Boulevard, in order that it be turned into a quarry for the purpose of mining the rock that is contained therein."

I have signed this petition.

ABORTION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition here that comes from the towns of LaSalle, Essex, Maidstone, throughout both my riding and the riding of Essex South. It's a petition regarding the public financing of abortions and I'm happy to submit that to the table.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas abortion is a lifestyle choice which is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Ontario government's injunction against 18 pro-life citizens initiated by the NDP in 1993 is an unwarranted suppression of free speech and of peaceful and lawful activity; and

"Whereas health care workers are experiencing coercion to participate in procedures contrary to their consciences and unfair discrimination for acting according to their consciences;

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

"That public funding of abortion should cease, that the injunction against pro-life witnessing should be dropped and that the conscience rights of health care workers be given new, explicit protection in the law."

I agree with this petition, and I sign my name forthwith.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 546 from my riding:

"Whereas medical procedures have been cut to the bone for lack of funds; and

"Whereas our emergency rooms are strapped for funds to provide emergency service that is often less than adequate;

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the use of public funds to provide needless abortions to a selected group at the expense of procedures that all Ontarians are entitled to.

"We trust that you will give this matter your consideration."

I will add my signature to the petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further petitions? I apologize for missing the rotation. The member for Kingston and The Islands.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that deals with some matters that were raised in the House today and yesterday. It states as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to the political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns than was the case in the past; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures, such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment, from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finance commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, and thereby favouring the political parties and the candidates with the most money; and

"We, therefore, ask the Harris government to immediately cease and desist from making these rules and implementing them into legislation."

I've signed the petition as well.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent that to assist Mel Lastman we have an emergency debate on the future of the Spice Girls. I think that's an important issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't know if we can get the government to agree to this, they may not, but I would ask unanimous consent for the House not to sit tonight so that everybody can attend the gala press gallery event.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? I hear a no.

Orders of the day. Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm Mr Grinch. I'd like to indicate that I said no to that unanimous consent on the Spice Girls.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move government notice of motion number 13.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 15, An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget, when Bill 15 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

1540

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at its regularly scheduled meeting times on June 8 and June 9, 1998.

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the standing committee;

That the committee shall be authorized to meet for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Thursday, June 11, 1998, from 9 am to 12 noon, and following routine proceedings until completion of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

That, at 4:30 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto;

That any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House on Monday, June 15, 1998. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be, on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "deferred votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean, the member for Durham East and the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Before those members should stand and speak on this motion, it had been our desire that it would not be necessary to go to a time allocation motion. In that case, if we had been able to finish second reading debate and refer it to a committee at an earlier date, we would have had greater time for that committee to meet and consider the bill and report the bill back here.

Unfortunately, Bill 15 deals with many of the matters related or involved with the budget that our finance minister presented early in May, and it's necessary for this bill to pass into law before we rise for our summer recess.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You should have called it earlier, then.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: I guess the intransigence of the opposition to push this government to time allocation on each and every piece of legislation -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Oh, come off it.

Hon Mr Sterling: Not each and every. I give them the fact that they have given us a few pieces of legislation without having to do that, but very few. In this case, it would have been our hope to get this bill out earlier so that more people could have been involved with having some kind of public hearings.

It's unfortunate that we have to move a time allocation motion on this but that seems to be the way this House is operating at this particular juncture of our parliamentary history and that's the way we have to carry on our business.

At this point in time I would like to turn it over to the member for Nepean, who is a parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Finance and has been doing an excellent job with regard to carrying legislation on his behalf in this House.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in debate. I want to say at the outset of my remarks how disappointed I am that we didn't accede to the demand of the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to back up the mayor of the city of Toronto in his efforts to reunite the Spice Girls.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a motion to have this bill, which will cut taxes and create jobs, go forward to committee so the Legislature can consider the bill, with the hope of passing it so we can indeed continue to reduce taxes.

Bill 15 is the first budget bill arising from the 1998 provincial budget. It proposes two principal income tax reductions. Basically it's designed to see the complete 30.2% income tax cut take effect by July 1, 1998. It does it in two phases with respect to allowing it to be fully implemented for the 1999 tax year. The basic personal income tax rate would go from 45% of the federal rate to 42.75% effective July 1 of this year for 1998, and then when it's a full 12-month calendar year, in 1999, it would be 40.5%. That's quite remarkable because what we've seen is income taxes in Ontario go from a high of 58% of every federal tax dollar to 40.5%.

There is a clear and inextricable link between the provincial income tax rate and the economic growth rate. If you look at the two powerhouses of job creation and economic growth in Canada this year, you'll see that Alberta and Ontario are the two with the lowest personal income tax rate, so cutting taxes certainly works.

I don't like to simply look at Conservative economists or Conservative members to describe what is a good bill, so I tried to find some other thoughts -

Interjection.

Mr Baird: "Even from the federal government," the member for Northumberland says.

I found a very interesting quote: "They," the taxpayers, "have more money in their pockets, and therefore they have more money to spend. Tax cuts increase domestic consumption." I wonder who said that? It was the Honourable John Manley, the federal Liberal Minister of Industry, the wisest thing I've ever heard John Manley say. John Manley believes that tax cuts help boost consumer confidence, and that creates jobs. I agree with John Manley on this particular issue.

We look as well at the chief economist for CIBC Wood Gundy, Jeff Rubin. He says, "In today's economy, tax cuts make a lot of sense." Indeed, that's extremely good news, that we're seeing some strong indications. When John Manley, the federal Liberal Minister of Industry, from my home region of eastern Ontario, Ottawa-Carleton, says it boosts consumer confidence, we see that in Ottawa-Carleton, because John Manley obviously knows what he's talking about on this one issue.

I have an article from the Ottawa Citizen dated just yesterday: "Indicators Point to Expanding Economy: More jobs, rising retail sales in Ottawa generate optimism, consumer confidence.

"Rising employment and a solid performance in key business indicators continue to show the Ottawa-area economy in a strong expansion mode, a review of the latest economic indicators show....

"Sales at department stores in the first four months of the year totalled nearly $199 million, up 14% from the same period last year, Statistics Canada reported." That was indeed good news.

It goes on, "Growth in actual jobs, as opposed to hiring plans, is one of the most positive features of the latest economic review. The Ottawa...region added 4,300 jobs in April, the biggest gain in 20 months."

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): That's 4,300.

Mr Baird: Yes, 4,300, as the member for Etobicoke says. "The unemployment rate fell to 7.1%, its lowest level in seven years." Ottawa-Carleton has gone through a very difficult time with the downsizing of almost 20,000 federal public service jobs in Ottawa, unemployment rose to 10.8% not long ago. We're seeing some solid boost in consumer confidence, aided and assisted by the provincial income tax reduction. That is indeed good news.

1550

In Ontario everyone gets a tax cut, but the percentage of a tax cut is far greater for those with low and moderate incomes. There are in fact people with lower incomes who, while they have to pay federal income tax, don't have to pay any provincial income tax. That is indeed good news, because the tax cut disproportionately helps low- and middle-income families, who have been hit the hardest by the tax bites in recent years.

Economic studies have almost universally found substantial short-run and long-run benefits from tax cuts, and Bill 15 will allow those tax reductions to be implemented and allow us to unleash the benefits of job creation and boost consumer confidence, and that is indeed very, very good news.

I look over at my colleagues in the opposition. The NDP has taken a very principled stand on tax reduction. They've been honest and up front. They've said they don't agree with it and, if elected, they're going to reverse major parts of that. But the Liberal Party is planning on keeping the tax reduction. Do you know why they want to keep the tax reduction? Because they promised to cut taxes by billions of dollars in the last election.

Someone said, "John, don't hold the red book up again," so I won't. Instead I have a press release dated Thursday, February 16, 1995, with a big Liberal red trillium on the top. "Windsor - Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod said tonight a Liberal government in Ontario would cut taxes and balance the operating budget in its first term in office."

I'll give you a quote from the then Liberal leader: "It's time that government started following a policy for zero tolerance for tax increases. A Liberal government will reduce overall taxes by 5%, easing the tax burden without driving the deficit sky-high."

The 5% tax reduction was five points, from 58 to 53 on the federal income tax, a tax cut that would go well into the billions long before the balanced budget came forward.

I know the member for St Catharines was a big supporter of Lyn McLeod and her red book in the last election, and this policy was a major part of the Liberal election strategy because they recognized that cutting taxes was beneficial to job creation. But that was then and this is now. They were supporting billion-dollar tax cuts before the election. Then they're voting against tax cuts after the election. But after the next election if they were given the opportunity they say they would keep the tax cuts. Two out of three suggest they probably agree with tax reductions.

There's another important part of this bill. Part V of Bill 15 deals with borrowing authority, because we've got to borrow the money to pay off the Liberal and NDP debts in this province. Speaking of debt, I look across and I see my colleague the member for Ottawa West, and I see the -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for Ottawa West.

Mr Baird: The member for Ottawa West was a city councillor in the city of Ottawa, and the city of Ottawa has two cornerstones of their policies. They have tax and spend. Those are the big policies. They also have an underlying authority: borrow.

Before I go into specific details, I want to give some credit where credit is due. The current mayor, Jim Watson, and his deputy worship, the deputy mayor of Ottawa, Allan Higdon, are finally beginning to turn things around and clean up the mess left to them by successive regimes, most notably with the participation of my colleague the member for Ottawa West.

There was an interesting report released not too long ago: The Canadian Bond Rating Service Ontario Municipal Debt and Reserves Analysis. They looked at 71 municipalities, and Ottawa ranked highest on debt per capita of the 71 municipalities reviewed -

Interjection.

Mr Baird: Yes, that's the legacy of the member for Ottawa West, and the belief -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Just to be helpful, I wonder if the member has forgotten about part V of the bill, which increases the debt of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Baird: Ottawa ranked highest on debt per capita: $934 -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Nepean, take your seat a moment. Member for Ottawa West, would you come to order, please.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I will try to be very -

The Deputy Speaker: No arguments. Come to order.

Mr Baird: I've got some other better articles I could get out and read, but I won't. Ottawa ranks highest on debt per capita of the 71 municipalities reviewed, and now there are two strategies: (1) You cut spending and reduce your debt; (2) You raid Nepean taxpayers. People in Nepean aren't particularly keen about that idea, I'll tell you, because in Nepean this year we're cutting taxes by 2%. It's a big debate on Nepean council: Should they cut taxes by 1%, by 2%, by 5%? It's because in Nepean we're taxfighters; in Nepean we're debt-free.

There was an excellent lobby, and I want to give credit to Councillor Jan Harder in the city of Nepean, who fought very hard to increase a very small tax cut to get a bigger tax cut for working families in Nepean. Jan Harder worked extremely hard on that. She also had the active support of Councillor Wayne Phillips and Councillor Rick Chiarelli. They were trying to help cut taxes and maintain a debt-free status for Nepean. That is indeed good news for hardworking taxpayers in my community.

That's exactly similar to what Bill 15 is trying to do; it's trying to ensure that we follow a balanced budget plan, that we can balance the budget in the time line we committed to or perhaps even earlier. It ensures that we can cut taxes and get the heavy weight of government off the backs of hardworking families in Ontario, and that's indeed good news. It also helps create jobs, the overwhelming, number one priority of this government.

I suppose we could have waited to cut taxes. We could have said to the unemployed: "Step aside. You'll have to wait until after the budget is balanced." But we didn't say no to the unemployed. We didn't say, "Step aside." We said, "Unemployment is the number one problem facing the province of Ontario, and we want to grow the economy and help the economy create jobs," and that is good news indeed.

One final part of Bill 15 in this motion we're dealing with that I would like to speak to is with respect to the provisions on the land transfer tax. In successive budgets in recent years, they have given a rebate of the land transfer tax to first-time home buyers. The desire there is to help young people primarily, to give young families the ability to purchase their own home, because home ownership is a fundamental, core value for working families in Ontario, and that is a dream the Ontario government wants to support.

Provisions in Bill 15 would extend the land transfer tax refund an extra year, into 1999, and that will be a substantial help to residents in eastern Ontario and in Ottawa-Carleton. It will help them buy homes. It will also help the growth of the home building industry in my part of the province. In Davidson Heights in Nepean, in Longfields and in Barrhaven, we're seeing significant economic growth.

We had one column, "Tech Boom Triggers New Development." The local economy in Nepean is seeing a "365% jump in the total value of building permits issued during the first quarter." That is indeed good news. That's probably assisted by the 5,000 new jobs coming to Nepean at Nortel, because these folks are going to need homes in which to live. So the high-tech jobs are growing the rest of the economy as well, which is very important.

But it's going to be felt around the region, not only in Orleans in the east end, but also in Stittsville and the township of Goulbourn, the home builders there. I think 200 new homes are being built in Stittsville this year, and that's indeed good news. This budget bill, Bill 15, is designed to assist that. That is extremely important for that important industry, because that industry creates jobs.

We've seen some good results, but we've got to continue to work hard to grow the economy, to assist the economy to grow, to take away the barriers to growth. Just recently the Ottawa Citizen looked at the new jobs in the region. The high-debt, high-tax municipality over a five-year period, Ottawa, saw a reduction of 2,400 jobs. But the pro-growth, pro-economic development municipalities, like the city of Nepean, saw 9,191 new jobs in that five-year period; and Kanata, led by Mayor Merle Nicholds, saw an increase of 7,375 jobs, which was indeed good news. Other municipalities such as Gloucester and Goulbourn also saw increases in the number of jobs, and that was indeed good news.

1600

But we've got to continue to work hard to continue to create an economy that will help create jobs in the private sector so that more people can have the opportunity to secure full-time employment.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Natural Resources concerning Ipperwash. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm. Further debate.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to stand and participate in the - I believe we're at a time allocation motion on Bill 15. For those persons watching today, I think it's important to understand that we'll try to keep this not only on the time allocation motion but on the importance of Bill 15, which is An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget, announced by the Minister of Finance on May 5.

When preparing to make some remarks today, I would be remiss not to re-examine the budget, and just looking at this as a document, all Ontarians, regardless of their party necessity to criticize, have got to recognize that the economy's up and jobs are up. Quite honestly, if you want to bring about a position -

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We are dealing with a specific motion in which the government House leader wants to limit debate on Bill 15 by imposing closure on any further debate. I believe that the member is not addressing the closure motion, as to why the government feels it's necessary to invoke closure in this case.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please. I believe that the debate and the content of the debate are in order on this particular motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the member for Nepean pointed out on several points for the member for Kingston and The Islands, the Liberals, although they didn't have any well-defined positions, did articulate, and I could read from this now infamous book: "The Ontario Liberal plan continues through a full term of government. Everything in this action plan can be achieved while reaching our goal of balancing the budget" - we're doing that; we're committed to doing that - "without raising taxes." I'm not certain they would have followed through. "In fact, we will reduce taxes by 5%." It's their plans that we are executing, and I'm going back to the original point I was trying to establish.

With respect to the bill itself and the motion to debate it, this particular bill goes through about eight sections which I'll outline here shortly.

It's important for all members to see the background. I like some of the background documents. You can read these in your local news magazines. They're not political. They're real statements about our economy: "Private sector forecasters expect Ontario's economy to grow faster than any G7 industrial nation over the next three years." What could be a better testimony that the plan is working? It's the confidence in the economy. When I look at the confidence, the expansion was at 4.8% in 1997 and the forecast by the Conference Board of Canada is in excess of 4%. Ontario exceeded most of those targets.

But one has to examine the fundamentals in the budget. In my riding of Durham East, it's clear, when you look around, primarily it's an important growth area. The housing starts represent a 25% increase in that particular sector alone. Ontario industrial and international exports are up by 8.3%. Once again, all the factors and all the underlying fundamentals are in place.

How can I tell the difference? Look at job creation in the last year alone. Over 200,000 net new jobs in the last year alone. I can tell you that it seems to be working in my riding. People say to me, "The first thing you promised was a tax cut." I think one of the fundamentals of the overall implementation of Bill 15 is to deliver it. On July 1, 1998, every working-income Ontarian will experience a tax cut. The most important part is that 64% of the taxpaying public - that's the people between $25,000 and $70,000, that middle group - the modest income people, will receive the largest reduction. In fact, all of the lower-income groups will receive 30% or more.

The important thing to recognize here is, how does this translate to families? A family of four in my riding of Durham East: For example, let's say the net income for a family of four with two working parents was $60,000. What does it mean to them? On a year-over-year basis, that means $1,210. That's over $100 month more of disposable income than they had before we were elected. Over the period, the cumulative affect is over $3,500. That becomes a much more stable amount of money that's actually going back into the economy.

How am I confident this money isn't going somewhere else? I put to you that all money, through the 30% tax cut that will be fully implemented by July 1, will result in, what? If people save the money, that means there's money in the banks for banks to loan. If they spend the money, people have to make those products. If they invest in a mutual fund, it drives up the amount of access to capital. They may even choose to pay off debt, which will give them more disposable income in the future. It could be argued that whatever they do with the money creates jobs; there's no question about it. In my view, it's important because those are the constituents I represent in my riding of Durham East.

There are other factors, but personally, with five children - and I have three children in university; two completed university - education and investing in the future is absolutely critical. There's no one here in this House, on either side, who would disagree that we must prepare our young people for the opportunities in the future. There is a very comprehensive plan put forward, not only by Minister Eves but also Minister Johnson, the Minister of Education and Training.

I like this starting point. In 1997 we started with the $500-million R&D fund, working in partnership with the private sector. That fund has been brought forward; I'm pleased. In the budget the minister announced that Laurentian University, the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, the University of Waterloo and the University of Toronto, together with private sector partners, are already investing in research and development. I think the minister also went on to thank the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Dr Peter George from McMaster University and Dr William Leggett from Queen's University. There they are, independent of government, at arm's length of government, allocating the funds for research and investment in the future.

But that's only part of the story. Post-secondary reform is long overdue, ever since Dr Smith's report on post-secondary education reform indicated that there had to be change, not only in the tuition aspect but in the overall accessibility to post-secondary. I'm going to look through here and find and share with the members here today three important initiatives this government brought forward as part of the last budget in May.

The most important one is $29 million of new dollars being set aside for the universities to acknowledge the growth factor. That's absolutely critical to allow the universities to deliver high quality, accountable education systems. Mind you, through all of this debate, you've got to recognize that in the whole decision we are seeing in the papers about tuition fees, the actual schedule of fees, the province permits in a guideline what the fees can be, but the boards of directors make those ultimate decisions, whether it's a 4% increase or a 10% increase. Those are tough decisions.

But it shouldn't be an access problem. Our minister and our Premier have said clearly that excellence should never be denied admission, so we've set aside some important scholarship funds: $1.2 billion in scholarships at Ontario colleges and universities.

The most important thing to recognize is where the jobs are. Two out of three jobs created in the last 10 years are in the knowledge-based industry; two out of every three jobs are knowledge-based jobs. What has this government done? We've set aside $150 million to double the number of spaces in engineering faculties, at computer science faculties at college and university level. There was an announcement just this week of rolling that plan further out. How much per student for creating a spot? That's a supplement to the already - I think it's in excess of $6,000 per student that the government provides in terms of funding for our students to continue their post-secondary education.

I look through this document, and it's a document every Ontarian should read. It was delivered here on May 5. If they want one, please call my constituency office. The overarching theme here is that every promise we've made is a promise kept. It's refreshing and reassuring for all members of the House to have a look at the document and keep track. In fact there's a very interesting document that we have. I think this document here is a very good document as well.

1610

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Where do I get one of those documents?

Mr O'Toole: You could easily call a number here in the book. Call my constituency office: 905-697-1501. Call my office and we'll get you one. It's like a report card. We're accountable and accessible. It's not politics; it's doing what we said. There are a number of issues within this document - Madam Speaker, I'm going to get myself back to Bill 15.

There are several major things with respect to the motion. I think it's important to know the content of the motion. I believe there are eight parts to Bill 15 itself. With respect to the time allocation motion, it's important for members to know that we're trying to get on with the budget, to managing the province the way the people elected us to do it. Certainly we've got to be responsive and listening all the time, but it's critical - all taxpayers in Ontario are now worried about making sure the legislation is in place so the reforms can be made.

Part I of the act makes some subtle amendments to the Income Tax Act.

Part II deals with the Corporations Tax Act. It should be recognized that we're reducing tax on small business by 50% over the next eight years. That's another assist to small business.

Part III deals with the Highway Traffic Act. I could go into some detail. Specifically, in that area it's dealing with some fees, schedules and fines.

Part IV: The member for Nepean covered this in some detail as I listened quite anxiously to him. He talked about the land transfer tax. The importance of this to the first-time home buyer and the home building industry, I can tell you, in my riding of Durham East is absolutely breathtaking. Every subdivision that sat idle for nine, seven, six years during the lost decade is now loaded with bricks and workers putting up new homes for people who are moving to Durham East. To me, it's almost the most satisfying part of my job, because I was a regional local councillor before I came to Queen's Park and I was part of that process, but the economy and the fundamentals just weren't there. Something was missing, a kind of confidence. I sense that the confidence is back, but we must never be arrogant about that. We must always listen, be sensitive and respond to the needs of the people of Ontario. That's what a government is supposed to do.

There are some other subtleties to this that because the person out there elects us to look at this information - part V deals with the Ontario Loan Act. Of course the point was made earlier that the province, like any government, borrows money to pay its payroll and other commitments. Taxes are a part of revenues that sometimes aren't in the same time frame as the expenditure side. This borrowing is to take care of business here at Queen's Park, in fact to transfer money to the schools, the hospitals and to the universities and municipalities.

Part VI deals with the Ontario Lottery Corp. I would expect there would be some outrage. I'm not a big supporter of the casino stuff, but by the same token, those commitments were made by the two previous governments, whether it's the roving charities or the Casino Windsor site. Those were decisions made on different days. But what this part of the bill does, and I particularly like this part, is to allow the Legislature to appropriate for the purpose of its expenditures; to include directions in areas such as health care, charities and non-profit corporations. So now it's formalized. The government has formalized where some of that revenue from the gambling is going, and that's appropriate. We're here to govern.

I won't stand here and criticize the Liberal government for bringing in the roving charities and the NDP government for bringing in other forms of gambling. What we tend to be doing is managing what we inherited. What could you expect a sensible, business-oriented government to do?

Part VII is the Retail Sales Tax Act. One small piece in that that is interesting is the elimination of the tax on the 1-800 and 1-888 numbers, that series of numbers. I think that helps small business. We see advertisements on television all the time about it.

Part VIII deals with the Tobacco Tax Act, allowing certain persons to collect that tax.

There are some technical amendments in this that I think the ministry people themselves need to make sure they have the right schedules and regulations in place.

I've systematically gone through the time allocation motion dealing with Bill 15. I've talked about the budget itself, which is really what the bill is, and I've given some insight into the Liberals' position, or at least as much as anyone could imagine what their position was.

I think it was Minister Manley of industry, trade and whatever, the federal minister - as the member for Nepean said, John Manley was the minister who said that tax cuts equal jobs. I think it's worth repeating for the record. In fact, I thank the member for Nepean for bringing it.

I have some respect for Paul Martin, a fiscal conservative. That's as clear as looking out the window. He's very concerned about balancing the budget, very proud of that. Why did he balance the budget? I think it's the Ontario economy that's done it. Look at the sales tax revenue alone from Ontario with a healthy economy, what it did to help balance the federal budget. We're in partnership together; let's not try and divide federal and provincial issues.

Here's what Mr Manley said: "Taxpayers have more money in their pockets." Thank goodness. Look at the retail sales report just put forward this week: 12% increase in retail sales. Where is that new disposable income coming from? This government: Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and this government. Why do I say that? Those 360,000 net new jobs are people who are now working and paying income tax. Where is that money coming from? The tax break. Not only are there more people working, more people have more disposable income. It's so clear.

I just want to finish off with Mr Manley's statement. I think it's very timely. "`Taxpayers have more money in their pockets and therefore they have more money to spend.' Federal Liberal Minister John Manley said tax cuts increase domestic consumption." In fact, it's what we've been saying. Tax cuts equal jobs.

Madam Speaker, it's been a pleasure. I share my time quite willingly with the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr Tilson. Thank you for your attention this afternoon.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wanted to add to the debate on the resolution of Mr Sterling, a time allocation motion with respect to Bill 15, basically a bill that implements the provisions set forth in the budget that the Minister of Finance introduced several weeks ago.

We have debated on this bill for three days. I think the total time is in excess of eight hours. I must confess, I can't understand why the opposition is giving us so much grief with respect to a bill the basic intent of which is to reduce the taxes in this province.

We have stated over and over for many years in our party, going back to the Liberal reign, that this province had become overtaxed. During the reign of the Liberal and New Democratic Party governments the taxes had been increased in excess of 60 times.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Sixty-five.

Mr Tilson: Sixty-five times, someone says. The government has already announced 30 tax cuts. The budget proposals, of course, propose 36 more tax reductions. I must say I find it difficult to understand the opposition, who are not in favour of tax cuts. Otherwise, why would we be opposing this process?

Mr Wildman: Part V. It's your $5-billion loan.

Mr Tilson: All I know is that we have debated Bill 15 for eight hours. There has been extreme opposition from both the New Democratic caucus and the Liberal caucus, opposing this bill, and on it continues. They say, "You should be reducing the debt." I'll tell you something. It was because of you - and I've had this out with the member for Algoma before on his comments about the debt of this province. It was your party that set the debt of this province -

Mr Wildman: You're wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Tilson: It's now up to, what, $100 billion and it's increasing -

Mr Wildman: You raised it.

Mr Tilson: That's not true.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, through you to the member for Algoma, the issue with respect to the debt of this province was caused by the New Democratic government and the Liberal government, who increased the debt up to $100 billion. The interest on that naturally is going to increase.

1620

We promised to eliminate the deficit of this province. We promised to stop spending more than was coming in. That's what these two governments over here did, the Liberal and the New Democratic governments did. That's what they did. They continued to spend more than was coming in. Naturally, you bankrupted the province. That's exactly what happened.

The purpose of this bill is to reduce the taxes in this province to help increase confidence, to encourage people to come and invest here, to set up new businesses here and to create jobs here.

When you talk about the net loss of the former New Democratic government, it was a 10,000-job net loss. It was terrible. Of course there's going to be a loss. Who'd want to invest in a province where the taxes had increased to one of the highest in North America? Our whole aim is to reduce the taxes of this province.

I hope that the two opposition parties come to their senses and ultimately support this bill, which will go to the standing committee on justice. There are two days, June 8 and 9, for further debate and hearings. There will be clause-by-clause debate on June 11 and ultimately we'll return for third reading, where there will be more debate. We will have had all kinds of debate on this bill, which I believe the majority of the people of this province support, which is the reduction of taxes to get the economy back to where it should be.

I have mentioned what this tax bill does, the number of tax reductions. One of the main implementations of Bill 15 is to accelerate the final phase of the tax to July 1, 1998, which is half a year ahead of schedule. At that time, we will have honoured our commitment.

The Ontario personal income tax rate is set as a percentage of the basic federal tax. In 1995, the Ontario tax rate was 58% of the basic federal tax. This bill, Bill 15, which came from the budget, of course, will complete the 30% tax rate cut. Effective July 1, 1998, the Ontario personal income tax rate is proposed to be reduced from 45% of the federal tax to 40.5% of the basic federal tax.

Members of the opposition will say: "Where is it? Where are those savings?" We all know where the savings went. They were taken by our cousins in Ottawa, the federal Liberals in Ottawa. That's where a lot of the loss has occurred.

But I must say I am convinced, as I would submit to all in this House, that the whole idea of optimism and the desire to invest in this province has returned. One of the reasons is because we are again returning to the lowest tax rate in this country.

All Ontario taxpayers benefit from the tax cut. Enrichments to the Ontario tax reduction and the introduction of the Fair Share health care levy ensure that the income tax cut is distributed fairly. The average reductions in Ontario tax would range from a low of 18% for taxpayers reporting incomes in excess of $255,000 to 49.6% for taxpayers reporting incomes of less than $15,150.

Those are the substantial cuts across the board for the low-income earners in this province. The tax cut for their income tax will be fairly substantial and for others it will much less.

All kinds of statements have been made, and I am just going to quote a few of them. Quite frankly, I think the majority of the people in this province support tax cuts.

In the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of May 6, 1998, the editorial stated: "Mike Harris's only sin is living up to all his pre-election promises. His government had the political will to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary cuts, while reducing taxes. The fact is, Ontario is better off today than it was when the Harris government was elected three years ago."

That's a question that needs to be asked: Are we better off now than we were when we took office? I submit we are. There are more jobs, there are less taxes, income earners are earning more, there are more jobs. The economy is booming and I would submit it's because of a whole slew of policies, one of which is the tax cuts.

Continuing on with this editorial: "Business, especially small business, which is the backbone of the economy, is more willing to invest in Ontario than it was three years ago...and the booming economy is testimony of this fact."

I think that's the true test. The test is, what is small business prepared to do? They're prepared to invest more. My friend from Durham East indicated the various amendments to the Corporations Tax Act and how that's going to affect the small business people in this province. Naturally there are more small businesses developing, more small businesses expanding, and that indeed has been the backbone of this province.

I'll conclude very shortly, because I know there are other speakers from the opposition who wish to address this resolution.

From the Windsor Star on May 6, speaking of the budget: "There were 36 tax cuts in all in this budget, many of them aimed at a private sector which Eves says is on track to reduce unemployment to 6.2% within the next two years."

That's something that needs to be considered. What are we doing to encourage jobs to come back? What are we doing to encourage unemployment to be reduced in this province? I submit that tax cuts are one of several things that need to be done to make that come about.

"Together, the tax cuts and the social spending sound wonderful. It had the opposition immediately hissing with envious anger and claiming that adding $1 billion to health care is still a `cut.' Intelligent voters will recognize their desperation.

"The opposition parties are right about one point, however. Ontario is still spending beyond its means. The deficit, projected to be $4.2 billion this year, could be cut faster. We are still spending 16 cents of every dollar - as much as we spend on all social services combined - on interest payments to carry a debt load of $105 billion."

I suppose one could put all the money into reducing the deficit, but the point is that this is a formula. We have to do a number of things to make our economy boom; tax cuts are one, reducing the deficit another, and a whole slew of things need to be done at the same time.

I will conclude by quoting a couple of comments from the Ottawa Sun, which also was on May 6.

Mr Wildman: A rather unbiased periodical.

Mr Tilson: My friend says it's an unbiased periodical, but I'm going to read it anyway. He may learn something. It says:

"Listen to yesterday's words more closely" - referring to the budget and the comments from the two opposition leaders - "personal and business tax cuts, a lower than expected deficit, record job creation, robust economic growth, soaring consumer confidence.

"Sounds an awful lot like the bold vision of Ontario promised by the Tories when they first unleashed their common sense agenda on the province.

"Yes, it was a vision that came with a good deal of sacrifice.

"Because, before Ontario could re-establish itself as the economic engine of Canada, before the government could pull the province out of its economic tailspin caused by years of mismanagement and overspending, the Tories warned they first had to get a firm control on the reins.

"And the Tories have done exactly that, as the strong fiscal balance sheet in yesterday's budget clearly shows."

Finally, they say: "And yes, it's even time for more tax cuts, as much as the opposition whines that Ontarians don't deserve a fiscal dividend.

"When the opposition is reduced to complaining that the province could have achieved a balanced budget faster without tax cuts, you know they're bankrupt of ideas."

I would encourage all to support Mr Sterling's resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What we are confronting once again is yet another time allocation motion. For the people who watch the deliberations in this House, they should know that means the choking off of debate, the ending of debate, on a specific bill.

1630

This bill is very comprehensive. As the Liberal spokesperson in the field of finance and economics, Gerry Phillips, member for Scarborough-Agincourt, has pointed out on a number of occasions, there are a lot of complications to this bill. There are some parts of it which are supportable and there are other parts which are not.

What a lot of people don't know is that the government put in this bill something that would grease the skids for its new and expanded gambling policy. As I say that I hear thunder on the outside of this building, so clearly there's an indication of disapproval with the government policy on gambling, and I certainly agree with that disapproval that is being expressed in the form of thunder this afternoon.

I was perturbed this afternoon that the government members, instead of speaking to the motion, wandered all over. The Speaker said that was quite all right, and I knew when there was a subsequent Speaker in the chair, because we were talking about a time allocation motion, he would be as liberal in his interpretation as the previous Speaker was. I just wanted to let this Speaker know that that indeed was the case earlier when people were engaging in extraneous arguments; not my friend from Dufferin-Peel of course, but others were engaging in extraneous arguments.

What we're seeing is a pattern developing. The member for Ottawa West has calculated, I think he said, 57 time allocation motions or maybe even more. The member for Nepean goes over every day with things for the NDP to use against the Liberals. They should be a little bit suspicious of that: that Guy Giorno is providing things for the government caucus that they then give to the NDP.

I don't say much about the NDP because I know the enemy's over there. I wouldn't want to read Bob Rae's observations this weekend from the Ottawa Citizen, I believe it was. There were some observations which were made.

Here is an article that deals with the conflict between the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Nepean over some bill that would affect their local municipality. The NDP used three of their statements - in fact I thought it was a rather interesting way to do it - to read the letter that Garry Guzzo wrote to the government whip about how he was being treated as compared to the member for Nepean. I think that's what the member for Nepean handed to me right now, a copy of that letter, and wishes me to read it. But I don't have time to read that. If the Conservatives want to fight among themselves, I'm not getting in the middle of that battle. I would prefer to deal with other issues.

In particular, I want to deal with some matters that relate not to Bob Rae's comments - although if the Liberal critic finds them somewhere I may have to read them into the record. I have them in this pile, but heaven knows where they would be at this time in this pile of interesting material that I have.

The headline says, "Harris Right, Rae Says." I think that's probably a misinterpretation of what Bob Rae had to say when he says, "Harris Right." I don't think that's what he said. I think he may have made statements that said, "Some of the things the government is doing have some validity," because -

Mr Baird: All that has taken place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Nepean, you had your turn.

Mr Bradley: I have a Saturday, May 30, Ottawa Citizen. The member hands it to me. That must be the Ottawa Sun, because it doesn't say anything here about that. It says, "Rae Says No to Tax Hikes, Deficits."

I've been challenged by my friends in the New Democratic Party when I talk about the tax cuts. I've been challenged by them to deal with the issue of tax cuts, and here I see:

"Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae admits that his views on governing have evolved so much that he no longer needs an adversary in debate - he can argue both sides...."

"He said the cuts Premier Mike Harris has made to the province's social safety net in pursuit of a balanced budget have had a devastating effect."

In fact he says that they've had a devastating effect, but he does agree with certain of the other policies. What he is talking about in essence is the tax cut. So the next time I get asked by my NDP friends about that - I'm not going to do it now because I want to deal with bigger fish - I will have to quote the former Premier, the leader, the guru of the NDP on tax cuts and so on. I'll just put this one over here for now, and perhaps if I get a chance I'll come back to it.

I would have thought we would be dealing this afternoon with legislation that would be enhancing the funding of hospitals in this province. I heard the minister give an answer in the House this afternoon that said that hospitals are well off, that the government is investing all kinds of moneys in hospitals, and yet virtually everybody I talk to, often unsolicited - people come up to me and say, "You wouldn't believe the experience I had in a hospital."

I was at a funeral home yesterday. I had an aunt who passed away at the age of 86, certainly a very aged person, who lived a wonderful life. One of my relatives came up to me at that time and described a situation that had happened in a hospital. This is not untypical. Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, "You should see what it's like being in a hospital today," compared to even five or 10 years ago. It's substantially different: fewer people to work in the hospital, fewer people not only in the medical end of things but, for instance, cleaning. Some people will say, "The hospital room was actually dirty." A woman I saw on the weekend - I think it was at a folk arts festival event - came up to me and said, "I was in the hospital and they didn't change the bed for six days." I know this is anecdotal evidence, but you keep hearing this time and again from people and you wonder, is it just an isolated incident or is this typical?

What I have found out is that it is typical, that people who have frequently been in the hospital because of ill health have noticed a major shift in the kind of care that's available. That can be attributed 100% to the fact that this government has withdrawn funding from hospitals in the province. Not only that, but today it kicks people out of the hospital - what's a better term than "kicks out"? It discharges people from the hospital quicker and sicker, as the member for York South says. In other words, people who still require some additional care have to leave rather quickly.

Nobody is suggesting that people should use it as a rest home. Nobody is suggesting that at all. But what we are seeing now are people who have to leave the hospital in much worse physical, medical condition than was ever the case before.

Where I saw this, an example given to me, was Linhaven nursing home in St Catharines. It's a senior citizens' home and it has a significant nursing component. When I met with them to talk about their latest cut in funding, the people who are responsible for the home and those who are patients or residents or who provide assistance to people or their families all said to me that the people who come out of the hospital now require more extensive and intensive care than was ever the case before. At the same time, they are withdrawing funding from Linhaven, meaning there is going to be less care for those people.

Because people are living to an older age, we have more people with diseases which seem to hit people in their senior years far more than others. I think of Alzheimer disease and other diseases of dementia, where the patients require just about 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service and care, or people with severe Parkinson's disease or other debilitating diseases who require this kind of assistance. It's just not there in the hospitals any more.

You talk to the nurses and they are run off their feet today. They are doing their paperwork; they are in charge of several patients at one time. I heard of one case where a doctor went and cleaned an operating room, I guess it was. He had to clean it himself, because somebody had to do it before an operation could take place.

You hear this constantly, and these are hospitals which traditionally over the years have endeavoured to give good service but have had to lay off so many people and have had so much funding withdrawn that they can't provide the same service.

Now, this is disconcerting. If you talk about, "The road is bumpy," I don't like it and I don't think anybody else does - "The road is rough," or something like that, or it isn't up to the standards I'd like. That's something I don't like but that I can probably put up with in difficult economic times. I think, though, that virtually everybody in Ontario would want to see our hospitals adequately funded.

1640

The so-called hospital restructuring commission representatives will be showing up in St Catharines - it's like Darth Vader showing up in St Catharines - on Thursday to talk to people, in this case in a preliminary way. I wish they'd stay out of the Niagara Peninsula. I wish we didn't have these people who have really gone around closing hospitals and forcing hospitals to merge and reducing services around the province. I wish they would stay out of the Niagara Peninsula. I wish they wouldn't be anywhere in Ontario, but if I can be parochial, I don't want them there because I know what the agenda's going to be. It's going to be closing hospitals, it's going to be radically changing the role of certain hospitals, and it's going to mean $43 million a year less in operating funding for hospitals in our area.

The Niagara Peninsula has, per capita, the oldest population in Canada; that is, the oldest population of people 55 years and over. I understand we've now surpassed Victoria, BC, which used to have that particular statistic to be proud of. We have that statistic today. It is said then, "You're going to need a lot of chronic care facilities and home care," and that is true. We will need far more than we have today. But we will also need more acute care beds. The reason is that seniors in their advanced years in failing health require not only chronic care - that is, long-term care - but also more often need acute care.

When I look at the budgetary policy of this province, I worry about that. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt most appropriately said to me and others the other day in the House - I was listening to his speech - "Do you understand that this government is now saying somehow it's going to take the money from its so-called charity casinos," or, as I call them, the new Mike Harris gambling halls that are going to be forced upon communities across this province, "and that's what's going to be there for health care"? In other words, if they do well, health care will get more money; if they don't, tough luck for people in the health care field. I think, and my colleague will correct me if I'm wrong, there is a provision in this bill that deals with that.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Yes.

Mr Bradley: He says there is.

This bill allows me an opportunity to say this again: I think the government is moving in a wrongheaded direction with these so-called charity casinos. They're using the casinos as a front to try to justify getting their paws on more money from the vulnerable, the desperate and the addicted people, who are predominantly the people who will be found most often at these so-called charity casinos.

We have already in Ontario some casinos established. I'm not unrealistic enough to go around saying that tomorrow you're going to close Windsor and tomorrow you're going to close Niagara Falls. They're tourist destination casinos, although in Niagara Falls, as my colleagues will know, we've experienced some real questions about how the final group was chosen and what was in its proposal which would make it a compelling choice.

I had hoped with this tourist destination casino that the bid that would win would be one which emphasized all of the tourist attractions and wasn't just a casino bid. A convention centre, for instance, would be great for Niagara Falls; perhaps an aquarium, perhaps a world-class golf course, perhaps some other attractions that would have people who come to Niagara Falls naturally, because of the natural beauty, stay in Niagara Falls. Instead we've got one and there are a lot of questions about it: Who was involved in it, who wasn't involved in it and so on. I don't want to get into the details of that this afternoon, but I just put out there the fact that there's a cloud now over that. I would have preferred that whatever choice was made, it would have been a choice that emphasized other tourist attractors as well as the tourist destination casino it had.

But going into these charity casinos, they aren't going to be tourist attractors. They're not going to have a bus coming in from Rochester, New York, to Brantford or to Sudbury or Timmins or Kirkland Lake. I just use those as the communities some people might be proposing.

That is simply going to take money out of the local community. So if you're a business person in the local community, you won't be cheering that. Oh, you may get a few people from the little villages around, from some of the small towns around, who will come in to spend their money in that city and therefore not spend it in their own community. But if you're running a business, that's discretionary funding that people have. They're going to be spending it there instead of at major department stores, small businesses we have, on services and businesses which I think are much more productive for our communities than these charity casinos.

Why is the government moving forward with it? Why does this bill that you're trying to ram through the House now contain references to it? It's simply greed on the part of the government. The Mike Harris government is addicted, as are so many governments - not just this government - to these revenues. Governments, and I think people all over, have figured out that if you ask the average person out there, "Would you like tax increases?" they're going to say no. That's what you're going to find with people. So when they saw the resistance to this, what governments around this country and other places started to do was to find more painless ways of taxing people. They tax people who are desperate, people who are vulnerable to this kind of addiction and people who are actually addicted to it.

It's a shame on all governments that continue to escalate gambling opportunities. It's time to call a moratorium. I'm not saying you have to go back and end the 6/49 and all those things. I'm not saying that. I'm a realistic person. I'm not even going to condemn the government in those terms. I'm saying to the government now, call a halt to it. If you had trouble with the contracts for the major casinos, I can tell you that you're going to have trouble with some of the minor contracts for the charity casinos, the Mike Harris gambling halls that they want to put in various communities.

This government has tried bribery. I don't mean that in the most sinister sense; I mean it in the sense that they have said to communities, "If only you'll take these VLTs" - they're electronic slot machines. Now they've changed that and said: "If only you'll take these regular slot machines, we'll pay you an administration fee. We know that because of government cutbacks and downloading of responsibility to the municipalities that you need this cash." That's the bribery out there. Then there's some coercion used, the suggestion that somehow, "Your charities won't get this money if you don't approve them in your community." The government, I understand, was even funding a group, Charities First Ontario, that was trying to promote these around the province.

What's disconcerting is to see some of the people who now are taking up the banner for it. A person I had a lot of respect for on Metro council, Paul Christie - he was a member in the east end of Toronto. I've always had a lot of time for Paul in terms of what he has done on council. When I was Minister of the Environment I worked with Paul, who was working with the city. I was really disappointed to see - he was an opponent when he was on council. He did not get re-elected to council on this occasion; he did not go back on council. He was hired now to promote these so-called charity casinos.

If nothing else will work, I'm going to get the commissioners after them. Commissioner Brown is here this afternoon. He must know the problems that can emanate from these so-called charity casinos, the Mike Harris gambling halls. He was out on the protest line against his own government, against Mike Harris, over the property taxes, marching with them, so I think he'll be out marching against the new Mike Harris gambling halls, because as a member of the crime commission he would know of the problems that can emanate from these kinds of so-called charity casinos around the province.

Mr Phillips: The police say that legal gambling doesn't eliminate illegal gambling.

Mr Bradley: That's a good point, and the Speaker will allow me to respond to that, though I'm never supposed to respond to interjections. The police have said that - I've seen that on many occasions - that legalizing gambling or getting the government into it doesn't stop illegal gambling. All it does is expand gambling opportunities. It makes people feel as though they're legitimate when they might be engaging in it.

1650

That's what this bill says. A lot of people say, "This is a tax cut bill." There are some good provisions in this bill. My colleague would agree that there are some provisions in this bill that are good. That's why you almost want to vote for some bills, because they have some good provisions, but the government always puts five or six things in them that make them not supportable, and then, with heavy heart, we have to vote against a particular bill.

I have mentioned the gambling and the fact that they say these gambling revenues are going to go to hospitals. Anybody I know operating a hospital, I say to my friend from Agincourt, certainly wants to have more reliable funding than that. They say: "If it's worth having a good hospital system, then let's have appropriate taxes for that. It's up front, everybody will know what they're paying for and we'll have a good system."

My friend from Etobicoke-Humber will well recall. If we weren't knocking on doors, he and I were probably sitting there on the same night in May 1995 when our good friend Mike Harris was on television answering Robert Fisher of Global TV, one of the questioners during the all-party leaders' debate. When they asked about health care, Robert Fisher asked, "Does this mean that hospitals are going to close?" The member for Scarborough West will recall well the solemn promise of the Premier. He said, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Well, 35 hospitals I've counted so far that have been either closed or pushed together, without volunteering to be pushed together, in this province.

All I read is, "We kept our promise, another promise kept." Here was a promise that was very vital to the people of this province which has not been kept. I did notice that in the Minister of Health's own riding and the little surrounding area, I don't think any hospital has closed. I think that's coincidence. I don't want to make any accusations. I think that's totally coincidence.

Mr Phillips: One reopened.

Mr Bradley: In the Minister of Finance's riding, one of them reopened. In Scarborough it's probably not the same story, because there are many in the new overall Toronto. There's no Scarborough any more; this government voted Scarborough out of existence. All over Toronto now they've closed several hospitals. People from the surrounding area rely on those Toronto hospitals, many of which have a specialty.

I'm very concerned when I see that happen. I wish the hospital commission would stay home. If they close the QEW that day and the hospital commission is unable to make it, I will be sorry for all of us who are commuters along the QEW, or if they shut down the trains or the buses, but at least the commission wouldn't be there. They hover around the community as though they're vultures, waiting to get at our hospitals.

Too many people in our communities have raised too much money over the years, hard-earned money, have made investments, have made sacrifices in our hospitals to see them disappear. We need in St Catharines the Hotel Dieu Hospital, we need the General hospital, we need the Shaver Hospital, which is a chronic care hospital, we need the Niagara rehabilitation centre. We need these facilities. You can't close them down, because even now they find that some nights they have to turn people away because the hospital is full and they can't take any more people. In the emergency department from time to time there are people who cannot get into bed and have to be served in the emergency area of a hospital. Not as satisfactory as it would be otherwise.

I don't want to see those people down in the Niagara region unless they're coming with good news, unless they're saying, "The government is repenting," unless there is a conversion on the road to Damascus by Mike Harris and he's going to say, "We're not going to close any more hospitals," that the people of St Catharines will not have to put up with the closing of hospitals because Mike Harris wants to close them.

My friend from Brockville, my good friend the former Solicitor General, the member for Leeds-Grenville, must feel that pain when he sees the largest employer and a needed psychiatric facility going up in flames because the commission says, "Oh, we don't need that hospital any more."

That gets me into another area that many of us must recognize today. I think it's a major mistake, and I don't care who did it or when they did it: The closing of psychiatric hospitals is a mistake. The crime commissioner is here, and he would have heard in some of his discussions with people out there the problems with ex-psychiatric patients or psychiatric patients who are on the streets or end up in jail, the anguish of their families, people with schizophrenia who by no fault of their own have an affliction which requires medication, which requires treatment, who are simply out on the streets at this time because they don't have a place to go. It's all well and good to talk about closing psychiatric hospitals, but if you don't have the services in the community, if you don't have the hospital care in the community, then you are doing them no favour. The Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital is going to be closed, and there are people from the Niagara Peninsula who have utilized that service over the years.

So I lament this government imposing yet another closure motion because they want to close down debate.

I suspect they'll be bringing in a bill this month which will permit the Americanization of our political system; that is, where money is king in election campaigns. All we have to do is look south of the border and see the trouble that everybody from the President's office down to the local offices is experiencing as a result of accusations about funding of campaigns, fund-raising and expenditures during campaigns.

What this government wants to do now - and we made some progress. Certainly when Bill Davis was in power, the three parties got together and came up with a formula; we came up with the election finances commission, the Liberal government and the NDP government, and we have a system that's not perfect but is far better than it was before when there were no controls.

Now this government wishes to allow much larger donations coming into the coffers of the political parties and individual candidates. That means those people could have or could be perceived to have far more influence. In other words, the wealthiest and the most powerful people would have the most control over the system as a result. Not only can you make larger contributions under the Conservative plan, but also you can make larger expenditures, so that a campaign could be almost bought. The party with the most money - in other words, which has the friends in powerful places, the richest friends, and is able to gather the most money - is going to have the most influence in election campaigns.

They want to shorten the election campaign so that again there's less of a focus on the issues. They want to be able to have media campaigns, advertising throughout the campaign, again favouring those who have a lot of money or those who do favours for those who have a lot of money and get paid back with donations.

They want to have advertising - of course, pre-writ advertising we would expect. They want to increase the per riding expenditure limits by an average of 80%, to $96,000 per riding. I'm trying to remember what we spent in our last campaign in St Catharines. I think it was about $31,000, and now it is $96,000. I know for sure the Conservative candidate, whoever it is, will have $96,000, because if you don't have $96,000 after all the great things you've done for your friends who have lots of money and who are powerful, I'd be surprised.

You want to also abolish the election finances commission. The election finances commission is the watchdog. It's the policing agency over spending and advertising.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During the course of the drivel by the member for St Catharines, he did mention that the Minister of Health didn't close any hospitals in her riding. I would like to point out to the member for St Catharines and to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Health has no hospitals in her riding.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you have the floor.

Mr Bradley: Of course I said in her part of the province, and so the member would know that that is the case. He just makes my point by getting up. I thank him very much for making my point.

1700

I want to say that if you abolish the election finances commission, you've taken away the watchdog. The crime commissioner knows about policing. He knows how important it is to have a watchdog.

Mr Wildman: That picture looked like he was in a police lineup.

Mr Bradley: I saw the picture of him and the two other members. They were in trench coats. They looked like - who's the fellow who's in the trench coat? Columbo. The three of them looked like Columbo.

Mr Wildman: I thought one of them looked like Peter Lorre.

Mr Bradley: Well, Peter Lorre perhaps. But there's a detective called Columbo, and they looked like Columbo in each of those cases.

But I see this as a move in the wrong direction. If any member says, "Well, in other campaigns, other people have spent more," I agree with them that that isn't right either. We have to get a system where money isn't king. The United States is a great example of what we don't want in terms of our electoral system.

I want to provide for my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt with an opportunity to elaborate on some of these issues perhaps a little more specific to the bill itself. I think it's extremely important that he do so, because, as he will point out, there are some provisions in the legislation which are supportable; I think he'll probably emphasize those which are not, because it's the role of the government to emphasize the others.

To those out there who say, "Look, why do you people in the opposition not praise the government from time to time?" there's a good reason. It's because Guy Giorno - who is making how much a year? I don't know, but $90,000, $100,000 a year. Guy Giorno and his crew go through the Hansards and they quote out of context what we say if we say anything good about the government. So we leave it to the government members, who themselves have a third hand specifically for patting themselves on the back. That's what we allow government members to do.

I want to, as I say, provide my friend with some opportunity to speak on this today, so I will now yield the floor to the eminent statesman, the deputy leader and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the Liberal finance critic, who has a reputation that is enviable and respect among all people of goodwill in this province. I yield to him now.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate on the closure motion. I want to begin by saying that I think the public should be concerned about the frequency with which this Legislature is beginning to use closure motions. I'll give you a specific example of why the public should be concerned. The problem is that when we start to use closure motions we essentially cut off debate. The government knows it can introduce a motion and can get that passed and then can get a bill passed literally the next day. It's a powerful tool.

I'll give you an example of the problem with that, which happened just last week. One of the major issues before us is property tax changes, property tax reform. We've now had four major pieces of legislation that have been before this Legislature. It is going to fundamentally change property taxes in the province of Ontario. I just say to all of us, "Get ready for the next five or six weeks," when our municipalities finally get from the province the legislation to begin to deal with the tax bills. I predict that most municipalities are going to have an enormous problem with it.

But here's the problem. The first bill we dealt with was Bill 106. That was about a year ago. Then the government introduced something called Bill 149 to fix Bill 106. Then they brought in something called Bill 164 to fix the previous two bills. Then they introduced something called Bill 16, but we were told: "This bill cannot go to committee. We are not going to allow any committee work on it."

Mr Bradley: No committee?

Mr Phillips: No committee on Bill 16, and it's a major property tax bill. It was just less than a week ago, last Wednesday afternoon, when my leader, Dalton McGuinty, asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs about Bill 16. He essentially said, "We are going to pass this afternoon a time allocation motion, a closure motion, that will force final reading on Bill 16 on Thursday." It would have been law last Thursday. Fortunately, the clerks and treasurers of the province of Ontario, the senior civil servants in the province, held a media conference at 1 o'clock last Wednesday afternoon pointing out the enormous problems in the bill.

I still remember it clearly. Last Wednesday afternoon, the government was forced to back down. They withdrew this time allocation motion. I still remember the minister in behind here talking to the senior civil servants when they recognized the bill was flawed. It should have gone to committee weeks and weeks ago, but because the government now has this tool where it can close off debate, we will have perhaps two hours of debate. This time allocation motion will be passed this afternoon and it can do whatever it wants with the bill. That is the problem with the bill.

Luckily, literally at the last moment, the government was forced to back down and tomorrow morning the finance committee will deal with a whole bunch of amendments that the government is proposing to the property tax bill. That's the problem we have when a government has these tools at its disposal to essentially cut off legitimate debate. The government thinks it can get away without having an opportunity for significant public input.

I think the government will find it has made a major mistake in not allowing significant debate on the property tax bill. I will say this - I said it earlier today - the taxpayers of Ontario are going to be paying $40 million a month in extra interest cost because the government has bungled this bill. It will be two months late in getting out and municipalities are laughing at us. They're laughing at the Legislature. They were all sitting, by the way, last Friday waiting for the assessment rolls. They had been promised that they would be delivered last Friday and all of our senior officials around the province were waiting for it. Then they get the message: "Oops, sorry, you won't be getting them. Some glitch." They really are laughing at us here.

Mr Wildman: Some of them are crying.

Mr Phillips: Some are crying, as the member for Algoma says.

I raise that point because when a government has the tools to not allow legitimate debate it makes for bad legislation, it makes for bad public policy and it makes for a public obviously that gets cynical about the process.

On the bill that we're dealing with now -

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Why didn't you vote against the motion last night?

Mr Phillips: I hear the judge barking over there.

Again, I say that we asked weeks ago for public hearings on Bill 16, but no, the government wouldn't allow that. Actually he's chairman of the committee, Mr Guzzo. He'll be there tomorrow morning. I have a feeling the minister won't even show up to defend the bill tomorrow. That's what I believe, although it's customary that the minister is there, and I hope he is there.

On to the closure motion here. There are significant elements in this bill that really deserve substantial debate. I'll talk about the one that my colleague from St Catharines raised first, that is, gambling. This bill allows for the province to introduce 15,000 slot machines across Ontario -

Mr Guzzo: Not nearly enough.

Mr Phillips: Mr Guzzo says, "Not nearly enough." There we are. We have it now.

Mr Guzzo: What about the 5,000 illegal ones that are already there?

Mr Phillips: He says it's 5,000 illegal. I say -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, you don't have the floor, please.

Mr Phillips: Judge Guzzo obviously is in support of 15,000 slot machines, but I say this: Our senior police officials in the province of Ontario looked at this issue, did a study. They were engaged to do a significant study on illegal gambling and they said: "Be aware. Legalizing gambling does not eliminate illegal gambling." That was our senior police officers doing a study on this specific issue.

Mr Guzzo often says in the House, "Let's legalize it all and get rid of the illegal ones." All it will do is add 15,000 more slot machines, taking $1 billion out of the hardworking people of Ontario. That's the amazing part of this bill. On the one hand, it cuts taxes because the government says we need to put more money in the hands of people; on the other hand, it legalizes 15,000 slot machines that the government itself predicts will take $1 billion out of the pockets of people in Ontario. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that leaving money in the pockets of people will stimulate the economy and then you want this bill - this is a taxing bill. This is a gambling taxing bill that will tax gamblers to the tune of $1 billion a year.

1710

I say to the people of Ontario, surely this deserves a substantive debate. Surely this isn't something that we should be forcing into committee and giving, I think, a total of six hours of debate on it. It is fundamental to the province of Ontario.

I would go on to say that the government itself promised the people of Ontario that there would be a legislative accountability framework requiring a complete annual accounting for every dollar etc. Well, there it is: A few pages, with virtually no debate, and we are going to authorize 15,000 slot machines in Ontario that the government itself - these are the government's own numbers. Estimate of an annual flow at maturity, as they say: $1 billion being lost in slot machines. Is that not something that's worthy of more than six hours of debate before we ram it through?

A second part of the bill is the tax cut. I would just say to the people of Ontario that we all understand the need to deal with the deficit. We all understand the need to get our fiscal house in order. But this bill finalizes a cut in personal income tax that represents a loss of revenue of roughly $5 billion a year to the province.

You can say, "Well, why not have the tax cut?" I will say this: First, there's no question that the people who benefit the most are those who make the most, obviously. This is the government's own table on the tax cut. This says people making more than a quarter of a million dollars, more than $250,000 a year, are going to get a tax break worth $500 million. It is a substantial amount of money that is being given in a tax break. Remember, we've said to Ontario, "We have to cut our hospital funding by $800 million because we have a financial problem," but we can afford a $500 million tax break to people making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

I say this to Ontario: Recognize Mike Harris - and again, you can get a copy of the budget. You can see here that when Mike Harris became Premier, the debt of the province was $88 billion. This year in the budget he has presented the debt of the province has gone to $110 million. So Mike Harris has added $22 billion to the debt of the province. That is $6,000 for every household in Ontario. Every household in Ontario now owes $6,000 more than it did when Mike Harris became Premier.

Is that good fiscal policy? Should the people of Ontario want to add $6,000 to their household debt? Remember, the government is paying 8% interest on it. Each household is paying almost $500 a year to pay the interest. That money is heavily as a result of a tax cut.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They don't believe you, Gerry.

Mr Phillips: You say they don't believe me?

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I don't.

Mr Phillips: Look at the numbers, Bert. They're hiding the numbers from you. You'll have to get the budget out and look at it yourself. The Conservative members don't believe this because they've been told otherwise. Get it out and look at it yourself. What you do is you look on page 57 and you find the $88 billion, Bert, and then it's $110 billion. You subtract those two. That's $22 billion. Then you divide it by the number of households in Ontario and it's $6,000 a household. So I say to everybody in Ontario, you now owe $6,000 more per household.

Is that good fiscal policy? You cut taxes and, yes, people making a lot of money get a break, but the hardworking, middle-class people of Ontario have had the province go out and borrow $22 billion and now they're paying interest on it.

It's just a question one asks. If this were my own house or my own business - I ran businesses. I started two businesses. I had 300 employees. There is not a bank in Ontario that would have loaned me money if I had been prepared, when I was "running a deficit", to declare the kind of dividend Ontario has declared on taxes.

The numbers are there. That's why, I might add, the credit rating agencies - these are the people who get paid money to rate the creditworthiness of governments and companies - have not improved the Harris credit rating one bit, not one bit.

Mr Silipo: Somehow that doesn't bother them now. Somehow that doesn't matter now.

Mr Phillips: That's right. The Minister of Finance said -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: There is only one person who has the floor and it's the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. There are too many conversations going on. I will listen to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I remember that Mike Harris sat here and Bob Rae sat there. When the credit rating of the province dropped - it used to be AAA and then it dropped to AA+, AA and AA-. Every time it changed, Mike Harris went at Bob Rae. He said: "This is a disaster. We can't have this happening. You're ruining Ontario." Now, three years later - Mike Harris has been in charge for three years - the credit rating has not moved a bit. It's exactly the same as it was when Bob Rae was Premier. So what's the significance of that? These are the objective people who rate the credit of the province of Ontario and each of them has said that you are putting at risk the financial health of the province of Ontario by implementing the tax cut before the fiscal house is in order.

That's the second major part of the bill, the tax cut, where we now find that Ontario has added $22 billion to the debt. I find it useful to look at - this is the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. They produce quite a good fact sheet that I find helpful. If you look at this, Mr Speaker - you can't see the numbers from where you're sitting - it says that in 1994-95 the combined deficit of the 10 provinces and the federal government was $53 billion. In other words, the federal government and all the provinces were spending $53 billion more than they were bringing it. That's unsustainable, as we all know.

Four years later, what has happened? It was $53 billion four years ago. What is it in 1997-98, the year that just ended? It has gone down to $5.2 billion. In other words, it's gone from $53 billion to $5.2 billion. What does that mean? Ontario last year had a deficit of $5.2 billion. If you take all the other nine provinces and the federal government, they have a balanced budget now. They're gone from four years ago when they were a major part of that $53 billion -

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Where did they start? How big was their hole, Gerry? You started this.

Mr Phillips: Mr Tsubouchi is barking. Use your math. The federal government had a deficit of $37 billion and they got it down to zero. They got it to zero in four years. But Mike? Mike's been able to take $10 billion to $5 billion. He cut it in half. My point is this: It doesn't make sense for any organization that is faced with those kinds of challenges to be declaring a fiscal dividend before their fiscal house is in order? I don't think it does.

I'm going to conclude in a moment. I know Mike likes to say it's the tax cut that's making things work. The problem is, look in the budget and what does it say? It says it's exports that have driven the economy. That's what's made us so successful. In fact, on page 10 it shows in 1989 exports represented a little less than 29% of the economy, and now we find, in 1997, that it's 46%. It's the US economy, low interest rates, low inflation that is driving the economy. Frankly, any objective person would say it has not been the tax cuts that have driven the Ontario economy. In fact, the government itself says it's exports. That's what's created the jobs.

As we deal with Bill 15, with the time allocation motion, the gambling in here needs an airing. Nothing could make that clearer than the debate we've had over here during the last week on some of the problems being created now by gambling. Surely we're not going to allow this to go through with six hours of committee work.

Second, on the tax cut, yes, people love a tax cut. But recognize that you've had to borrow the money to give yourself the tax cut: $22 billion Mike Harris has added to the debt, $6,000 a household. Furthermore, it will be the middle class who will pay that, because those making the big incomes have had a very substantial cut on their income tax.

1720

Mr Gerretsen: In the few minutes I've got, I'd like to address two issues. The first issue deals with the closure motion here before us. You may recall that when this debate first started, the government House leader said, in a very pious way, that he wished that he didn't have to do this, but the budget had to be implemented by this Bill 16 and that's the reason he was bringing this time allocation or closure motion forward.

I think it's very interesting to note, and I think the people of Ontario should understand, that this bill was first introduced on May 7. We're now almost a month later. We're here for about another three weeks or so, maybe four weeks, until this session comes to an end. We're dealing here with a bill that contains 72 pages of recommendations on how the budget should be implemented.

Why, if this is such an important bill - it is, and he acknowledged that it is - why haven't we debated this bill in this House for a much more extended period of time already? We've had a total of about three days of debate on this. There's no reason we couldn't debate this for another two or three days, then send it to committee for at least two to three weeks and then bring it back here for third reading with all its various amendments.

We know, from the past record of this government, that there are going to be amendments needed. All you have to do is look at Bill 15, the property tax bill, the fourth time we're dealing with the property taxation system in Ontario, to know that this government keeps making mistake after mistake after mistake, especially when it comes to anything that has to do with taxation.

We had Bill 26 that dealt with that matter, then we had Bill 108, Bill 146, Bill 164, and now they have to come back with another bill. The same thing is going to happen with this bill. We know that if we're going to deal with it in a matter of six hours and then report it back to this House and deal with it in one session, I think that is totally unacceptable to the people of Ontario.

The other issue, and my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has dealt with this as well, deals with the public debt in this province. It's very interesting that we know, according to the government's own budget documentation, that public debt in this province will grow from $89 billion, the way it was in 1995 when you took over, to $110 billion by the time we're through, something like a $21-billion increase.

The government always like to talk about it in terms of, "That was the previous NDP government." We know they caused about $40 or $50 billion of that during the four or five years they were in power, but most of the other $50 billion was caused by previous Conservative governments. As a matter of fact, when Davis turned the reins of government over to the Liberals back in 1985, the public debt in this province then stood at about $40 billion, so if you look at the whole $110 billion that there will be by the end of this year, or by the end of the next fiscal period, you have caused about $62 to $65 billion of the public debt.

Mr Wildman: About half of it.

Mr Gerretsen: About half of it, if not more than half of it. It's interesting that according to the government's own figures, the amount of money we spend annually in servicing that public debt has shot up from $7.8 billion, which was the interest on the public debt back in 1995, to a projected $9.2 billion, almost $1.4 billion more in just interest payments, almost 20% of our budget being spent on interest costs, much more than the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The interesting thing is that that budget, of course, is dropping dramatically with all the cuts you're making to the most vulnerable in our society. The amount of money we now spend in community and social services in this province is $7.8 billion, well less than on the interest.

I will relinquish the rest of my time to the third party at this stage. The people of Ontario should remember that there are two issues at stake here. Number one is the fact that closure is once again being invoked, and I think the people should say, "Why is it being invoked on such an extensive bill?" Number two is that you, sirs, on the other side have caused the public debt of this province to increase by a further $22 billion over the last three to four years when that was totally unnecessary.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank my friends in the government party and the opposition party for allotting us so much time in this debate. It's a shame. It is obviously the approach that the other two parties take in terms of recognizing the traditions in this House.

I would explain very seriously our concerns about this motion, because despite what most of the members have discussed in the debate, we are debating a time allocation motion. This is a time allocation motion introduced by the government House leader after three days of second reading debate on this very important and very complicated and extensive budget bill.

The government argues that they need to get the bill through to implement the main measures in the budget and that they can't afford more time for second reading debate. Frankly, if it were not unparliamentary, I might even be tempted to accuse the government House leader of engaging in sophistry in the few comments he made in this debate. He said the reason for the time allocation motion is that the opposition parties in the House were taking up so much time in second reading debate that the government, which he said wished to send this bill to committee, didn't have time to do it, so the government was being forced to bring in time allocation motions on this bill and on other bills. It's all the opposition's fault.

Frankly, the fact is this: This government could have brought the House back according to the normal calendar in mid-March. The Conservatives could have had a budget a month earlier, but this government said no, there was nothing of importance, nothing they had to have the House sitting for, so therefore they -

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: The members are barracking, but they obviously don't understand that their government House leader and their own government can't even manage the business of this House, much less the business of the province.

The fact is the budget could have been a month earlier. We could have had a reasoned, serious debate about the measures in the budget and there would have been no need - I believe there is still no need - to bring in time allocation on this bill. No one in the House has tried to filibuster debate on this bill, and yet we have a time allocation motion.

1730

I suspect there is one basic reason the government is trying to push this bill through without real debate, without committee debate, and that is because this government purports to be against public debt, and yet one of the most important parts of this bill that none of the government members wants to talk about - they only want to talk about those portions of the bill that deal with parts I and II, income tax and corporation taxes. That's all they want to talk about. None of them wants to talk about parts V and VI.

Part V deals with the Ontario Loan Act. Under this part of this bill, the Treasurer of this province is authorized to borrow up to $4.6 billion, and there's a reason. Ironically it relates to the parts of the bill the members of the Conservative Party want to discuss. It relates to parts I and II. These deal with tax cuts. Ironically the $4.6 billion that part V authorizes the Treasurer to raise in debt, in loans, is almost the exact amount it is going to cost the treasury to bring forward the income tax break.

Of course the government members don't want to admit that. They don't want to admit and they don't want the public to understand that this government is borrowing the money to provide a tax break to the people who don't need the money. This is a government that says they don't believe in debt, and yet as a result of this bill and their phoney tax scheme, this government has increased the debt of this province by $22 billion.

Add that to the debt that was accumulated under previous Tory governments since the Second World War; that debt was about $40 billion when the Liberals came to government. Add $22 billion to it, and that's between $60 billion and $65 billion in debt that we owe to the Tories in this province, $65 billion in debt. The total debt has increased under this government now to about $110 billion. What we're saying is half of the debt in this province is accumulated because of Tory mismanagement.

This government doesn't want to discuss these matters. This government does not want to hear from the public, does not want to deal with -

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): You live in a glass house.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I don't mind. It's not surprising to me that the Tory members don't want -

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker minds. I mind.

Mr Wildman: I understand, but I also understand that the Tory members don't want to hear this because they don't want to understand that they have increased the debt and that they're being irresponsible in borrowing money to give a tax break to people who don't need it. That's why they've got a closure motion before the House.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Tell that to the guy who is making 35 grand.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lambton.

Mr Wildman: This government only wants to debate the first two parts of this bill. They don't want to have full debate on all of it.

What is part VI? This changes the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. It repeals provisions related to video lottery terminals, which is all right, but what's the other part? Under this part of the bill it adds health care and charities to the authorized list of purposes for the lottery corporation's net profits.

What does this mean? Because this government is lowering its tax revenues, it wants to increase revenues in other ways, and in order to increase revenues, it is going to increase gambling in the province.

What are we going to fund with this gambling? Up to now the lottery corporation's revenues and profits funded things like recreation programs in Ontario. But this government is cutting grants to recreation programs. They're not going to continue funding recreation. What are we now going to fund? We're now going to fund charities - that provide services that all of us want to provide in this province - and health care. For the first time in the history of this province we are now going to leave the wellbeing, the health of the people of Ontario to chance. We are going to determine how much money we have for health care based on a gamble.

We are moving to the position, frankly, of the Irish Sweepstakes. In that country for years they have funded their health care program through a horse racing operation. This government is simply going to add the funds for health care through the lottery corporation profits. It made sense to fund culture and recreation programs from those kinds of revenues; it makes absolutely no sense in a country that values health care the way Canadians do to fund health care by chance.

This is a government that says it is against public debt, and is increasing the public debt. This is a government that says they want to encourage and reinvest in things like health care. As a result, this is a government that does not want to have the whole story of this bill before the public and before the House. That is why the government House leader is bringing in time allocation and is closing off debate.

My concern is that at one time such a move would have been seen as a very serious matter by all members of the House - government members and opposition members. Unfortunately under this government it is becoming routine. This is the way the government approaches legislation: they simply close off debate.

One of the most important things in a democracy is the right of the people to be heard, the right of the people's representatives to express opinions even if they don't agree with the government's line. This is a government that does not believe in that approach, that does not believe in full debate, that wants to close off debate, and thus it becomes second nature almost to bring in motions to close off debate on legislation. This is a government that doesn't want to have the people understand what it's doing. It wants to force things through in a hurry so that people don't get the opportunity to understand the kinds of things the government is doing. I regret it. I'm opposed to it.

We will be opposing this time allocation motion because it's bad for this assembly and it's bad for democracy.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Silipo: I want to take the couple of minutes that are left before we have to vote on this to simply say that in addition to the concise and straightforward comments put forward by my colleague the member for Algoma, our House leader, Mr Wildman, there are a couple of other reasons why I find this particular motion in front of us offensive. I find all time allocation motions problematic, but this one particularly I find offensive.

Mr O'Toole: You guys had 17 of them.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr Silipo: One is that at no time did the government, through its House leader or anyone else, come forward and say to us: "We'd like to get this bill to committee. Will you cooperate in terms of how we can do that?" There was no discussion, there was no proposal, there was not even any suggestion. So to infer, as he did earlier on, that we held up this bill or are holding up this bill is completely inappropriate, Speaker, not to use other words that you would rule out of order.

The other reason is that we know that something really interesting is happening. You would expect, Speaker, particularly you as someone who's been around this place many a year, that the main bill this government has in this session that deals with implementing the main measures in its budget - because that's what this bill does; this is the budget bill - if it was going to go to committee, it would go to the finance committee because that's the committee that's got the purview to deal with all financial issues. That committee is in fact available to meet on this issue on the dates this motion suggests the committee ought to sit to deal with this bill.

1740

But that's not what we have in this motion. What we have in this motion is a direction that this bill will be referred not to the finance committee but to the standing committee on administration of justice. Why is that? Let me suggest one reason why that's happening - I think the reason - but let me suggest one reason because I don't want to be challenged on the basis of imputing motives.

We have, as an NDP caucus, put forward under the standing orders of this House a proposal that the standing committee on administration of justice deal with a matter which the government so far has consistently refused to deal with in a public way, and that is the whole issue of what happened around Ipperwash and the death of Dudley George. We have put that issue forward; we have called for a public inquiry time after time. The government has consistently refused to do that. We then have resorted to the only other measure that's left to us under the rules, which is to ask that in a committee of this Legislative Assembly a matter that is under the purview of the ministry which those committees deal with, that that issue be dealt with.

Lo and behold, the minute we did that, all of a sudden the government decides to send its budget bill, which should be going to the finance committee, to the administration of justice committee, because by doing that they prevent that motion and that issue from being discussed. That's what this is about. It's got nothing to do with the opposition in any way delaying the budget bill, because we've only had three days of debate on this.

As I said, there's been no proposal - I may have missed part of one of the House leaders' meetings.

Interjection.

Mr Silipo: My House leader assures me that there has never been any proposal from the government House leader to say: "We'd like to get this bill in committee. What do we need to do? How can we work that out?" Nothing. All we saw is this time allocation motion.

This has got nothing to do with the need to get this bill through. It's got everything to do with wanting to make sure that the issue around Ipperwash does not get discussed in committee. That's what's driving this particular motion at this particular time to this particular committee.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise to speak in opposition to this motion today because I want the people who are watching to understand that what we're debating today is a time allocation motion. Basically, this is the opposition gag order being imposed upon it by this government.

Bill 15 is a bill that I would like to have had some time to be involved in debating, because I think it has a number of important elements in it that we need to deal with. One of them has to do with the changes to the Land Transfer Tax Act. I received a letter from the Windsor and Essex county real estate association recently. They wanted to know why the exemptions to the payment of land transfer tax were only available to persons who were buying new homes for the first time and not to persons who were buying used homes.

I think that's a good question that's really worthy of debate and I think it's something we should look closely at. At one time we wanted to stimulate the economy by encouraging the sale of new homes and that was a measure to do that. But I believe we want to try and provide that exemption so that people who are buying used homes are still able to avail themselves of that opportunity.

I would like to have had an opportunity to talk about the changes to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act as well, because the changes that the government is introducing to repeal provisions related to video lottery terminals are something that we support, but the funding of health care through lottery revenues is something we're opposed to. We don't believe that's the way health care funding should be provided.

We know that lotteries bring a tremendous amount of money into our economy and that the lottery corporation is interested in increasing that revenue. Ironically, one of the ways they could be increasing revenue I believe is to be doing more outreach into the community by funding recreational facilities in communities and by doing things that they used to do, for example, the community mobile stage program. That was a program that used to provide mobile stages to various events in communities. It was a good public relations gesture, a good outreach gesture. It was something that helped the Freedom Festival in my area to try and have a venue for entertainment facilities.

When people see those kinds of things happening in their communities they don't mind buying the odd lottery ticket every once in a while. However, when people see that this is a facility that's no longer available to their community, that the lottery corporation isn't interested in making that opportunity available, they might not think about buying lottery tickets in the future. I think it's an ill-conceived part of the lottery corporation's plan and I hope they reconsider the mobile community stage program and reinstate it so that the Freedom Festival can avail itself of that opportunity in the future.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt was talking about the increased deficit being caused by the Tory tax scheme, and I was wondering during his speech what the Liberals would do to the Tory tax scheme if they were to come into government.

We know that the deficit still remains large, over $4 billion, notwithstanding the fact that we are experiencing a very robust economy right now. The reason that it is experiencing that deficit is because of the tax scheme. We know that the deficit could be eliminated because of this robust economy. It's an economy that really is experiencing that robustness because of the strength of the US economy. We export a great deal of our products from the Windsor area, for example, into the United States. Minivans from the Chrysler assembly plant are exported into the United States. The value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar is a reason for that robust economy.

What people are really wondering is what would happen if there was a downturn in the economy. We're seeing cuts in health care and education and the deficit is still over $4 billion in a robust economy. What if there's a little downturn? What's going to happen to those sorts of services?

One of the generators of income in the province is Casino Windsor, an initiative that was supported and established by the NDP government, which I am proud of. That has provided tremendous revenue to Ontario. However, we've seen mismanagement and incompetence on behalf of this government in dealing with the Windsor casino issue.

I asked a question a couple of weeks ago with respect to the opening date for the permanent casino in Windsor, what's going to happen to the temporary casino in the art gallery, what's going to happen to the riverboat, for example. I never got any answers with respect to those questions.

I'm happy that, notwithstanding the fact that the riverboat was supposed to sail away on June 10, today, finally, a representative from the casino corporation and from the gaming commission went down to Windsor, met with the mayor, met with the representatives from the art gallery and also met with representatives from Local 444 of the CAW, who represent the workers in there, and said that the riverboat is going to be able to stay until the new casino opens and that the temporary casino in the art gallery is going to continue to operate until the new casino opens.

We're happy about that news, but we wonder what cost that's going to come at because we know that the lease expired on the riverboat and wasn't renewed because of the mismanagement and the failure of the Chair of Management Board to act in a timely manner. We wonder what the cost of extending the lease on the riverboat is going to be. However, we are happy that the Northern Belle Casino is going to continue to remain in operation after June 10 and that the people who work there, representatives of CAW Local 444, are going to be able to continue to work in the riverboat until the new casino is open.

Getting back to this time allocation motion, I think this indicates a disturbing trend that we see far too often in this Legislature, because really this is a gag order. Once again we are seeing the government try to reduce the opportunities we have to speak. On this time allocation motion, we've got less than half an hour to speak. That amounts to an abuse by a government that has a huge majority, that is able to impose its will on the opposition members. It should do that only on rare occasions, in my submission, because the opposition, the NDP members here, really do provide an important role, an important opportunity for the people of Ontario to express their views about what they think of this government's agenda. They're not just saying that they're going too far too fast; they're saying that they're going in the wrong direction on many things as well.

They're asking me questions: "Why do we see long waiting lists in the Windsor Regional Hospital, for example, when government revenues from things like Casino Windsor are increasing? Why is it that we're having cuts to education when the economy is doing so well?" People understand that the cost of providing the phoney tax scheme to those who are the most well off is something that somebody is going to have to pay. That payment is being made in the form of cuts to health care services, cuts to education and cuts to other services which have always been important public services in our community. That's something people are quite concerned about and something I'm opposed to. I don't think we should be offering a tax cut to those who are the most well off if the cost of doing that is going to be the deterioration of our health care system.

This government likes to think that what they're doing is creating a lot of jobs, that they're improving our economy, but listen to what the bond raters are saying. After all the work this government has done over the years, they finally got to the point where the NDP government was when we were in government as far as the opinion of the bond raters. It's not only people in Windsor-Riverside who are saying that this government is doing things in the wrong direction; the bond raters have their concerns as well. I think that's something we have an obligation to bring to the attention of people in Ontario. That's another reason why I oppose the imposition, once again, of a time allocation motion to try and prevent us from having that opportunity to inform members of the public about our opposition to this government's agenda.

I could go on further about many of the criticisms and complaints I have about this government's agenda. I know we're going to have to vote on this motion notwithstanding my objections. My fear is that once again the government is going to use their majority to shut down the voices of opposition, and they do that to the detriment of the democratic process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Sterling has moved government notice of motion number 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1755 to 1801.

The Acting Speaker: Those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 26.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): There is a late show tonight. The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to speak to my dissatisfaction with the answer from the Minister of Natural Resources on Thursday last, May 28. The question had to do with what evidence the ministry had in their files regarding the Ipperwash situation. I twice asked the minister if he had requested his staff or if he had searched the files within his own ministry to determine on what basis the engineer that was building Ipperwash Provincial Park told the first nations that there was a burial ground there. The minister did not, in either case, answer my question, and that's the basis for my dissatisfaction.

I want to go on to tell the public why this is so important. In 1995, the first nations at Ipperwash Provincial Park in August told the government of Ontario that they had evidence there was a burial ground at Ipperwash Provincial Park. They also had evidence that it was not properly looked after and they were going to enter the park and occupy it until the provincial government responded to it. The government ignored that. They knew about that in August and did nothing about it.

On September 4, 1995, a group of first nations entered Ipperwash Provincial Park, saying the reason they were there was that they believed, had evidence there was a burial ground. The government ignored that and then we had a most tragic incident where, for the first time at least in this century, if not longer, a first nations person died in an altercation with the OPP. An OPP constable was convicted of criminal negligence regarding the shooting, and it clearly turned into an issue that was a significant black eye for the province of Ontario.

The park is still closed. The surrounding community is still suffering as a result of it. Property values have dropped as a result of it. The government all along said, "There's no burial ground there; they're simply trespassing."

The shooting took place on September 6. On September 12, the federal government phoned the provincial government and said, "We have found within our files letters, including letters written by the provincial government's deputy minister, acknowledging receipt of the information that there was a burial ground there." The federal government said, "We found it in our files." They assumed the provincial government had it in its files, because it was all sent to the provincial government.

It proved that during the construction of the park, the Ontario government's own engineer said that he found an old Indian burial ground within the confines of the park. He said to the first nations, "Pass a motion calling for the provincial government to fence it off, and I'm sure they'll comply." So the first nations chiefs did pass that. They passed a motion saying, "We are requesting the provincial government to fence off our burial ground." It went up to the federal Indian affairs ministry and then came back down here to Queen's Park.

It's very significant, so significant that the provincial government, the Attorney General's department, once that information became public, was forced to go to court and drop the charges of trespass against the first nations, because they had what's called a colour of right defence, that is, they had reasonable grounds to believe there was a burial ground there.

All I asked was that the minister go back to his office and search his files to find out if there was a burial ground there. He said, "I can't go to the park because it's not safe." I never asked him to go to the park. I asked him to go over to his ministry and find out, do those files exist? On what basis did the engineer conclude there was a burial ground there? This is absolutely fundamental to one of the most significant issues in Ontario, that is, what evidence does the government have in its own possession about a burial ground? I simply asked the ministry to go over to his files and he refused to answer; he still refuses to answer.

We now will hear from the minister. Will he now go back to his ministry, ask his staff to search the files to find out on what basis that engineer said, "Province, fence off this Indian burial ground"? I will now await the minister's answer to that question.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): If I can quote from Hansard to clarify this, the original question that was asked by the member opposite says, "I imagine you are aware that there is a letter that indicates that when your engineers, people working for the Ministry of Natural Resources - it says: `When cleaning out this park recently, the engineer,' that is, the provincial engineer," and so on and so forth. The question later goes on to say, "This is quite a significant development." This is the original question by the member opposite, which is a little different than what is being requested here today in this question.

Mr Phillips: You're not even on the right date, John.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe this is the original question.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why don't you research your answer?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can tell the member opposite that we did in fact do the research, that this is a letter from 1937 that makes reference from a federal agent to the federal government. I believe the federal government put this letter out in 1995, if memory serves correctly, from an answer I've given previously in this House.

We also have an archaeological survey of Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1972. That report indicated that there were no finds made and recommended that no further archaeological work of any kind be carried out there. That was the MNR report from 1972, which obviously was some time after 1937.

I told the member previously - I've said in this chamber on a couple of occasions - that we will, when it is safe to do so, cooperate with the first nations and do whatever kind of reports we need to do.

Mr Phillips: Go to your files. It's there in your files, for God's sake.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Pursuant to standing order 37, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. This House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock tonight.

The House adjourned at 1811.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

2 juin 1998