Journal des débats 1998-juin-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): What do a prominent New York investment banker, a vice-president of the Montreal Expos, a Canadian Olympic Association executive and the president of an international mining equipment manufacturing company have in common? Aside from building a very impressive business career, they are also all graduates of Laurentian University.

Today congratulations go out to André Beaudry, director of alumni services, and his staff for the enormous support that the launch of the new magazine, entitled Laurentian University Magazine, received at its unveiling yesterday. Our community is excited about this new publication and its highlighting of our graduates and our university.

In spite of the Mike Harris government's assault on universities such as Laurentian through reduced funding, higher tuition fees and tuition deregulation for certain programs, which have a direct negative effect on smaller universities, bright, aggressive, articulate and creative people like André Beaudry will work tirelessly to ensure the survival of Laurentian.

With the arrival of our new and dynamic president, Dr Jean Watters, and the likes of André Beaudry, Laurentian University will survive this government in spite of its assault on it.

The measure of any educational institution is the success of its graduates. We at Laurentian are very proud of our graduates. People like André Beaudry are going to make sure the world knows just how great Laurentian and its graduates really are.

PROSECUTION OF PANHANDLERS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Every day that I walk down the streets of Toronto now I become more and more disturbed by what I see. Even more important, I've become more and more disturbed by the unchanging and unrelenting attack by this government on those who are most unfortunate and most poor and most marginalized in our communities. Every day something new hits me in the face re the attack on people who find themselves unfortunately in some very desperate circumstances.

Today I picked up a flyer and it says:

"Why is the TTC Prosecuting the Homeless?

"Every day in court homeless people are being prosecuted by the TTC and handed fines as high as $200 for simply seeking spare change on TTC property. Most are described as standing silently, cap in hand or sign at their feet, seeking a bit of spare change for a coffee or a meal. Most cannot be in court to answer these charges; they have no address to mail the court notice to, so there's no one to speak up on their behalf."

When is this government going to stop? When is this government going to realize that what it's doing is immoral, is unethical, is not in keeping with the best traditions of this province and this country? When is government going to realize that when you attack the vulnerable and the marginalized, ultimately it comes back to get you, that the disease and the sickness that you're perpetrating and encouraging in this province will eventually hurt us all?

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S GAMES MILLENNIUM FESTIVAL

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to highlight a very special event that is being planned for my community of Hamilton.

Last year, the city of Hamilton won the bid to host the International Children's Games Millennium Festival in the year 2000. The goal of the festival is to involve approximately 5,000 athletes from some 100 cities representing all five continents.

The festival's theme, The Spirit Unites, represents the aspiration of youth around the world to come together to embrace the Olympic spirit of fair play and international competition as well as to celebrate the arts and cultural exchange.

The city of Hamilton, as host city, is committed to promoting international peace and goodwill, fostering national pride through the promotion of Canadian values, fair play, excellence, equality, acceptance of cultural differences and showcasing these values to other cities and nations worldwide. It is also committed to encouraging young athletes to participate in a wider variety of sports through exposure to them at the festival.

I would like to congratulate all those individuals who have worked tirelessly to put this bid together, in particular Mr John Kiriakopoulos and Mr Greg Maychak. There is still much work to be done within the next two years to prepare for this special event, but we are hopeful we will get the support we need to make this an extraordinary success for Hamilton, for the participants and for Canada.

AVIE BENNETT

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On Friday, May 29, York University welcomed a new chancellor. Avie Bennett, a distinguished Canadian, noted publisher and corporate citizen, was installed as York's tenth chancellor at a special convocation. Mr Bennett brings a wealth of experience and qualifications to the post. He is a man with an abiding passion for the arts and culture, respected in the corporate world and knowledgeable about universities.

As chairman, president and CEO of McClelland and Stewart, he has fiercely promoted Canadian writers. As chairman and president of First Plaza Inc he has an outstanding array of experience in corporate matters. As a former member of the governing council of the University of Toronto, where he and I were colleagues, he has a demonstrated and thorough understanding of higher education.

His professional and community activities have earned him many honours: the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario as well as honorary degrees from the University of Toronto and the University of Ottawa. Therefore, when Avie Bennett speaks he must be taken seriously.

Last Friday, he left no doubt that access to higher education is not negotiable. He praised the merits of an arts education at a time when higher education as a vehicle solely for corporate training has been the fashion.

Finally, he stated: "No student should face life after graduation so burdened by debt that he or she does not face the future with unbridled optimism."

Congratulations to Chancellor Bennett on his vision and his wisdom. But, above all, congratulations to York University for its inspired choice of an extraordinary leader.

SRUCE FALLS MILL

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This coming Friday on June 5, Spruce Falls will be holding Environmental Awareness Day at its mill site in Kapuskasing. One of the highlights will be the planting of the 200 millionth tree on the Gordens Cosens Forest managed by the company, which is a division of Tembec.

The ceremonial tree planting symbolizes the strength and enduring resilience of the thousands of men and woman who have contributed to the success of Spruce Falls over the past six decades.

I am proud to have been associated with this company, first as a millwright for 28 years, then as part of the NDP government, and a PA to the Minister of Natural Resources, that helped secure the workers' buyout of the mill.

In 1989, the New York Times and Kimberly-Clark had put the mill up for sale and wanted to get rid of it. In 1991, confronted with the prospect of losing hundreds of jobs, the community came together. Over 1,000 employees and 500 retired workers and residents of Kapuskasing joined up to save the troubled mill.

My colleague from Sudbury, Shelley Martel, then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, played a key role in helping the workers' buyout. Today, Spruce Falls is wholly owned by Tembec and is a leader in the forestry industry.

The planting of the 200 millionth tree this coming Friday is a testament to the past, present and future of the community in Kapuskasing and is a milestone which we can be immensely proud of for years and years to come.

DURHAM UNIVERSITY CENTRE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to rise in the House today to acknowledge a generous donation made by General Motors of Canada to the Durham University Centre. President Maureen Kempston Darkes, on behalf of General Motors, donated $1 million to the Creating Futures campaign. This campaign is a two-phased funding initiative linked to the more permanent establishment of the Durham University Centre.

The Durham University Centre is a collaboration between Durham College, Trent University and York University. These two universities now deliver degree-level programs at Durham College. I fully support this initiative by Durham College to establish programs for the residents of Durham region. Durham University Centre offers an affordable, accessible alternative for students. Students in Durham are now able to remain at home while taking advantage of degree-level programs.

With the $1-million donation from General Motors and an additional $1 million donated by the CAW - Dave Broadbent - and GM employees, Durham University Centre is closer to its goal of $12 million. Under the leadership of Durham College president Gary Polonsky and the chair, Joyce Marshall, Durham University Centre has raised $11.2 in a two-year campaign now under way. I congratulate the organizers of the Creating Futures campaign and am confident they will reach their goal. It means that constituents of my constituency of Durham East will receive a high-quality university education at home. There are many members: the Mackie family, Peter Zakarow -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

1340

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The word is out that representatives of the Ontario hospital restructuring commission, or, as many refer to it, the hospital destruction commission, will be invading the Niagara region tomorrow to begin some preliminary discussions about hospitals and health care in Niagara. Many residents of Niagara and St Catharines wish they would stay home because in so many areas they have closed and forced mergers of hospitals.

The solution of the Harris Conservatives to our health care challenges is to drastically reduce hospital operating funding, shut the doors of hospitals or radically alter the role of hospitals within our communities. Instead, what we need in the Niagara region is a substantial increase in the funding of the operations of our hospitals, more and expanded long-term-care facilities and additional funds for home care. We require improved emergency room care, far better mental health services and an end to the new practice of discharging patients too quickly and too sickly.

Most of all, Mark Rochon, Shelley Jamieson and Dan Ross should remember the commitment of Mike Harris during the leaders' debate in May 1995 during the provincial election campaign when he said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Forcing the merger of hospitals is closing hospitals.

Niagara has, on a per capita basis, the highest population of people over the age of 55 in Ontario and needs more, not less, acute and chronic care for its residents. A good start would be to restore the $43 million slated to be cut from hospital operating budgets in Niagara and provide significant increases in funding beyond that inadequate base.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yesterday in this House the minister, through a question from our leader, Mr Howard Hampton, responded by saying, and with some pride, that her government had cut yet another $225 million from hospital budgets across the province. This is in addition to the money the government has already taken out of hospitals, to the tune of about $1 billion that has been taken out of the hospital system since this government took office.

We need to put that in the context of what it means in communities across Ontario and, specifically, what it means to communities across the Cochrane district from Timmins to Hearst to James Bay. It means that hospitals now are letting go staff or cutting services within communities that is going to make it more difficult for people in our communities in northern Ontario, and specifically in the Cochrane district, to get services.

What's worse, at the same time that this government is cutting hospital budgets across the Cochrane district, they are not, contrary to what the minister is saying, doing any kind of reinvestment into the community long-term-care system and the community health system to make sure that people who fall through the cracks, because they can't get service out of their hospitals, will now be able to get it out of the community care access centres.

I call on this government and I call on this minister to make sure that we properly, adequately fund the community care system in order to make sure that people across the Cochrane district are able to get the services they need and deserve from their government.

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as they prepare for their annual conference, which will be taking place in Orillia from June 18 to June 20. The society, which is headquartered in Newmarket, is celebrating its 125th anniversary this year. An example of their important work was evident during the ice storm disaster relief efforts in eastern Ontario earlier this year.

The Ontario SPCA spearheaded the delivery of eight tractor-trailer loads of animal supplies, equipment and food to local humane societies throughout the affected areas. Working in cooperation with many of its 60 local member humane societies, the OSPCA arranged for the transfer of animals sheltered in eastern Ontario to other shelters, thereby freeing up room for pets that had to be left behind when their owners were evacuated.

This was a tremendous relief for responsible pet owners who had been reluctant to leave their homes because their pets weren't allowed in the evacuation centres. Staff and volunteers also provided food and water for many other animals that had to be left behind.

For 125 years the OSPCA has played an important role in our society and, thanks to the society's many volunteers across our province, that work continues today. I ask members of this House and all Ontarians to join with me in acknowledging and respecting the work of this great organization.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the second report of the standing committee on government agencies pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9). The report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Premier in regard to the ongoing issues around the issuing of Casino Niagara's contract. It's been alleged that one Michael French, an international gaming consultant, was hired by a Toronto business group to advise it on how to secure casino deals in various parts of the world. During that same period, Mr French was retained by the Ontario government to run the competitions to select private operators for the $411-million Niagara Falls casino and a series of 44 charity casinos.

Premier, are you satisfied that the process that was followed has ensured the integrity of the process and has protected the best interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Chair of Management Board will be here shortly and is looking into some of the specifics, as requested by this Legislature, concerning Coopers and Lybrand. Every indication we have is that we should be satisfied.

But I think you raised some concerns earlier this week - either you or the New Democratic Party - and the minister is proceeding, as I think he was requested to do and indicated he would, in looking at those allegations specific to the individual you have named and Coopers and Lybrand. He is proceeding with that in a thorough and responsible manner with the OCC and he'll certainly report to you as soon as we find out anything more.

Mr Duncan: Premier, the minister has said repeatedly that your government is following the same process that was followed in the selection of the operator for Casino Windsor. In fact the process is quite different. In the selection of the operator for Casino Windsor the evaluation committee was composed of five senior public servants, employed at the time by the government of Ontario. In this case your government, allegedly under instructions from your office, appointed a committee composed of private sector interests with strong ties to your political party to conduct this evaluation. It is alleged that those instructions came from your office. It is alleged that the whole process has been influenced by this very distinct approach to the Niagara casino.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Duncan: Would you confirm today that in fact the process was different and that in the selection of the operator for Niagara Falls, rather than a committee of senior public -

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I can confirm to you that those allegations are false, without foundation and ridiculous, quite frankly, and the process is identical.

1350

Mr Duncan: The Premier may want to consult his ministry and he may want to even consult the Ontario Casino Corp's call for proposals, which obviously you haven't done. What makes it even more disconcerting is that the so-called investigation you're undertaking on Casino Niagara is being undertaken by the Ontario Casino Corp.

Let me read to the Premier grounds for disqualification under section (f) of the request for proposals:

"Disqualification may result from any attempt on the part of proponents or any of their employees, agents, contractors or representatives to contact any of the following people: the selection committee, the review panel, any experts advising the selection panel, any member of cabinet or their staff, any member of the public service, any member of the board of directors or advisers to the Ontario Casino Corp."

It has now been established that your appointee to this evaluation committee not only contacted but was actually doing work for one of the proponents; in fact the proponent was successful. Do you still believe, Premier, in spite of this, in spite of your own government's document, that this is a fair process? We say it's not. We say -

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Given that I had absolutely no appointees, your question is false, without premise, has no bearing in fact and is silly and ridiculous.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Duncan: We'd like to speak to the government today about the process surrounding the awarding of tenders on the charitable casinos. I'll direct this question to the Premier. We have in our possession a document that clearly outlines the same kinds of conflicts and the same kinds of restrictions and the same kinds of disqualifications for successfully getting a charitable casino.

Would the Premier tell this House today if he's satisfied the process for awarding those charitable casinos has been fair and aboveboard and if in fact the request for proposals has been followed to a T?

Hon Mr Harris: To the best of my knowledge, yes. The Chair of Management Board I think has indicated that as well. But there was a question that was raised with regard to Coopers and Lybrand and the suggestion that we should doublecheck that. The minister is doing that.

Mr Duncan: Premier, the request for proposals on the charitable gaming houses was released on February 17, 1997.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Mike Harris gambling halls.

Mr Duncan: The Mike Harris gambling halls, that's correct.

"Any attempt on the part of the proponents or any of their employees, servants, agents, contractors or representatives to contact or directly or indirectly influence any of the following: evaluation selection committee members, the selection committee, the minister's office and staff, the Premier's office or cabinet office, are grounds for disqualification."

We have learned since yesterday that in fact one, two, three, four, five of the successful proponents on the charitable casino corporations made substantial financial contributions to your party in 1997, subsequent to the issue of the request for proposals.

Premier, are you satisfied that this is a fair process that hasn't been influenced by money?

Hon Mr Harris: Absolutely, positively, and I think if you'll check with the unsuccessful proponents you'll find a substantial number of those through related companies have made contributions to our party, to your party and, in the case of one particular family, to the New Democratic Party as well. It has absolutely no bearing; it has no influence. No decision-makers would have any knowledge of any of that information.

Mr Duncan: Premier, then perhaps you'll be prepared to put this to a full inquiry so we can look at all the facts. The facts are, Premier, that Fundtime Corp gave money to your party; Trillium Gaming Inc gave money to your party; RPC Anchor Gaming gave money to your party; CHC North gave money to your party. A number of the directors of these organizations gave money to your campaign as well.

Premier, are you satisfied the process is in place and will you not allow for a proper inquiry to get to the bottom of all these issues?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, I'm satisfied that none of the decision-makers would have any knowledge or any record or any concern or any care in which companies donate to our party, your party or the New Democratic Party.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I put a question to the Premier. You know that over the course of the last week and a half a number of issues have been raised surrounding the conflict of interest vis-à-vis the Niagara Falls casino. Your government's response has been some feckless political damage control and, quite frankly, coverup.

It has been reported in recent press reports that Michael French was responsible for your casino contests and that he also participated in the Falls Management bid, which was bumped up from third to number one. We have read media reports stating that two insiders have said the decision to have French run the process came from the highest levels of the Tory government.

Who gave the political direction to have French run the process? Was it you? Was it your staff? Was it Leslie Noble? Was it Tom Long? Was it Debbie Hutton? Or was it your long-time consultant and adviser to the Latner family, George Boddington? Who gave the orders to put French in charge of his own Falls Management bid?

Hon Mr Harris: I actually have checked because the question has been raised around Mr French, who is an American, as I understand, but works with Coopers and Lybrand. We have said we are trying to ascertain from Coopers and Lybrand whether there was any violation of any of the provisions that were there. We have been told not, but we've certainly checked.

I have never heard of him before it has been raised here, nor has the former minister, nor has the current minister, nor do I think have any of the individuals you have named. I am aware that Mr Alfieri, who you appointed to head the casino corporation, had a working relationship with him. That's all I have been able to ascertain so far.

Mr Kormos: This looks more and more like the coverup that more and more Ontarians are believing it to be.

Premier, your big campaign contributors, like the Latners, have undoubtedly benefited from the policy changes of your government. There's no doubt about that, no question. We've raised issues involving Falls Management and their bid for the Niagara casino, and of course that company is owned in part by the Latner family. They also have a major interest in Gaming Venture Group, one of the companies awarded contracts for permanent charity gaming casinos.

Premier, guess who works for the Latners. George Boddington. You don't know him either? That's the same George Boddington who was part of your transition team, the same George Boddington who was involved with the Bradgate group that wrote the original draft of the Common Sense Revolution. Boddington also in the past worked as executive assistant to former Tory cabinet ministers. Premier, you know George Boddington, you know that he works for the Latners and you know that he was part of the Ontario gaming coalition. One of your most trusted advisers is intimately connected to the companies that have been awarded casino contracts.

Bill Noble, Leslie Noble's brother, also works for Gaming Venture. The cloud gets darker and darker.

When are you going to call an independent and public investigation?

Hon Mr Harris: Your original question dealt with who knew Michael French and to date, other than Alfieri who seems to have retained him, I don't know anybody else who knew of him or who counted on his advice. You certainly counted on his advice when you were in government and you appointed Alfieri. The process was there. My understanding is he continued to retain him, to count on his advice from the viewpoint of the Ontario Casino Corp. Given that we have the same process you had, that would be logical and that's what I have been able to ascertain so far.

With regard to the Latner family, a family who have done business in this province for over 50 years in the area of construction, a supplier of services to the government, a company which has been under your government the largest private sector contractor to run government housing and residential buildings, also the largest under the Liberal Party, a family who donated $5,000 to your government when you were in office, a family who had Bob Rae at the ribbon-cutting of one of your projects -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, come to order. Come to order, please. Premier, come to order. Premier, I am not going to warn you any more. Come to order.

I would remind the Premier that when I'm standing he must come to order. Everyone gets the same amount of time to ask and answer the questions.

1400

Mr Kormos: We're just relating the facts, Premier.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Kormos: And if some Novocain should be administered, well, let's administer it; I think we're getting close to a nerve here.

Let's talk about George Boddington. You know George Boddington. He's a Tory lobbyist. He's been one of your most trusted advisors. He helped you interview Rita Burak for her job. He helped you decide who was going to be in your cabinet. Now one of his major clients - yes, who donated 48 grand to the Tory party coffers - is suddenly being awarded casino contracts all over Ontario.

Premier, your friends and your advisers are clearly involved. This, quite frankly, looks very much like the Patti Starr affair. It stinks. It's a political coverup.

There's only one way to clear the air: Open up the process. We need an open and independent airing of these conflict-of-interest charges. Your own investigations into this matter through the OCC are so tainted, and you know it. Clear the air. Call a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. Why won't you?

Hon Mr Harris: I think both you and the Liberals have raised the issue of Coopers and Lybrand. We have asked for a report on that and are prepared to release that.

Other than that, other than flagrant smearing of a very responsible, ethical family who have done business with your government, with the NDP government, people who have had absolutely nothing in any decision-making process, allegations you refuse to make outside, there is absolutely nothing there. You want us to look at Michael French? We're looking at Michael French.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Once again to the Premier, and I'm sure he'll have chances to explain his connections with George Boddington and Boddington's connections with that successful casino bid as the days go on.

Two days ago our member raised on a point of order the most novel interference with the rights of members under section 124, and that is your government having put Bill 15, a budget bill, before the administration of justice committee knowing that it would displace our request, as of right, that that committee consider your involvement, your Attorney General's involvement and your Solicitor General's involvement in the Ipperwash affair.

You know that type of bill belongs in the finance and economic affairs committee. You also know that the justice committee will not be permitted to proceed with its inquiry of your involvement, your Attorney General's involvement and your Solicitor General's involvement in the death of Dudley George until that bill is dealt with. That was purposely referred there to obstruct the course of that modest investigation.

What are you hiding, Premier? What are you so afraid of that you won't want this matter referred to the justice committee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Absolutely nothing.

Mr Kormos: Members of this Assembly have never witnessed a more blatant attempt to stonewall the very same members who have, as of right, the prerogative of calling a matter before a committee. You can't explain your way out of this one. It's obvious to us what you're doing. It's obvious to the family of Dudley George. It's obvious to all the people of this province who care about justice and truth. There's no reason for that economic and finance budget bill to go before the justice committee.

Let's see how far you're going to go, Premier, because today we'll be delivering to every standing committee of this House a request by our members of each and every one of those committees to deal with an investigation into your involvement, the Attorney General's involvement and the Solicitor General's involvement into the Ipperwash affair.

I tell you, it's going to happen. You can keep on stonewalling or you can come clean. You've got a chance to set the record straight once and for all. Will you agree to appear before the committee on this matter, and will you commit your staff to appearing before the committee?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess there are two issues. You raised this as a point of order and you were told that nothing was out of order, so procedurally you have no grounds to raise an allegation of that type.

With regard to the specific incident, I think we would all agree that the incident at Ipperwash was a tragedy. There are outstanding matters before the courts and we're not in a position either to order an inquiry or to respond in a public way in any way that would jeopardize those issues that are before the courts. So you can play games if you like, you can do whatever you want, but the facts of the matter have been pretty well articulated here in this Legislature and outside the Legislature.

Mr Kormos: The Premier knows that the matters before the court are entirely separate and distinct from the issue of the Premier's involvement, the Attorney General's involvement and the Solicitor General's involvement in the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash park.

Premier, we're going to be relentless on this matter. You'd better know it if you don't know it yet. We're doing everything in our power to ensure that those events surrounding Dudley George's death are brought to light.

You can end it so quickly, because we both know that the only way to get the answers and finally set the record straight is to call for a public inquiry. Premier, do the right thing. Will you call a public inquiry into the fatal shooting of Dudley George?

Hon Mr Harris: You have had the answers of all of our involvement, of anything to do with any OPP actions. You just don't seem to like to accept the truth.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Minister of Transportation: As you know, there are over 55,000 motor vehicle collisions at intersections throughout Ontario every year. Every 12 minutes motorists run a red light at one of the 1,800 signalized intersections here in Toronto alone. At peak hours, a red light is run every five minutes. Sadly, in Hamilton last week another person lost their life as a result of a red light running. Ironically, Hamilton is among many municipalities that have begged your government for the right to install red light cameras.

I have introduced a private member's bill which will be discussed tomorrow in second reading. I wonder if I can count on your support so that we can work together to help make these intersections safer?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, he is right that one collision is one too many to happen at our intersections. One fatality is one fatality too many. Sadly, 2.9% of all traffic fatalities occur because of red light running and that's 2.9% too high. I agree with the honourable member there.

I can tell the honourable member that in the sense that his bill is brought with the principle of reducing red light running and with the principle of reducing fatalities, we agree with that principle.

Mr Colle: I take that to mean that you will be supporting my bill. I hope to work together with you to ensure that municipalities will get the opportunity to install these safety devices. I hope we can work together on that in coming up with the right technology. Let's work together on that with the members of your caucus and ensure that municipalities get that right.

Hon Mr Clement: I fully accept the honourable member's offer to be helpful in this regard. The honourable member should know that myself and Mr Bob Runciman, Solicitor General as he then was, wrote to Mayor Mel Lastman, wrote to Mayor Hazel McCallion and said, "We want to sit down with you to come up with something workable."

We all agree with the principle. I agree with the Liberal Party in terms of the principle; we all do. The devil is in the detail. The devil is in having a system that works, that targets the aggressive driver to reduce this kind of behaviour. If he wants to get on board and persuade Mel Lastman and persuade Hazel McCallion to come to the table with a workable solution, I accept that challenge and I accept his advice and his help on that.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Premier. As you know, this morning in the finance committee we dealt with Bill 16, the property tax bill. I ask you this in the absence of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this bill. The minister chose not to attend the committee. Your members on the committee, presumably on instructions from the minister and/or you, chose not to tell us what amendments will be moved in committee by the government this afternoon, this despite the fact that you by all accounts, even from people who support this legislation, are causing chaos out there in the system. People don't know what's going to happen.

One of the points AMO made is that your 2.5% cap, as you have put it, will severely limit future taxation options of municipalities with respect to capped tax increases because it puts them in a situation where any tax increases must be borne by the remaining uncapped tax classes, which means residential or farm land assessment. One of the options they and others have put forward is that you should limit the 2.5% cap on the assessment increase and not on the overall increase. Will you be doing that this afternoon in committee, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister has consulted extensively, and it sounds like you have too. We'll have an open mind, as we always do in the committee process, and if you have constructive suggestions to make, we'll look forward to that.

1410

Mr Silipo: Premier, perhaps you fail to appreciate that you've time-allocated this bill. You chose not to take our advice and our suggestion of about three or four weeks ago which would have allowed ample time in committee to deal with this bill and would have had the bill back in the House by this week and done, if that's what you had wanted to do, and helped to deal with some of the problems out there. You chose to leave it out there to deal with at the last moment, now with the realization that some amendments are going to have to come, but we don't know what they are.

Unless you also want to continue the charade we saw this morning, which would have us believe that between noon and 2 o'clock this afternoon your folks in the ministry were busy drafting amendments, all I'm asking is, will you tell us what those amendments are going to be; and particularly, will you deal with the 2.5% cap either in the way I've suggested or in the alternative way which some presenters have suggested, which is that if you're going to give small businesses and businesses in general a 2.5% cap, you should be prepared to do the same thing with respect to homeowners. Can we know that you will at least do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I understand amendments have been tabled at 2 pm today, so they're there. Maybe you would have liked them rushed and tabled sooner, without extensive consultation. On the other hand, the minister opted -

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: What consultations?

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

Hon Mr Harris: On the other hand, the minister opted to continue the consultations certainly as long as he can. I understand that amendments have been tabled and I am told they are to be discussed at the finance committee tomorrow. I might also add that to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely not a single thing in anything I can see on the horizon that we are doing, and I don't think municipalities want to do anything, to cause any kind of tax increase anywhere, on any class of taxpayers in Ontario. I fully expect that we will see taxes go down for businesses, for commercial, for farms and for residential homeowners over the next three years.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce in the Speaker's gallery in the Legislative Assembly today the Honourable Palanivel Rajan, Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Please join me in welcoming him. Welcome.

We also have in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Wade Mark, Minister of Public Administration, and Cyril Blanchfield, Consul General for the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Welcome.

I don't think a session would be complete unless I could introduce the ex-member for Willowdale, Mr Gino Matrundola. Welcome.

Interjection.

The Speaker: And of course we all know Bert.

VEHICLE REPAIRS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Several of my constituents who run auto repair and auto body businesses have recently met with me. They are concerned that insurance companies are directing customers to preferred or selected auto body shops and in so doing are putting them out of business. They also claim, as a result of this practice, that customers have lost the choice of who can repair their cars and have no guarantee of quality workmanship or parts.

Minister, you are responsible for ensuring that consumers and businesses alike in Ontario are protected from unfair practices. I ask you, what steps are you taking to ensure that consumers are fairly treated?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for Guelph for her question. She's quite right; consumers are concerned in this area. I have met with representatives from the auto glass repair industry and I know that Minister Sampson is working on this issue. I'd also like to acknowledge the efforts of the member for York-Mackenzie for the leadership he is showing on this issue.

When it comes to car repairs, quite often people don't understand what their rights are. Let me assure the member that when car repairs are made, Ontario consumers are well protected under the Motor Vehicle Repair Act. The act requires repair shops to offer a number of things.

First of all, written estimates must be provided upon request. Second, full information about the repair rates must be disclosed: labour rates, cost of parts etc. Repairs must include warranties on new and reconditioned parts for a minimum of 90 days or 5,000 kilometres. The repair cannot exceed the written estimate by more than 10% unless the consumer agrees to further charges.

Under the Business Practices Act, repair shops are forbidden to tell a customer that a certain repair or replacement part is needed if it isn't. Also, they are forbidden to say the parts are new when they aren't.

Let me assure the member that strong measures are in place currently to ensure that consumers are well protected when their cars are being repaired. I know the member for York-Mackenzie is pursuing this to ensure that further measures can be taken to protect consumers and consumer rights and choice in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Elliott: Mr Speaker, I would like to address my supplementary question to Minister Sampson. Minister Sampson, I know you've worked hard to reform auto -

The Speaker: The minister can refer it to the other minister, but you can't direct it. You've got to go back to that minister.

Mrs Elliott: Certainly. Minister Tsubouchi, I know this government has worked hard to reform auto insurance and my constituents are pleased because many of them can already see that their rates are dropping substantially. However, I am told, as I indicated earlier, that insurance companies are referring them to preferred shops for car repair.

Constituents have asked me if they have the choice of taking their car to the auto body shop suggested by their insurance company or if they may choose their own mechanic. I would like to be able to tell my constituents: Do they have a choice or must they follow the directives of insurance companies?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Refer to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Indeed, consumers do have choice on who should be servicing their particular vehicle when a damage claim is made. If you think back about the reforms we brought forward in Bill 59, the auto insurance reform, those were clearly designed around opportunities to provide more choice to consumers so that they could not only have the choice on who fixes their car, but far more choice in who they actually buy their premiums from.

I should say that we clearly intend to take a look at the operation of the auto body shop as it relates to insurance product. I'm pleased to say that the auto body industry is looking at a self-regulation process that will ensure that not only do consumers have choice in who they go to to repair their vehicles, but they have confidence in who repairs their vehicles. Clearly, in order to achieve that we will want to have some clear performance guidelines established, and we're working very closely with the industry to do that.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you made an announcement this morning. I'm somewhat disappointed, and perhaps you are too, that you weren't able to make the announcement here in the House.

It raised many questions that we're looking at and wondering about with the $60 million funding and how much of that is new money etc. Considering what just took place in BC with $400 million of investment in recognition of the importance of this whole area, this amount hopefully is just a start.

I must say that I'm personally pleased that you will be reviewing the Mental Health Act. It's been called for by many organizations in Ontario and I'm delighted to see that.

Minister, you said in your announcement: "The initiatives announced today will further strengthen our mental health system to ensure that adequate community and general hospital services are in place before any restructuring is made to our provincial psychiatric hospitals. We will also be taking additional steps in the months ahead."

Minister, will you call for a moratorium on any further closures of psychiatric beds in psychiatric hospitals or in general hospitals?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, this morning I did indeed make an announcement regarding mental health reform and I want to acknowledge the work that was done by the member for Ottawa Centre when he put forward his piece of legislation last year. Certainly we're going to build on that particular piece of legislation.

We have committed today to ensure that the appropriate community services and support are going to be there for those in the community. As you know, we have already placed a moratorium on the closure of psychiatric beds. That moratorium was imposed by my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Wilson. Until such time as we have the services and the programs that we feel are going to respond to the needs of the individuals in the psychiatric hospitals, there will be no further closure of those beds.

1420

Mr Patten: That's good to hear. In the 1997-98 budget, you allowed for $728 million in mental health spending, which is approximately 4% of the total budget. Over 72% of that mental health budget was to be spent in institutional care and 28% in community-based services. The goal of the 10-year mental health plan was to have 60% of funding directed to community services and 40% to institutional care. I'm interested to know whether you are still committed to that particular objective.

Dr Garfield, I'm told, this morning said that in terms of the size of your allocation, $60 million - we don't know if that's all new money or not - indeed about six or seven times that is really required. You said you'll be making additional announcements in the next several months. Will this be part of your announcements, adequate funding for this system, which at the moment you know is in total array, so it will help provide some of the resources so we're not continuing to lose people who work in that area?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, the announcement this morning was in response to the five-week review that had been done by my parliamentary assistant, Mr Newman. He had identified, through the consultations he had had with the stakeholders, the fact that the mental health strategy that had been developed five years ago needed to have some correction.

We recognize that the money this morning, the $60 million, is simply a first step. There will be future investments. There will be future money provided. I'd also like to emphasize the fact that the $60 million today is entirely new and additional money so we can ensure that we have the court diversion program, that we have the assertive community treatment teams in place and we have all of the other community supports and services as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Last week in this House my leader, Howard Hampton, and I put a question to you about a situation in my riding due to the budget cuts that your government, your ministry, has made to hospitals. We are seeing people released out of those hospitals early and unable in some cases to get services from the community care access centres because of the limits they have on their budgets.

In response to that question, and I read from the Hansard of that date, you said the following: "I think it's extremely important that we at least put some of the facts on the record." You go on to say, "The reality is that the funding for all CCACs has increased."

I've had the opportunity since then to confirm what I suspected: The CCACs in our communities across the Cochrane district, and others across northern Ontario, have not seen any increase to their budgets for programs since your government has come to power. Minister, are you prepared to admit that you were wrong, or will you admit that you have not increased budgets to our community health care system, and are you prepared to put the money where it's needed in the community so that people don't go without services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm going to refer that to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for seniors.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to indicate to the member opposite that I was in Cochrane and in fact officiated at the official opening of the newly created coordinated community care access centre in Timmins. At that time, I was pleased to approve their transitional budget and to allow for expansion of access to francophone services within the service delivery matrix in the Timmins CCAC. I met with front-line staff members from Hudson Bay all the way down to Timmins to discuss the service delivery matrix for the north.

I will advise the member that that CCAC is receiving well above the provincial average for support services in this province. The government has been funding areas that have been traditionally underfunded, areas of the province which your government neglected in the five years that you were managing home care in this province.

Mr Bisson: Minister, you can try to spin this any way you want. The reality is that the only increase that the CCAC has seen in our area is money to hire one staff person as a bilingual assistant to the executive director. That's it. It has nothing to do with front-line services. In fact, until just recently, before the cuts you've imposed on the health care budgets of the hospitals, we know there was already an over 10% shortage of services for the community in terms of nursing services.

Your minister said you've increased the budget. The fact is you haven't. Are you prepared today in this House to say that you will put in place the money necessary to offer the services to the people in our communities, not only in Timmins but across northern Ontario, so we have adequate services in our community, and stop stonewalling the people of northern Ontario and other people in this House?

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, I want to advise the member opposite that this government has increased the amount of community care access support in this province by over $200 million since we took office. We are providing $1.2 billion of support in this program, the most accessible program in all of Canada.

I want you to look just within your own caucus. Look at your member from Niagara who, up until this government corrected the inequities your government was prepared to perpetuate - his area was receiving half the level of service of your community in Timmins.

I want to assure the member opposite that this government has made sure we have equitable access to this program across Ontario. The member from Hamilton has received additional moneys; the member from London was on her feet the other day looking for more money; we put $4 million more into London.

We now have a coordinated, community-based infrastructure that we're very proud of, because we've expanded service to Ontarians, to over 100,000 seniors in the province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This morning we read in the Toronto Sun that a well-known Liberal Party strategist, Marcel Wieder, has admitted to smearing a former Toronto councillor in a sophisticated dirty tricks campaign during last fall's municipal election. Mr Wieder's dirty tricks involved false allegations that the councillor had taken bribes from a developer. They also involved the use of an Alabama polling firm to conduct a push poll using that false information. What is the minister's view of these dirty tricks and is there anything that can be done to prevent them from happening?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Nepean for his question. Obviously, we're all extremely disappointed to see that anybody would use such underhanded and undemocratic processes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, we're all very disappointed. Unfortunately, the Municipal Act didn't contemplate such underhanded tactics, and as a result there's very little the province can do to remedy situations such as this. It would also be very difficult to change the legislation to ensure that underhanded tactics such as this don't take place in the future. Hopefully, this type of situation will not occur again, as a result of the civil action that was undertaken.

Mr Baird: I have the May edition of Campaigns and Elections magazine. Inside, on page 25, Marcel Wieder is listed as one of the rising stars of politics in 1998. Campaigns and Elections held an election training school in Washington, DC, a few weeks ago. Is the minister aware whether the person responsible for this municipal dirty tricks campaign is the same Marcel Wieder who led an Ontario Liberal Party delegation to that school?

Interjections.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to know if it is against the rules of this House to lie to the House. Is it against the rules to lie to the House?

The Speaker: Of course it's against the rules. That's your point of order?

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for Nepean for conveying that very factual information. I wasn't in Washington, DC, for the training school, but I understand the event was attended by the member for Hamilton East, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Oakwood, as well as many other Liberal staffers. Perhaps the member for Nepean would like to ask a member of the Liberal Party whether the individual in question is the same one who accompanied them to Washington.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I'm not debating this. You know the comments you have to withdraw. Either withdraw them or don't; I don't mind.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'll withdraw them.

1430

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I noted the change in tone from the minister. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This afternoon we're dealing with Bill 16, which is the fourth major property tax bill that this government has introduced, each bill amending the previous bill. This morning the municipalities told us that because of your bungling and delay it is costing them $1 million a day in lost revenue and interest costs. The city of London said that your bungling is going to cost them $800,000. The city of Toronto said your bungling is going to cost them $10 million. My question is this: Will you reimburse the municipalities the $1 million a day it is costing them as a result of your bungling this entire property tax reform?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member opposite, obviously we're taking the time to consult with the stakeholders involved. We've already advised the municipalities that actions have been taken to ensure there would be no adverse financial effect on any municipality as a result of this. We're advancing the community reinvestment funds, and other actions are being taken as well by this government to ensure there isn't any undue financial effect on any municipality, none at all. We're ensuring that the stakeholders that have an interest in Bill 16 have an opportunity to put their positions forward so that we can take their advice into consideration and make whatever amendments may be necessary.

Mr Phillips: This is a typical Al Leach bungle. The municipalities are having to lay out millions and millions and millions of dollars. You're going to reimburse them, and they appreciate that, but it's coming out of the same taxpayer. It is as a result of your bungling that they are going to have to pay at least $80 million in increased costs. It's over $1 million a day.

You stood here in the Legislature last week and you were going to force the thing through with no amendments. About 10 minutes ago, we got an envelope with 17 government amendments to the bill. We are dealing with the bill at 4 o'clock this afternoon.

I say again, Minister, how much money have you cost the taxpayers by bungling another piece of legislation, in the form of Bill 16? Can you tell the taxpayers if in fact it is a $1 million a day, because that's what the municipalities have told us.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, there were amendments made to the bill this afternoon. Those amendments were made as a result of the consultations that were held with the stakeholders who were in to make presentations this morning. I know that the clerks and treasurers themselves recommended four amendments that are being taken into consideration and that will be included in the changes to the act.

Again, with respect to compensating the municipalities for any lost revenues, actions have already been taken previously to ensure that any loss of revenue, as a result of the assessment roll being delayed for whatever purpose, would be taken care of. We've committed to that and the municipalities know that. I don't know why they would have any concerns whatsoever with this process other than to feel comforted that we've taken all their concerns into consideration and have made the appropriate changes to the bill.

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. My community, Sault Ste Marie, is experiencing some really difficult fiscal and economic challenges. Our unemployment rate is the highest in the province, probably double the provincial average, our property taxes are set to rise by a reported 11% to 12% and people are leaving at a troubling rate, some of them our brightest and most highly motivated.

The provincial economy may be hitting on all cylinders. However, in my community we're not feeling it. In the early 1990s, when Sault Ste Marie was in trouble, the provincial government was there as a partner, giving leadership, offering a hand up. My question today is: Where is your government in these difficult times for Sault Ste Marie? What leadership are you willing to give? Will you personally come to Sault Ste Marie and talk to us about these very disturbing trends happening today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Northern Development -

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Thank you for the question from the member of the opposition. As you know, we just got off the phone about half an hour ago. I'm going to be in Sault Ste Marie on Friday, meeting with the mayor, and I've invited you and your colleague to join me at that meeting. This government takes very seriously the challenges that face Sault Ste Marie. That's why the heritage fund has made so many announcements in the last couple of years to try to diversify and help that local economy.

Are there enough jobs presently? No, we want to see more jobs. That's why the whole agenda of this government has been to promote growth and economic opportunity for all the province, including Sault Ste Marie. I look forward to that meeting we're going to have on Friday.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to come to the Sault. I wish the Premier would come, because he's the guy who actually writes the cheques and makes the decisions. Your track record is not good. The biggest hit to our economy in the last three years has been from the cuts in jobs and services delivered directly by your government; for example, the downsizing of the lottery corporation. Plus, it seems that any job that's left in northern Ontario these days is being magically moved to North Bay to shore up the Premier's political fortunes.

In Sault Ste Marie, we were just sent on a wild goose chase after some jobs that were negotiated through the Bombardier agreement that was made that mysteriously and magically ended up - where else? - in North Bay. The NOHFC, which was set up by a previous Conservative government to help northern Ontario communities, is similar to this kind of situation. Previous governments spent, on average, $30 million a year on northern Ontario. Your government said it was putting $120 million into the pot, plus $30 million per year thereafter. That would be $210 million. Our records show that you spent at most $40 million of that money. Where is the rest of the money? Will you be willing to spend the significant, serious amounts of money that are needed to help -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Sault Ste Marie.

1440

Hon Mr Hodgson: We're going to be meeting on Friday with the mayor. The purpose of that meeting is to have a constructive dialogue on how to improve the situation in Sault Ste Marie and the Algoma area.

If he's not satisfied with that, if he wants to stand up and make speeches about other things, that's fine. Tell me that when we're talking on the phone.

We're trying to be helpful in this situation. We recognize the situation and we want to improve it. In fact, the heritage fund has spent $8 million in the Algoma area since 1996 - $5.7 million towards the Sault locks, $1.6 million to the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre, $187,500 -

Mr Martin: What a bunch of bullshit.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just hold on. Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'm standing. You're not standing. I ask you to take your seat. Member for Sault Ste Marie, the minister has the floor. You cannot stand up and heckle at him. You're out of order. If you have a point of order, I'll be happy to hear it. Otherwise, remain in your seat. Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We're going to be meeting on Friday and I can outline this in more detail to you, but this government is quite concerned. The Minister of the Environment has just announced $40 million in sewage and water upgrades. There's heritage fund money. We've put back the $60 million that your party took out of the heritage fund that was directed - stolen right from the people of northern -

Mr Martin: You have spent a total of $40 million.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'm not warning you again. I'm going to name the member for Sault Ste Marie. Take your seat. I'm not warning you any more.

On a point of order, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Article 23(b) of the standing orders -

The Speaker: Article 23(b) has nothing to do with what we're debating right now, absolutely nothing. Please take your seat. Monsieur, s'il vous plaît, there's no new point of order. You find the order, you quote me the order.

Minister, are you done? Thank you. New question, member for Simcoe East.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Health. Today the government made an announcement regarding access to mental health services. This is a very important issue in my riding of Simcoe East. Could the minister please inform the House what steps this government is taking to improve access to Ontario's mental health system.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As I have indicated, today we had the pleasure of making an announcement regarding mental health reform. This was in response to the consultative review that had been undertaken by my parliamentary assistant, Dan Newman. He consulted with hundreds of stakeholders and certainly received a tremendous amount of correspondence. As a result of this, we are taking steps to make sure we put in place the appropriate community supports, particularly as we're going through a time of transition, so there will be sixty million new dollars that will be provided for new community services and programs.

Mr McLean: Minister, I know a lot of hard work and consultation went into preparing the report, 2000 and Beyond. Could the minister explain what the next step will be and guarantee the House that those involved in the formation of the report will continue to participate in our mental health reform initiatives?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, I think the fact that the recommendations were so well received is because we had the benefit of having had many discussions and a tremendous amount of input from the provincial committee and certainly other stakeholders who are very keenly interested in the issue of mental health reform.

It is certainly our plan that as we set about the task of determining the parameters for review of mental health legislation, as we set about the task of educating individuals in this province about the purpose and the content of the Mental Health Act, we would continue to involve all of those stakeholders. As we move forward and we put further steps in place in order to ensure that we have an integrated and comprehensive system of mental health services, those people will all be involved in the process.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): This is to the Minister of Health. Your Health Services Restructuring Commission's decisions in Ottawa-Carleton have made the mistake of putting all of its eggs in one basket. By closing the Grace and Riverside hospitals, downsizing St Vincent's and the Montfort, and in particular cutting high-intensity care facilities from the Civic and the General hospitals to just one hospital - less than what London, Ontario, has - you are overloading the remaining facilities and putting the health of 720,000 residents in Ottawa-Carleton at risk.

Minister, experts in our community say the loss of high-intensity services at the Civic is both unwarranted and dangerous, that there's no justification that Ottawa should be the only major North American city with only one full-service hospital. Will you not listen to them and review this ill-advised decision?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As you know, the Health Services Restructuring Commission did make recommendations, and we are now at a point where we are implementing the directives that have been issued. We are going to continue to work with all of the hospitals, the boards and the CEOs to ensure that all of the services that are necessary will be provided to people in the Ottawa community.

Mr Cullen: Minister, the problem is getting worse, not better, as a result of your policies. Your health care restructuring exercise will cost Ottawa-Carleton ratepayers $47 million in additional costs, yet today we learn that the Ottawa Hospital is facing a deficit of $36 million as a result of increases in health demands and your cuts to hospitals.

Will you commit today, Minister, to restoring those cuts and providing the funds to eliminate this deficit?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think we've discussed this situation before. As you well know, when your government was in office, there were hospitals that ran deficits; in fact, under the NDP, hospitals ran deficits.

The policy has always been the same: When hospitals are in deficit positions, as hospitals are from time to time, as they were when you were there, it is up to Ministry of Health staff to sit down with the individual hospital concerned to review their operating plan and to determine what type of recovery plan can be developed in order to ensure they can respond to the services that need to be provided and also deal with that deficit situation. That has always worked well in the past and I believe it will work well in the future.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I understood you to say a few moments ago that the entire $60 million that you announced today for mental health reform was new money, and I find that peculiar. I'll give you a couple of examples.

The $11.8 million that you announced today for ACT teams was previously announced and the money wasn't flowed. That previous announcement was $16 million.

The $21.7 million total that you've announced as being in the community development fund used to be $23.5 million and was announced before. All you've announced is $1.7 million additional.

The one-time allocation of $1 million for long-term-care services, for psychogeriatric staff to learn how to deal with that, doesn't include any additional staff. It just includes training for the ones who are there.

Those are just a few examples.

Can you clarify for us what is new money and what is old money that has already been announced, or are you counting as new money what you've announced but haven't flowed?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think the announcement today certainly was in very sharp contrast to what you did when you were in office. As you know, the NDP actually removed $60 million from the psychiatric facilities without making any community reinvestment whatsoever. You also cut 10% of Metro's psychiatric beds during that time period.

The money that we have announced today is new money. It is not a reinvestment of money coming out of the psychiatric hospitals. This is new and additional money that we are going to be investing in mental health services, and we will continue to invest additional money because for us the delivery of mental health services in a comprehensive and integrated manner is very, very important.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just for the members' interest, 23(b) is the rule that governs debate. We were in question period.

1450

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

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

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

I affix my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 workers from all across the province. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc (OHCOW) provide high-quality professional medical, hygiene and ergonomic services to employers, workers, joint health and safety committees and their communities;

"Whereas the professional services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to organizations such as the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, increasing the demand for the services provided by OHCOW;

"Whereas the professional and technical expertise and advice provided by OHCOW have made a significant contribution to improvements to workplace health and safety as well as the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the government to maintain the funding of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers and oppose any attempt to alter the governance structure or erode the professional and technical services" of these clinics.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers be provided with the necessary funds to allow expansion into other Ontario communities in order to provide the professional and technical services needed to reduce occupational injuries, illnesses and deaths."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have a petition presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"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."

This is signed by hundreds of constituents in High Park-Swansea, and I affix my signature.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the government members' gallery we have Mr Bob Eaton, a previous member for Middlesex. Welcome, sir.

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition that was signed by over 300 residents of the Cornwall area, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore ,we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I have also signed my name.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 220 people.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton Restructuring Advisory Group has prepared a preliminary report for the Ottawa-Carleton Developmental 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 MCSS `corporate agenda' is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

1500

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This petition speaks for the patients and community supporters of a full-service, in-hospital dialysis unit in Smiths Falls. It expresses the urgent and deep concern over the fact that this proposal may not be approved.

"Whereas the communities of Perth and Smiths Falls were encouraged by the provincial government to raise funds in support of a dialysis unit being placed in their communities and the communities of eastern Ontario fully supported the request by raising funds; and

"Whereas the Kingston General Hospital staff were willing to train staff for the unit; and

"Whereas the Perth-Smiths Falls area is the ideal location geographically for accessibility to the largest number of patients from a 50 nautical mile radius; and

"Whereas people are our country's most precious resource in any given area; and

"Whereas we have been informed that the health ministry is considering placing a dialysis unit in Brockville managed by a private company from outside this area;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, do hereby strongly object to the placement of a private unit in Brockville only, where there is no public hands-on control. We consider this an urgent matter requiring prompt legislative action to ensure a dialysis unit is placed at the Smiths Falls north unit under the jurisdiction of the Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital."

This petition is signed by over 1,054, and I affix my signature in support of this effort.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition in regard to Toronto tenants. It's addressed to the Ontario Parliament and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas this Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, therefore demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

Since I agree, I'm affixing my signature to this document.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Lest the government forget, we still want a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire. I have a further petition.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of the Environment and the government of Ontario take responsibility for the immediate cleanup of the fire site."

I add my name to those of my constituents.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): "Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative government has passed a resolution urging the government of Canada to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure that convicted murderers serve their entire sentences; and

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of their parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with jury hearings;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This petition is on red light cameras.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas this provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I agree with this petition and I affix my name to it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Durham East.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm speechless here. In fact, I can't find my speech.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara South.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, member for Durham East.

I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the member for Durham West, the Minister of Community and Social Services. In keeping with the spirit of the rules, I'll summarize the petition. It deals with increased OHIP funding on behalf of chiropractic services.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE AND FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS DES PARTICULIERS ET DES PETITES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 15, An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à réduire les impôts des particuliers et des petites entreprises et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures contenues dans le budget de 1998.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There was an agreement yesterday, and I have to put the question.

All those in favour of second reading of Bill 15, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1506 to 1511.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Duncan, Dwight

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Miclash, Frank

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 24.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. According to the order of the House of June 2, this bill is referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

PARTNERSHIPS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS EN NOM COLLECTIF

Mr Tsubouchi moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 6, An Act to amend the law with respect to Partnerships / Projet de loi 6, Loi visant à modifier des lois en ce qui concerne les sociétés en nom collectif.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I am sharing my time with the members for Huron and Wentworth North. I'm happy to present for third reading Bill 6. This bill will bring complementary amendments to three provincial statutes -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are too many conversations going on. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, this bill will bring complementary amendments to three provincial statutes, the Partnerships Act, the Business Names Act and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1956.

I would like to remind members why we need Bill 6. I would also like to talk a bit about the possible next steps and then leave my colleagues some time to discuss the various aspects of the bill.

Limited liability partnerships protect the personal assets of professionals from legal actions taken against their partners, or employees supervised by their partners, who fail to perform their duties properly.

Most US jurisdictions already have laws like those in the bill we're considering. With this legislation, Ontario has an opportunity to be a leader among Canadian jurisdictions, the first to legally recognize limited liability partnerships.

Our government has taken a careful, measured approach to this matter. We are quite comfortable with the bill which has emerged from debate both in the House and in committee. It reflects our view that our key responsibility is to create a modern and flexible regulatory environment that serves the realities of today's business while at the same time protecting the interests of consumers.

Right now, only chartered accountants would qualify to form limited liability partnerships, or LLPs, under this bill. They are the only group that has so far demonstrated the need for this type of protection. That does not mean, of course, they will necessarily be the only group that ever qualifies to establish limited liability partnerships.

The bill also contains the flexibility to extend LLP status to other groups that meet certain requirements. We will take those matters up with those groups involved on a case-by-case basis. Of course, any decision to include any profession in the future must balance the needs of businesses and individuals and the rights of consumers, who must continue to have confidence in the professionals they hire.

We want to do whatever we can to establish a business climate in Ontario that leads to prosperity while protecting consumers. It is a personal goal of mine, and I know it's one that the Premier and my other colleagues share, to achieve the delicate balance which this bill does so well.

As I said when this bill came before the House for second reading, it's all about trying to provide some fairness in a partnership situation. Negligent partners and their firms will continue to be liable for their own actions, but no longer will their partners' personal assets be at risk. However, where there has been fraud or an allegation of fraud, the existing liability rules will still apply. At the same time, consumers will continue to have the protection they need in their business dealings with these professionals.

As I'm sure you know, Mr Speaker, Premier Harris committed during the last provincial election to enact tax-neutral legislation that would give chartered accountants the right to form limited liability partnerships, while protecting the rights of consumers.

I believe with this legislation we've done two notable things. First, we have honoured our commitment to bring forward a bill that will address this important issue and furthers our goals of fostering a modern economy that supports job creation and prosperity for people. Second, and equally important, we have struck the right balance, I believe, of fairness and consumer protection.

In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the role of the member for Hamilton West, my parliamentary assistant. I would also like to thank members from all three parties who have voiced their support for this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill one last time and look forward to the continued support of all members on this important initiative.

1520

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Today I've been asked to speak about limited liability partnerships. I think it's important for everyone in the House to recognize that we're trying to balance here and to ensure that consumer protection is foremost in people's minds. In this bill, it is not the government's intent to allow the chartered accountant profession or any profession to not take responsibility for their actions. We've been very intent on that as a government as we've looked at limited liability partnerships.

What happens is that in many cases two or three people come together and form a partnership that allows them to work together. The accountants of Ontario and across the world have done that in very many different ways. When I was much younger, I articled with an accounting firm called Deloitte, Haskins and Sells at that point. What happened was that a number of people came together to form a partnership to provide accounting services for people in Ontario, and at that time in Toronto.

What has happened since that time is that accounting firms especially have got much bigger and they have formed world partnerships. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells I believe now is Deloitte Touche, and it may have even changed its name since then; I'm not sure. They have formed world partnerships where they deal in strategic deals that may happen throughout the world. What happens is that a partner in Ontario may do a small portion of a deal where a partner in the US is doing another portion of a deal etc, and you're dealing with partners you may not have known as we knew them when it was smaller firms.

This bill is saying: "Is there a liability for the partner who works on the deal? You bet your bottom dollar there's a liability. There is a liability for that person." But what they're saying is that for the partner that doesn't work on the deal, the assets of the partnership are there for the taking if something goes wrong, the assets of the partner who works on the deal are there if something goes wrong. But, in the long run, in general partnership a partner of a limited liability partnership is not personally liable for partnership debts and obligations arising from the negligence of another partner or an employee supervised by another partner. I think we are making sure that the consumer is protected in this issue.

One of the concerns I had when I first heard we were looking at limited partnership was, and I know all three parties would have this same concern, how are the people going to know that these are limited liability partnerships? How am I, as just a consumer going in to my local accounting firm, going to be sure that I am protected if there is an accountant who acts in an unfair manner?

I feel confident that a number of protections have been implemented. The first one that I think is important - and for some of us who know the accounting business, we would recognize this immediately - is that the limited liability partnership is going to have to be included in the name, so people who are more informed about the accounting profession will recognize that there's a limited liability partnership name there that you will be able to recognize.

For those of us who may not be as informed about partnerships or may not be as informed about the chartered accountants of the world, these accountants will also have to carry liability, some kind of insurance, so they have the ability to be there if something happens. In the case of negligence, this partner will have to put forward his or her assets and the partnership itself will have to put forward their assets, and so there will be protection for the consumer who uses an accounting firm and is therefore in any way damaged.

To restate this, the governing legislation will be amended to permit limited liability partnerships to practise in the profession. Professionals' governing bodies must establish mandatory minimum insurance coverage, which I think is very important. So we will know the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario will be responsible to make sure there's insurance coverage for every professional who is practising, and the LLP name must be registered under the business act. So an LLP must identify itself as a limited liability partnership by including the words "limited liability partnership" in the name. If they are not a firm from Ontario, there are certain requirements they must also have in that case.

I feel that in giving the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario this huge responsibility, we are ensuring that the consumer is protected. We're also ensuring that the chartered accountants of Ontario are able to carry on business in a global economy. They'll be able to compete in world deals or world transactions, if you will, and they'll be a able to be protected from partners who may not be acting in the same light.

It's my understanding, and we will see in a few minutes, that the other parties agree with this limited liability partnership, but I want to raise a couple of concerns I have from what the minister said about further groups coming forward with limited liability in a limited liability partnership.

I think we all have to be very concerned in this House about who receives limited liability partnerships. I think with the chartered accountants of Ontario and the chartered accountants in the world, what we have is a group that is dealing with a very highly informed group of clients. I think we have to make sure the consumer is always cognizant of the fact that their liability is in some way limited. I think it's important, as lawyers think about this, as certified general accountants think about this, as different professional groups think about this alternative, that they think about the best interests of the consumer in this field.

The government is not there to ensure that consumers in some way can have their liability limited. It's there to ensure what happens is that everybody is treated very fairly. I believe, after reading this bill, that is happening. I think it's a good opportunity for the accountants, especially the Institute of Chartered Accountants - I know some of the members have worked very hard with the institute - to prove themselves as they start to make sure that insurance coverage is adequate for their members, as they ensure that the consumers are well protected. I know they will do that because I have a great amount of respect for them, and I look forward to limited liability partnerships with accounting being viewed as a very positive thing by consumers in Ontario.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I want to thank the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for allowing me to speak on this matter. I think the public would have a concern regarding this matter, and that is, how are we going to be protected if this goes through? The answer is quite simple: They would be protected. They would still be allowed to sue the accountant who was negligent, they would still be allowed to go against the assets of the partnership firm and they would still, in all likelihood, be able to gain substantial sums in a lawsuit due to the amount of insurance coverage the accounting firm would have.

The present situation is unfair to the accountant, the hardworking, responsible, competent professional who engages in his profession flawlessly and one day finds out, through no fault of his own, that a partner of his has been acting in a way that is irresponsible, in fact negligent. What would happen under the present situation is, that partner would be sued, and if he lost the lawsuit, then the innocent partner, through no fault of his own, even though he did nothing wrong, would find that his assets would be gone. His family would find that perhaps their home would be removed and yet none of them was at fault in any way. That's quite unfair to the innocent partner.

This legislation strikes a balance. It protects the member of the public who has been defrauded. It still allows him to pursue lawsuits against the parties that are responsible. In fact, it still allows him to go against the assets of the partnership firm, and in almost every instance there will be substantial insurance available to cover any losses to the afflicted individual.

1530

At the same time, it protects the professional who through no fault of his own finds himself with a partner who has acted in a negligent fashion. So it strikes a balance between allowing professionals to compete and perform in the global economy on the one hand, and on the other hand it still provides plenty of redress for anyone who may find themselves afflicted by the negligent conduct of an accountant.

With reference to other jurisdictions, this type of legislation already exists in 51 US states. This has been the situation since approximately 1991 and there has been no undue hardship to the public affected in America.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Which is the 51st?

Mr Skarica: That's a good question.

There are no Canadian jurisdictions that recognize limited liability partnerships at the present time, but so what? A number of provinces have expressed interest in adopting this legislation, and what this does is make Ontario a leader in this area, and that's nothing to be discouraged by and nothing to be ashamed of, in conformance with this government's practice to bring our economic practices and our regulation into the 1990s to allow professionals and businesses, both small and large, to compete in the growing global economy.

There's been a move both in accountant firms and in law firms and in many other professional firms and in businesses to expand into other locales and to other provinces and to other countries. This type of legislation will enable Canadian firms to better grow into those other states, other provinces, other countries and will allow us to enter the 1990s, and allow initially chartered accountant firms but eventually other professional firms, to compete and be members of the global economy.

It is my understanding that initially this legislation will apply to chartered accountants, but also it'll lead the way and pave the way for other professional agencies to avail themselves of these types of partnerships. It's anticipated that other professions, including law firms, will eventually examine this option for themselves, and subject to review by government policy and subject to whether it's appropriate to both the profession and the public so that they are protected, it's anticipated that these types of partnerships will expand into other areas and again allow those professions to compete in the global economy.

Those professions watching today may ask themselves, "How are limited liability partnerships formed?" The simple answer is that they will be formed by a written agreement between the partners in much the same way as those partnership agreements would be written at the present time. For those who already have partnership agreements, they can be converted into a limited liability partnership by simply amending the partnership agreement. The partners would remain fully liable for all partnership debts and liabilities before converting to a limited liability partnership.

For those people initially in the accounting firms and eventually other professions who are watching and are asking, "What requirements must be satisfied before limited liability partnerships can carry on business in Ontario?" they are actually quite simple. There are three of them, basically: Governing legislation must be amended to permit LLPs, limited liability partnerships, to practise the profession; there must be a professional governing body which would establish mandatory minimum insurance coverage - that requirement is there obviously to protect the public; and limited liability partnerships must register their names under the Business Names Act.

The limited liability partnership must identify itself as a limited liability partnership by including the words "limited liability partnership" in its name, and that will give adequate and fair notice to the public that they are dealing with a partnership that doesn't have as broad a coverage, assetwise, as a normal partnership. But as indicated, in virtually every instance it would have absolutely no impact on the community and on the customers of the accounting firm, as there would be insurance and the assets of both the individual who is negligent and the firm would be available for payment for any liability.

A limited liability partnership, including extraprovincial limited liability partnership, must carry on business only under its registered firm name.

To conclude, what this legislation does, as does much of the legislation that this government has brought forward, is it brings initially the accounting profession but eventually other professions into the 1990s. It allows those partnerships to expand their business base. It allows for greater flexibility to expand into other markets. Basically, it updates the ability of chartered accountant firms, many of which are here and have tremendous reputations, to compete worldwide with other firms.

I'm proud to speak today on this legislation. It's just another indication that our government is looking forward into the future, not into the past, and it's a credit to the minister that he had the foresight and the determination to bring this legislation forward even though we have a busy agenda.

It's interesting to note that the other parties are supporting it and in fact have supported it for some time, but it was our government that brought this legislation forward. I would like to commend the minister for bringing this legislation forward. It will help not only the community but the professionals involved. It will assist Ontario's economy in a small dimension initially, but yet another dimension where we are bringing Ontario and Ontario's economy and the business people involved into the next millennium armed and equipped with the tools necessary to compete both locally and globally while at the same time protecting the public so they're not prejudiced in any fashion.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Pouliot: Our party will be supporting what is in front of us. Indeed, we feel that it is most commonsensical. It makes immense sense.

I do find a certain irony that we have a person from the government of the day in the person of Mr Skarica - I admire Mr Skarica, a crown attorney who comes with a track record of 17 years, a member of that most honourable of professions, the law profession. One would expect, candidly, that the law profession would be somewhat reluctant to give away a bit of what they've considered traditionally a fiefdom.

I commend the government. It's not often I have the opportunity to do this. In this instance they have shown relative courage. It is overdue. It strikes a balance. In seeking equilibrium, they have achieved their goal. Suffice it to say I don't make it a habit to commend the government on their wisdom, but in this case, in all fairness, they've listened well and they are to be commended. I will leave my comments at that.

In terms of my good friend and colleague Toni Skarica, I want to ask you, with high respect, who got to you? It is not in your makeup. You have been most consistent in the past. Now we find him not to be a maverick, a member of the fifth column, but so readily acquiescing in anything that M. Harris and his government say. Be careful, Toni.

The Acting Speaker: Who is going to reply? Does anybody wish to reply? If not, further debate.

1540

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): As the consumer affairs critic, I was involved with some of the discussions with the minister and his staff in terms of what this bill meant to the profession of chartered accountants and to the public. They've been quite cooperative in giving us information.

A lot of aspects of the bill are ones that our former consumer affairs critic, Bruce Crozier, was in favour of. He thought the basic thrust of the bill and the bill itself was a positive one and something our party should support. I've continued to work towards getting this bill brought to this point, and I think it should proceed.

The bill itself perhaps will be one of other similar-type bills that may come forward. As you know, this is an enabling piece of legislation which deals specifically with members of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is exclusive in terms of their abilities and their powers and their liabilities. It is not referring to any other professions, as the member for Lake Nipigon said.

There has been some controversy, not so much about the bill per se, but in a wider perspective. If you've been listening to the radio broadcasts over the last couple of weeks, there seem to be a lot of ads from the CGAs, the certified general accountants. They've been upset with parts of this bill. I guess they want to be included. They're also complaining about other restrictions they have on the way they can practise in the province. I think that's part of a bigger issue that perhaps this Legislature will deal with down the line.

In general, one of the things that comes to my mind, one of the questions that people have raised with me, is in terms of the understanding the public has about what the difference is between a CA, a CGA and a CMA. Perhaps in the business community they understand the difference, but I don't think the general public at this point has enough information to understand the intricacies of some of the complaints that some of the CGAs have had.

I hope the government moves, through its ministry, to bring forth information so that the public will have a better awareness of accountancy and the divisions there are in this professional field. I think that would be very helpful in ensuring that when this Legislature is faced with perhaps other professions coming forward in terms of getting the same type of protection, the public is informed in terms of the impact of this type of legislation that might be asked for by the CGAs or that, as the member for Lake Nipigon said, maybe the legal profession would ask for. I would hope if that were done that we would limit some of the controversy over these points of argument that have been made. It's been very prevalent on the radio in the last couple of weeks, and I think there have even been some print ads on it.

One thing that I'm concerned about as consumer affairs critic is, how does this impact on the citizens of Ontario who require the services of chartered accountancy from the firms and individuals who are chartered accountants? In examining this bill and being involved in the brief hearings we had, the main thing here is that there is a threat of increased litigation costs which may be brought to the whole arena of accountancy because of the close relationship we have with the United States. As you know, in the United States there has been a tradition of litigation frenzy, certainly in the medical profession and other professions. The fear some of the Canadian firms and some of the accountants in Canada had was that this type of litigation feeding frenzy might be something that would perhaps cross the border.

As you know, what that does is it really increases the insurance costs for professionals who have to operate and do business in Ontario. You know what it has done in the United States, where it's not unusual for doctors and lawyers - ironically it's not lawyers so much; doctors have to pay premiums that are just exorbitant to get malpractice insurance, for instance. As you know, those costs, which sometimes can be $1 million you have to pay to essentially be protected against malpractice in the United States as a medical doctor, will eventually have to be borne in the costs to the consumer, who has to pay for those services. That's where excessive litigation ends up costing the taxpayer, ends up costing the consumer and ends up making it difficult for small business to operate too, because you have to get bigger and bigger to make yourself immune to this type of litigation.

That's the concern of the CA professionals in Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. They felt this was a very real fear that would cause all kinds of litigation because, as you know, at the present time, you who may be a member of a chartered accountancy firm may be sued, even though you did not have anything to do with the file or the case that is before the courts. In fact, your personal assets as a member of that firm or that partnership could be seized as a result of court action. Even though there may be, who knows how, many members of a firm, you, as an individual who had nothing to do with a particular client, could lose everything, from your home to your car and other personal possessions. I don't think that is a fair practice, whereby a person would be living under that kind of a threat.

Certainly, it is a very real threat, that does happen now under the present set of rules and laws that we have in this province. That is why in the United States of America, where there is a lot of litigation, a lot of suits being brought, almost every state has this limited liability partnership. It basically limits the liability of partners who are not involved in those particular files. I think the public understands that this is an equitable and very rationed position to take. In the long run the public will benefit if there is a limited liability, in that the cost of doing business and the cost of going to an accountant, a CA in this case, will not have to also incorporate those potential insurance costs and liability costs.

I know that the CAs all across Ontario must just be smiling from ear to ear. A lot of them deal with taxation, and one of the biggest boons to their businesses is going to be property taxation. This government is just about to pass the most complicated property tax laws in North America. You're going to have to be a CA to understand property tax law in this province. There are five pieces of legislation that this government is going to introduce in their property tax laws. It is going to be almost impossible for a normal citizen to understand how property taxation works in this province.

As we stand here today, the government, at the last minute, has just introduced 17 amendments to the five previous laws they passed. This is the type of thing that the public may have to go to CAs for, or they're going to have to get help on it, because you're going to have to be either a Bay Street or Philadelphia lawyer to understand property taxation, never mind income tax and corporate taxation, in this country or this province. That is the thing I fear this government should be addressing also in a more macro way: making the public laws, especially that deal with taxation and laws that deal with business, simpler. This government in this instance at least is trying to do something that's positive. I think the minister of consumer affairs at least understands that and he has been doing it. What I fear is what the Minister of Finance, on the other hand, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are bringing about: just an unbelievable avalanche of complex consumer tax laws that deal with especially property taxes and business taxes.

1550

If you talk to small business people about the removal of this business occupancy tax and the confusion that's going to cause and is causing with landlords and tenants, there has been mayhem across this province over the last three months trying to figure out what kind of implications there are with this tax law. I'm sure the CA firms across Ontario have been having their phones ring off the hook, trying to get them to explain what the new implications of these tax laws are.

If CAs give certain advice - and I think that's where it comes into liability - they have to be cognizant of the fact that if they give the wrong advice, they could be subject to some kind of legal action. In the case of property tax law that is being introduced by this government, I'll tell you, the CAs need this kind of legislation. They're going to need it desperately, because I wonder if the CAs can figure out what property tax law is now in this province.

As you know, this government said, "We're going to update all these new tax laws on properties because we need a market value system," and then what do they go around and do? All of a sudden, halfway through they said, "Oh, by the way, we're freezing everything back on the pre-1997 value." So we've got two sets of books now. We've got a frozen 1997 value system for commercial, because it was totally screwed up, fouled up, and then we've got one post-1997 for residential.

The CAs of this province will need this type of protection to deal with property taxation alone, never mind corporate taxation intricacies and business taxation and so forth. This is one area where the public may benefit, and certainly the professionals who have to deal with complex tax laws will need the type of protection that is in Bill 6. They'll probably need more protection from other government bungling in the area of property taxation, which is just incredible, considering our municipality -

Mrs Johns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding we're talking about Bill 6 here, which is the Partnerships Statute Law Amendment Act. I could be terribly wrong, but when I was in an accounting firm I don't remember practising any property tax.

The Acting Speaker: The point is well made.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This may be a very important debate for some, but we don't have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: Before I was rudely interrupted, I thought it was quite clear that the issue here is protection against being sued by a client you do business with. The CAs are asking for their liability in this case to be protected, so that all members of a firm aren't sued because of a decision that another member of the firm makes.

CAs deal with taxation. They deal with all forms of taxation. One area of taxation in this province is property taxation, so if the CA gives out information or that firm gives out information or advice that could possibly end up with a client maybe getting misinformation about property or business tax, the way the law is stated today, that CA firm and all its members can be sued even though they weren't involved with giving out that advice.

That is right on the topic of this Bill 6. For the member opposite to stand up and say, "You can't talk about that" - that's basically what she said.

I've said very clearly that the CAs are going to need this kind of protection in terms of being sued because they do get into very complex legal situations in which they could be subject to legal recourse on behalf of a client.

As I said, I think there is going to be a lot of difficulty explaining the new property tax laws of this province. Anybody who gives advice on property taxation - even this government has proved it themselves. They've just passed five pieces of legislation on property taxation, and with every one they passed they said, "This is the perfect one." We're down now to the fifth bill. An hour ago they gave us 17 amendments. They admit themselves that they've got to be protected from themselves. So for the member opposite to say we can't talk about the very dangerous area you get into when you give advice on matters of money I think is something she is not correct on.

The CAs of this province are saying, "If we're going to do business in an affordable way, if we are going to be treated fairly as we do business, in an equitable way, we need some kind of protection." The protection is one that still allows for consumers to sue that individual chartered accountant - that is still there - or you can still sue the firm. The difference with Bill 6 is that not all members of the firm are, all of a sudden, arbitrarily equally liable. Only the ones who were involved with the file will now have to answer in court, if it gets to that point. That's what Bill 6 is doing. Both opposition parties, I think, like the approach of limiting this kind of liability.

The other thing in terms of this bill is that the other jurisdictions in Canada do not have it. We are the first jurisdiction that's going to enter this area. I hope we monitor the impact of this bill when it is passed and see what its consequences are. I would like to have a report before this House, if the minister could agree with that, and an update in perhaps six months or a year from now to see what the impact of this limited liability partnership legislation is. What's going to happen is that other professional organizations may ask for the same protection, so by having that kind of information before us, we will be better able to deal with the requests we are already having from the CGAs.

By the way, I forgot to mention that I'm going to share my time with the member for St Catharines, if I could, in this portion, when he returns.

As you know, the whole area of partnerships is a very complex area not only for CAs but I think for businesses in general. As you know, it's not unusual to hear about partnerships that were flourishing and were very copacetic that run across a turbulent period where the partnership has to be dissolved and there are all kinds of difficulties that arise.

1600

I think this might also encourage people who want to be CAs, who don't want to be on their own, who may want to join a small firm or a large firm; they know that their personal assets are somewhat protected if they do so. I think that is not a minor point to consider when you're looking at a bill like Bill 6, that it gives especially young people who want to enter the profession of chartered accountancy a sense that if they go into a firm, especially as a junior, they will not go in there and perhaps be faced with litigation or a suit that another partner was involved with and they had no part in.

I think this type of approach is also reassuring to people who are looking at joining a firm, especially a partnership. I think there's no reason to deny that added protection that Bill 6 affords potential new accountants or other accountants who want to become part of a partnership. I certainly think that is another needed protection.

One of the other areas that is a small but interesting part of this bill is in reading the background notes on Bill 6. There is a growing field of business which they call e-business or e-commerce, which deals with the digital economy. In the digital economy, Mr Speaker, as you're well aware, coming from Ottawa, where I think Orleans is known as the cyberspace capital of North America -

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Kanata.

Mr Colle: Kanata, excuse me, not Orleans. I thought it was Orleans, but it's Kanata, where there are new, innovative businesses where it's basically intellectual property. Accountants now have to deal with companies that deal with intangible intellectual properties, not the lock, stock and barrel approach of the 1940s.

Chartered accountants and their firms are now in a very grey area, you might say, in terms of what is proprietorship when it comes to ideas. These ideas that deal with e-commerce and e-business are extremely volatile. As you know, it's probably the fastest-growing part of the North American economy, the digital economy. I'm sure CAs are dealing daily with setting up these firms. CA partnerships are dealing with firms that deal with this new economy. This is a very challenging new area, and I think we're in an area of really being pioneers in establishing this new business which deals with the whole world of software, the whole world of digital communication, fibre optics, all these new commercial ventures which the CAs and their firms, large and small, have to give business advice to, have to give tax advice to.

This is where this kind of protection in terms of limited liability will also perhaps make it easier for chartered accountants and their firms to give affordable service to firms large and small. Most of the firms that are giants in the world of the digital economy were once very small one- or two-person operations. They've grown from small firms to mammoth multinationals that have grown out of places like Liberty City here in Toronto and Kanata and other places that are basically mushrooming out of our cities and giving jobs to people.

If this Bill 6 helps in encouraging economic fairness - and that's what this is about. It's about commercial economic fairness. I don't think anybody has had any major disagreement with that. In the hearings the concern brought forward was by the CGAs, who essentially wanted to be part of this, and I hope maybe in the future they will be.

But at this point we're dealing with CAs and their limited liability partnership legislation. We think this is needed protection. It's something that will keep prices down, hopefully, and allow partnerships that deal with chartered accountancy to function in a reasoned way and a very businesslike way, so we don't get into massive lawsuits and don't turn away people who want to get into a profession that most people respect as being a necessary part of a modern economy. I think it's going to continue to grow in size in the number of people who are entering.

Especially with the property tax mess in this province, there's going to be a booming business for CAs. In our city of Toronto, 237,000 homes are getting a massive tax increase as a result of the tax policies of this government. About three months ago small business was knocking on the doors of all the CA firms. They were saying, "What is this government doing to me?" In Toronto alone, 17,000 small businesses were going to get a tax increase of over 100%. Because the government didn't have any answers for them, they had to go to their CAs, to the firms big and small, and say, "What's going on here?" That's the kind of advice CAs have to give. When you get into a tax mess you've got to go to a CA.

We hope that small business can still afford to go to chartered accountancy firms, that it's not just the KPMGs of this world. I think we've got to ensure that small firms can flourish and the small grocery store owner, that the hardware store, that those small proprietors can also get affordable tax advice from their CAs. If there are just the big firms and the dollars are too much, they will not go and get good advice and they'll suffer the consequences. It would be good practice to see more and more reasonable openness to chartered accountancy so that people in small and big business can get good, affordable direction in terms of what's happening with taxation, whether it be business tax, personal income tax or corporate tax, or just your property tax.

It's important to have tax laws that are understandable even by CAs. But now this government has given us the most complex, convoluted, controversial property tax laws. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Paul Pagnuelo and people like that are turning over seeing the complexity of tax laws that are coming into this province. Even though this government claims to be getting rid of red tape, we must have the Godzilla of red tape bills in these property tax laws that we have now before us in this province. I just hope we don't have Godzilla-type costs in trying to get advice to people who have to appeal their taxes.

In my own community there were people who were not members of any firm - I don't think they were accountants of any type - who were preying on people, trying to get them to appeal their taxes for a huge, exorbitant amount of money. I hope that doesn't continue, that people aren't taken advantage of, that when they want to appeal their taxes they go to bona fide professionals to do that and not just go to your local, street corner type of tax consultant to get advice, because it could cost you big-time.

1610

That's why we need an approach that comes from Bill 6 which says we've got to keep our costs down, we've got to ensure that there isn't all this litigation behind the scenes whereby every time you give advice you could be in court. That's what this bill hopefully will restrict.

I think this is a bill that at least tries to acknowledge the fact that government does have a role to play, whether it be the CAs, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or whether it be the lawyers or whether it be doctors. If they need some kind of protection from excessive litigation, the government should try and give them that kind of protection because, in the long run, it's the consumer who is going to pay for more medical fees, more accountancy fees or, for that matter, more real estate fees. We just can't make the cost of doing business an exorbitant one, and I think that's the spirit that the CAs came to the government with.

I know the member for Essex South is a CGA himself, and he thought this was a bill that was sound and honest in its intention and something that he supported. That's why I think our caucus, in deliberating about this bill, is glad to see it come through quickly. Hopefully, it will help in keeping prices down. It makes it a fair, you might say, business to be in. As I said, nobody wants to lose their home because of some lawsuit that was brought about that had nothing to do with you and, in a nutshell, to me that's what this bill is about.

I think the consumers of Ontario are going to benefit by this type of legislation that we support. I just think we have to keep the doors open, as I said, in ensuring that in the future if other organizations and professional associations want the same type of protection we should be ready to examine that. We should be open to examining their requests and not make it too difficult, but ensuring that it's done for the good of the consumers of this province and that door should be open.

I think the minister has mentioned that he's going to keep that door open and I certainly believe he will because, as I said, there will be others who will ask for a similar type of protection to limit their liability when it comes to doing business, or just basically practising, whether it be architects etc.

I will conclude and pass the baton over to my colleague from the Garden City of St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to put this bill in context of the entire program that the government is bringing forward, what its priorities would be and how this might even affect other legislation. When we have legislation come before us, we have to know that it affects other legislation as well.

I want to say, first of all, that we do support Bill 6. Some people say, "Don't you people in the opposition support anything?" and we do from time to time when there's good legislation. When the government follows our recommendation and brings in a bill of this kind, we're quite willing to support it. As uncharacteristic as it may be of me, I want to compliment the government today on listening to the Liberal opposition and bringing in this bill, which I think is an eminently sensible and supportable bill.

Ontario auditors are experiencing excessive liability exposure. I think we recognize that it's unfair to them and really ultimately to the whole public. LLPs will protect the public interest by helping to ensure the continued availability of public accounting services on which Ontario's citizens and businesses rely.

Of course, people are going to need the services of these people if, for instance, they run into trouble with their businesses when we have the new Mike Harris gambling halls coming into various communities in the province where people don't want them, where in essence there are bribes being put forward in the way of saying, "Here's some administrative costs for those" -

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would think that the member for St Catharines, with all his experience, knows that he just used unparliamentary language.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Marland: "Bribe."

Mr Bradley: I've used that about 15 times in the House. It's not unparliamentary. It may offend you but it's not unparliamentary.

Hon Mrs Marland: It's unparliamentary, my friend.

The Acting Speaker: I should apologize. I was distracted by an article I was reading, which I shouldn't. I hope you'll excuse me. But at the same time I think the word "bribe" was not addressed to any individual. It was addressed in general. On the other hand, I think members should be very careful with the types of words they use. Sometimes they can be insulting, they can be used in a way that offends people. So I just want you to be careful.

Mr Bradley: I will use it in exactly the same way I have in every speech where I've dealt with the casino gambling or the new Mike Harris gambling halls, and that is - I even mentioned the last time I used it - it wasn't in the classic sense of somebody getting a bribe and doing something for it. It was bribing in the sense of providing an incentive for someone to accept a casino, the bribe being in this case administrative fees that the government of Ontario will pay to local communities, which in effect may then decide they would accept a charity casino.

That is commonly used as bribing people to do that. It's not used in a sinister way. It's used in a way of trying to persuade people, using a certain kind of funding that it is the case. The other is coercing - and the member would perhaps disagree with the word "coercing" - and antagonizing municipalities by saying to them in effect, "If you don't take these charity casinos, these new Mike Harris gambling halls, in your community then your charities may not get the money they would otherwise get." So it's a combination which is used on municipalities which are vulnerable. I'm wondering whether they will need the professional services of people who are affected by this legislation this afternoon. That's why I put it in that particular context, because we're having an escalation now of gambling opportunities around this province as a result of the policies of this government.

The vulnerable people, the most desperate people and the addicted people, may well require the assistance and professional services of chartered accountants as they're placed in a very difficult position as a result of the temptations that are put before them in the form of escalating gambling opportunities promoted by the Mike Harris government, which in opposition was steadfastly opposed to the escalation and expansion of these gambling opportunities. So I certainly put it in that context.

I know that the government may not have to in this case put out yet another pamphlet across the province at taxpayers' expense. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I rose in the House hoping that the editorialists of this province, who I know would not think of their own personal interests, of their companies, in other words, their newspaper businesses, or the people on radio or television, wouldn't be getting money from the government of Ontario for ads that would be running. I know they would want to protest in every way they could when the government puts out at taxpayers' expense clear propaganda.

Once again people are finding, just as they found two or three weeks ago, government partisan propaganda coming from the shop of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board whose chief executive officer, David Lindsay, who is a good friend of ours in this House and used to be the principal secretary to the Conservative Premier of this province, who has been the communications director of the Conservative caucus and who has a long history in the Conservative Party, is now in a civil service position which is supposed to be clearly outside of the partisan realm - sent out at the cost of at least three quarters of a million dollars a glossy pamphlet which most independent people, I'm sure the member for Fort York would agree with me, could be declared nothing else other than straight partisan propaganda.

I'm told today that arriving in households is yet another partisan propaganda piece. I say to those who are Conservatives out there, not so much people in the House because they're not going to be able to protest that - this is part of the government policy - but to Conservatives out there who think, "Isn't this smart? Isn't Mike Harris and that crew smart?" they're using taxpayers' money to put out more pamphlets which are clearly government propaganda. This one deals with education. If you want more propaganda, Mike Harris says in his letter -

1620

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect to my friend, I believe we should have a quorum to listen to his remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I thank the member for Riverside for ensuring that there are sufficient members in the House to hear this message, because some may not be aware that the government is now sending across Ontario to every household yet more propaganda at the taxpayers' expense.

What I find offensive about this is not - if it came from the Progressive Conservative Party, that's fine. I don't mind when the Conservative Party sends out its propaganda. They've got money coming out their ears, they have so much money in the Conservative Party. I don't mind if they spend that on their political message. If it's the Conservative Party, that's their business. I don't mind that. That's fair, even though, as I say, because they have addressed the needs of the richest and most powerful people in the province, the Conservative Party is getting a thank you in the form of millions of dollars from major corporations and special interests in this province.

What is interesting, and what my friend from Lanark would find interesting, is that his own government, his Premier at this time, is trying to introduce as the package of so-called amendments to the way elections are run in this province ones where the government wants to drastically increase the amount of money that people can contribute to political parties and candidates and drastically increase the amount of money that can be spent on election campaigns, thereby Americanizing the system.

By doing so, the government also wants to do something else: It wants to try to prohibit third-party advertising. This is a government which is using taxpayers' dollars - and I wonder where the conscience of the Conservative Party is when this is happening - to convey a clearly partisan message. I'm challenging the editorialists of this province -

Hon Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Maybe you could tell us, with your wise judgement, whether the member for St Catharines is speaking to the bill that is the matter before the House at this time.

The Acting Speaker: It's true that the member for St Catharines was using a different type of accounting. I would ask him to make sure that he maintains his topic on Bill 6.

Mr Bradley: I always accept your suggestions, Mr Speaker, but I always find interesting that a government which has changed the rules of this House to stack so heavily the rules of procedure in favour of the governing party, a party which hasn't shown much respect for democracy in this province since it came into office, would then have members rise in the House and try to cut off debate in this Legislature. I recognize that what I'm saying may not find favour in the ears of the members of the government, but there are people in this province - including, I'm sure, chartered accountants I mention - who will be offended by this.

I know that we have that a limited liability partnership means that partners "are not personally liable for the negligent acts of another partner or an employee supervised by another partner." Well, they may well be dealing with an issue of this kind. There may be somebody who wants to deal with the issue of government advertising and who may be consulting accountants in this province about the issue of government advertising. The member for Mississauga West understands the very direct link between that and this legislation.

If I were trying to relate it to the closing of hospitals in the Niagara region, then you may have a somewhat legitimate complaint to make. But I know there are chartered accountants concerned about this legislation who are also concerned about the fact that the hospital restructuring commission, better known as the hospital destruction commission, is showing up, three of its members, in Niagara on Thursday. I will not be there with the welcome sign for them.

My good friend the member for St Catharines-Brock put a big ad in the newspaper the other day saying, "I'm hands-off." Tom will correct me if I'm wrong. I would never want to say anything that would be not correct, but I think Tom said in his ad: "I will have nothing to do with it. I'm at arm's length. It's up to the commission."

Well, I'd like to put the chase on the commission. I'd like to get a posse up in town, including chartered accountants, to put the chase on the commission. What they have done - as, Mr Speaker, you would know in your area, for instance - is wreak havoc on many parts of Ontario in terms of the hospital system. I don't want them there. I may even get the commissioner to help me out. Commissioner Brown is here today. I may get him to put his trench coat on. Gary is here as well, and Bob is here; we have all these people here. I want the three commissioners to come down to the Niagara Peninsula to prevent the hospital destruction commission from closing hospitals in the Niagara region.

Chartered accountants would agree with me. Chartered accountants who see virtue in this bill do not see virtue in Bill 26, which was the bill that set up the hospital restructuring commission. That commission has gone about this province closing hospitals.

My friend from Niagara South would want to ensure that the Port Colborne hospital and the Fort Erie hospital, one being Douglas Memorial in Fort Erie and the other Port Colborne General Hospital, would continue to play a vital and important role in his community. I know my friend from West Lincoln would want to know that the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital is not going to be drastically altered by the destruction commission coming to town, Mark Rochon and his colleagues coming to make pronouncements in the Niagara region.

I can tell you what chartered accountants in my area, in the most part, would want to see. What those who agree with this bill, as I do, would want to see is that the government would eliminate its $43 million takeaway, cut, slash of the operating budgets of the Niagara Peninsula hospitals. That's what the plan is for, to take $43 million out of them and then restructure them. The local restructuring committee that got up there said, "We can't do much else other than make some drastic recommendations, because they're taking all this money out."

I'm wondering whether there will be some consultation with chartered accountants in this province when people encounter genuine problems in the hospitals. They go to the hospital today and they come out and say it's a terrible situation in hospitals today compared to, say, 10 years ago. The folks who are in there delivering the services are doing their very best. The nurses, the orderlies, the registered nursing assistants, the nursing aides, the doctors and the non-medical personnel are all trying to make the hospitals function as they should. But this government has withdrawn so much money from the operating budgets of hospitals that we have deteriorating health care in this province.

A conversion on the road to Damascus, where the government in the last year of its mandate panics and starts throwing money back in, will not fool anybody. That investment has been needed for some time, and even more money. I'm sure the chartered accountants in our part of the province would agree with that.

They would be concerned as well as I. All the political parties deal with accountants in this province in regard to expenditures and money being taken in; in other words, contributions to parties. You know, Mr Speaker, as well as I do and as well as the accountants do that south of the border, money is playing far too great a role in elections. From the President's office right down to local office elections, money plays a tremendous role in the United States. There's so much money in it now that a person has to be a multimillionaire to win a Senate seat or a gubernatorial campaign in many cases. Even the House of Representatives and state assemblies have expensive elections.

1630

What chartered accounts would want to know, because they're worried about the liability, is why this government would be proceeding to expand the amount of money that can be spent in election campaigns, in other words, increase the influence. They would be worried as well that the larger the contribution the more one can perceive that there might be some influence on government policy. To avoid that, we try to minimize and spread out the contributions so there are not a few large donors but a number of people who at the grass-roots level are prepared to support candidates and those in the election process.

I am concerned that these changes would take place and that the government wants to abolish the election finances commission, which in fact is the watchdog over election contributions and expenditures in this province. I plead to the commissioners, two of them who are here today, that we always have to have a policing agency. They are for more policing, they are for careful surveillance, they are for upholding the law, and their own government, Mike Harris and his advisers, the whiz kids, want to take away that policing body which is called the election finances commission.

Chartered accountants in this province are concerned about that because they deal - each party has to send to accountants in this province their yearly filing, and during an election campaign they have to have an accounting firm or an accountant review and sign the submission that is made to the election finances commission. I say to the commissioners, put those trench coats on, put those gloves on, put that mean, tough look on your faces and go to see Mike Harris, and say, "Mike, I think we've made a mistake."

There were some members from the Conservative Party who expressed concern about another aspect of that. They said the Premier shouldn't have to sign the nomination paper. There were three members who have been outspoken over the years, who are prepared to speak - I think it was Mr Skarica from Wentworth North, Mr Carr from Oakville and Mr Murdoch from Grey-Owen Sound who expressed concern about that. If they're concerned about that aspect of it, they must be concerned about the other proposals the government is putting forward, such as allowing advertising throughout the campaign period so that, with the many dollars that the governing party has accumulated from the wealthiest people in the province, the most powerful people in the province, they can saturate the airwaves with these ads throughout and win an election campaign based on money as opposed to policy, which no one would object to.

I know, Mr Speaker, you are pondering how this fits this bill. It's because we are so reliant upon accountants when we deal with the Election Finances Act that I brought that in. We would not want to see a situation where we place accountants in some liability situation.

Because you are in the chair now, Mr Speaker, I want to repeat this. I mentioned that this is a piece of legislation with which I am in full agreement. I am happy to say that because I have heard people say from time to time, especially on the government side: "You know, you people in opposition oppose everything. You're negative about things." - there was a bill we voted on this afternoon and a lot of what was in the bill we probably agree with, but they snuck inside it the slot machine legislation. My good friend from St Catharines-Brock, who I know - and I make no secret of this - is no raving proponent of gambling in this province, must have been shocked when he found that inside Bill 15 was a component that allowed for the expansion of gambling in the province. Had he known that, he would have absented himself from the House and not voted for the bill. I know Tom well and I know that's what he would have done, and many of his supporters would have agreed with his doing that. So he probably wondered why I didn't vote for that bill this afternoon.

This bill I'm going to vote for. This bill I'm going to support. This is a bill on which many members of our caucus have met with others, consulted with others, particularly within the profession, and have found it to be a good bill. So don't say we're always negative. Sometimes when you get an interview on the radio, for instance, the person will say, "Well, isn't there anything you agree with in this legislation or this budget or something?" and I say: "You have to call Frank or Tom. They'll tell you everything good about what the government is doing, and because they will do that, I don't have to do that." That's why. I don't have to take that time to do it because they do such a good job of supporting the government's position.

I know that government members will be very concerned about this new piece of propaganda that's going out at taxpayers' expense.

Mr Marchese: It's in colour, isn't it?

Mr Bradley: It's in colour. I have it in black and white because it was faxed to me. Somebody who was highly offended by it faxed it to me and said, "You want to investigate this because we remember you brought the multicoloured, glossy one in from the jobs and investment agency." This one here my colleague from Ottawa West shows to me. I had a discussion with someone involved with this who said, "This isn't government propaganda." This person was looking for somebody to agree with him. He finally found Guy Giorno, who agreed it wasn't government propaganda. But everybody else objectively did.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Who is Guy Giorno?

Mr Bradley: Guy Giorno is the chief whiz kid. He's the top adviser to the government. He has more power than even cabinet ministers. He is more powerful than the locomotive. He is able to leap the Legislature in a single bound. He is a man of great power.

This is what we see: the jobs agency. I thought, "Well, they're out there getting jobs for people; they're out there trying to promote something," and I find out the only thing they're promoting is the Conservative Party of Ontario. Therefore we have this kind of government propaganda.

Not only is it unethical to be using taxpayers' money for this purpose, it is also unfair in the political process. I look at a government and I say, "Governments always have far more resources than an opposition to be able to put out a message." But second, this government, as the governing party, has all kinds of money.

Tom has a fund-raiser in St Catharines and they have to turn them away at the door, don't they, Tom? They have it at the Ramada Parkway Inn. The Premier comes down, and all the people who want to ingratiate themselves with the Premier or people who might be dealing with the government in some way or good, solid Conservative supporters over the years line up at the door and they have to turn them away. That's how successful they are.

You don't find there many low-income people. You don't find there many people who are disadvantaged in our society. You find largely the most powerful people. You find mostly the wealthiest people who contribute to the Conservative Party. Tom, when he goes into the next election campaign, is going to have money coming out of his ears to run that campaign.

What he's going to say - I shouldn't say "Tom" because we're not supposed to use personal names. My very good friend the member for St Catharines-Brock, and he is a good friend of mine, will be looking at this saying: "Premier, this is unfair and this is unfair. Look, we've got lots of money. We've got more money than we can spend in the campaign." Well, maybe not after they raise the limit. They have all this money, so that's important.

As I get down to the last couple of minutes of my remarks on this important bill, I want to remind people that while the government is moving more quickly on this, and we want to see that happen, look what happens when you bring in legislation which is agreeable. We'll have this over with this afternoon. We will have agreed to this piece of legislation this afternoon because there's a good consensus there. Yet the government has on the books five time allocation motions. For the people at home, those are motions which choke off further debate on some very significant bills where there are contentious issues. Even where they have to bring in all kinds of last-minute amendments in committee they have to choke off debate.

1640

This shows a lack of respect for democracy, because when you bring a bill of this kind forward, this afternoon's bill, you're going to get complete consensus. We will take the opportunity to perhaps put it in the context of the entire government program, as I've tried to this afternoon, but we know the bill will pass. If you developed more of a consensus - for instance, on the election financing bill that you plan to ram through the Legislature before the end of this session - if you were to sit down with the other two parties, as we did with this bill, and come to a consensus, come to an agreement, then even that bill would pass.

But of course the interests of a party which has all kinds of money and believes that money should play a very major role in a campaign are different from those who believe that the democratic process should be based on debate, direct contact with the voter by door-knocking and other kinds of campaigning that do not require the kinds of huge financial resources which are contemplated in the change that this government, Mike and Harris and his colleagues, plans to ram through the Legislature in the form of changes to the Election Finances Act, even a change which will abolish the Commission on Election Finances, which is the watchdog, the policeman over the expenditures and contributions.

I'm happy to support this bill this afternoon and I give a full undertaking that it will be done so expeditiously.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Martin: I'd like to congratulate the member for St Catharines and the member for Oakwood for some very appropriate and interesting comments this afternoon.

Guy Giorno - the bill that's coming up I think Thursday, the red tape bill, doesn't that have a piece in there now about doing away with P&P or something? Have you read that? Would that be Guy maybe taking over a bit more of the good office of the Premier's Council?

Mr Bradley: That's my worry.

Mr Martin: That sure was my worry too.

I really appreciated the way you were able to expand the philosophy principles behind this bill to include all of government. I would be hoping, like you, that the kind of goodwill that's extended through this bill to a very worthy professional organization would be the kind of offering that will be made by this government to all kinds of other folks. Alas, the track record so far, though, as the member has pointed out, is not indicating that's as it is or as it will be as we watch the unfolding of this government and what's going on.

I also find it rather interesting and good that today we have found some time to do this bill, which is very important, because you know this past week we've been spending a lot of time debating closure motions, time allocation motions. It's the order of the day around here now it seems. Every time you turn around you're doing another time allocation motion. It's good that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the kind of clout that he does in cabinet to actually be able to get this stuff in here and have us debate it and run it through the appropriate process. We had hearings on this and they were very helpful and here we are.

Today I'm going to be supporting the members for St Catharines and Oakwood in asking this House to approve this piece of legislation.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's always a pleasure to rise and acknowledge the eminent speeches that the member for St Catharines brings to our attention and the points he makes. I always listen with great interest even to his criticism. I was really overcome by his exemplary compliments to the member for St Catharines-Brock. I know the member for St Catharines and the member for St Catharines-Brock in the next provincial election will be friends. I know the revisions to the Elections Finances Act that are going on were being discussed and are important.

But for the members as well, Bill 6 is really first in the acknowledgement - all members have acknowledged that - to address the recent changes in the way the world economy, the free trade economy and the globalization of the economy works. It's about time they addressed some of the issues with respect to limited partnerships and some of the automation systems and digital systems that the member for Oakwood mentioned.

In my own respect, hopefully it simplifies the process for all small business people. This government is very intent on, as much as possible, deregulating, removing the barriers for growth for all small business across this province. There isn't anybody in the House on any side who would disagree with that. For instance, in the last budget one of the important announcements was the intention to reduce by half, by 50%, the small business corporations tax, from 9.25% to just over 4% over the next five or six years. I think all members are here to do the right thing for their constituents, and I am very pleased that the member for St Catharines is supporting Bill 6.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?. The Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa East.

Mr Cullen: Ottawa West, Mr Speaker. Ottawa West is the best, I keep saying.

I'm delighted to follow on and comment on the remarks made by my colleagues the member for Oakwood and the member for St Catharines. I thought the member for Oakwood made a very telling point when he went through the evolution of this government's property tax policies, the five bills that were brought in and the amount of regulation that is required, that will flow out of it, as a result of the government's continuing search for some kind of property tax stability and of course the demands that that will place on CAs, whose bill we're now dealing with. This bill is, of course, to adjust the liability requirements that CAs must meet.

It made me think that when you look at this government and the legislation it has brought in - this was the government that was supposed to get government out of the taxpayer's face; this was the government that was supposed to reduce regulation, make life simpler and easier for business and what have you. Then I began to look at the government's record in terms of the legislation it has brought in. The amount of regulation, the regulatory authority it has given to itself, almost requires the assistance of CAs and lawyers and what have you - more business for these folks - to decipher the regulations, the immense amount of red tape this government has brought forward with its legislation to deal with these issues.

I find it is interesting that hand in hand, as the government makes life more complicated, it issues the regulations for property tax through the minister without public oversight, yet it's going to protect CAs from liability. I think the legislation is required. Some may say it's independent of what the government regulations have done, but quite frankly one can't help but remark on how much regulation there is as a result of this government.

Mr Pouliot: I too wish to commend the member for St Catharines. It is very much part of the official opposition's mantra that, once you become House leader, you are afforded an opportunity not afforded to any of your colleagues. For instance, Hansard will attest that for any bill, be it on Christmas Eve or February 4, Jim is at his post. He must feel that by himself he will save the province, that he's responding to the call, and he has become a self-proclaimed "authority on every subject matter that comes in front of the House." Talented though he is, it is to the point that the time reserved for his friend and colleague of many years, dean of the House along with Mr Wildman, Mr Renfrew -

Mr Marchese: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Pouliot: The member for Renfrew North, by many accounts the most eloquent member in this House, has to ask permission of the member for St Catharines to address his critic's role.

But the member for St Catharines is most consistent: he will share with us not a bit of wisdom. He will read the compendium, the title of the bill, and then will take advantage of this opportunity to tell us about a range of problems such as the Mike Harris casino. As parting shots, we'll bring all politics local, that everything is so relevant to the great riding of St Catharines. Although I enjoy it, I wish he would stick to the bill.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for St Catharines has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my friends in the House from Sault Ste Marie, Durham East, Ottawa West and Lake Nipigon, Lake Nipigon being one of the largest ridings. I have to say to members of the House, if I'm ever speaking to students or others about the size of ridings, I always mention Lake Nipigon, which I think goes from Lake Superior to Hudson Bay. It's a huge mass which is larger than many countries and the riding is going to increase further as a result of some of the changes being made.

I want to respond to the member for Sault Ste Marie, who was concerned that in the red tape bill he would disappear. My fear has constantly been that the back-room boys - and girls I suppose you have to say - the back-room people have full control over the government. When I hear the three members who have expressed concern - today the newspaper mentioned three Conservative members - I worry about that as well. They're worried about the fact that somebody else is controlling things back there. I'm glad the member for Sault Ste Marie reminded me of that.

My friend from Durham East mentioned the member for St Catharines-Brock, and indeed you can be assured that in our electoral contest it will be a very upfront and friendly contest, as Tom and I are good friends. We'll contest the issues and debate thoroughly and do our best to win, but it will be a good example of an excellent and clean campaign, I'm sure. Tom will not be wanting to use any of the government propaganda that is put out at taxpayers' expense, I'm sure of that.

The member for Ottawa West, very insightful in his comments and very kind in his comments; the member for Lake Nipigon, who I always enjoy hearing speak - and, Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for once again understanding that we must put every bill in the context of the total government program.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Martin: I appreciate the opportunity today to enter into uniformity with every side of the House, to say that I and our caucus at the end of this day will be voting in support of this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. It sets a standard now to which I think all other professions will aspire. I think it would be short of us if somebody didn't - probably many of us will say thank you to the chartered accountants who are here today for the work that they've done over a long period of time.

Mr Cullen: I think they should stand and be recognized.

Mr Martin: I think they should stand and be recognized too. Would it be okay if we did that, Mr Speaker? Anyway, they're here.

We appreciate the fact that they're here and the good work that they've done to get this piece of legislation to where it is today. I know when we were government they were forever in meetings with some of the folks who had some responsibility then. They kept with it, stuck at it, kept their noses to the grindstone and brought it to the present government, and here we are, three years later.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations needs to be congratulated today too for getting this to where it is, working with his colleagues on the other side of the House to make sure that we all understood the importance of this bill. We had a chance through debate here and we had a chance through the discussion we had when we went to committee for that afternoon to hear from some others out there about this bill, and to ultimately get to a point where we can all agree that we have an important, a valuable and a good piece of legislation in front of us that will indeed serve the people of this province well, and in particular those who operate or do business under the umbrella of the chartered accountants of Ontario.

The only comment I will offer this afternoon in relation to this, and I think it's important that we bring it up and speak about it - because I want to share my time this afternoon with my colleagues in this place who are here because they think the business of this House is very important and want to have a chance to put on the record their thoughts on pieces of legislation that come through that are important. They impact the lives of everybody who calls Ontario home. This piece of legislation, no less than others, deserves their comment and they're here to do that. The member for Fort York, the member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for Lake Nipigon are going to speak this afternoon as well. I'll be waiting to hear from them and I'm sure they'll have something very important to offer.

What I want say to say is that this bill brought forward by the chartered accountants of Ontario sets a very interesting precedent in our jurisdiction. It's the first of its kind in Ontario and it needs to be recognized for what it is. It's an attempt in this day of the lawsuit, this day of the legal system forever out there trying to find reasons to sue somebody for something so that others might benefit from that - some of it very legitimate, some of it righting some wrongs that have been done, but much of it questionable.

It comes to us primarily, I would say, from the States, this want to sue, this pursuit of recourse for wrongs done, perceived or otherwise, through the courts so that we have compensation of some sort that happens. In some instances we have recognized that this ability goes too far and causes undue hardship to people who actually, directly or even sometimes indirectly, had no part to play in the hurt that was caused, so should they have to pay the price for that? This bill resolves that in a very important and significant way for the chartered accountants of Ontario. We need to be now encouraging other professional groups out there who find themselves in the same circumstance so often to come forward and perhaps have the same protection.

One of the groups that came before the committee was the certified general accountants, another group in our province who do some very excellent work out there on behalf of so many of us and organizations and groups in the province that deserve the same consideration. As a matter of fact, I was very happy at committee to hear members of the government say they would be more than happy and willing to entertain the certified general accountants in their attempt to have the same kind of coverage apply to them. Ms Ross, from Hamilton - I'm not sure of the exact name of the riding -

Mr Marchese: Hamilton West.

Mr Martin: Hamilton West - is on the record as saying that group should come forward, should present to her and her caucus and to the minister their information and concern and perhaps have that addressed as well. I would suggest that there are others who might stand to benefit as well. The law profession is one group that just jumps out at me.

I want to, for just a couple of minutes today, talk about the philosophy that underlies this bill, the theme that flows through it that interests me greatly. It's a philosophy, an underpinning, that was there when this Legislature a few years ago entertained some concerns, some experience from another group of people, businesses that found themselves before the courts charged with some health and safety regulation breach by a worker, and because of the huge lawsuit that was launched and won by the worker, found themselves not able to practise their business any more and went bankrupt. This government recognized at that time that was just a bit beyond the pale. That was, in many instances, somewhat unfair. So they brought in a piece of legislation that put in place the Workers' Compensation Board, that would allow workers who found themselves hurt on the job to have some expedient recourse to a body that would determine what the damages were and what it was that the worker needed to sustain themselves while they recuperated, and provided usually some opportunity for some retraining or education so they could get back to work again.

1700

I think everybody understood the very delicate balancing act that went into that piece of legislation, not unlike the very delicate balancing that goes on here, where somebody who has been wronged by a member of, in this instance, the chartered accountants profession, has the right to some recourse to the course of law to sue for damages, but not to take down the whole company, not to take down members of that company who had no knowledge of the wrong that was being done and were not directly or indirectly involved at all in the wrongdoing, that those people who were not culpable would not be harmed.

It was the same thing with the Workers' Compensation Board when it was set up, the same balancing, the same idea: trying to protect people, trying to be fair, trying to put in place vehicles that would allow those who have been damaged some recourse but, on the other hand, not to allow that damage to go so far as to completely destroy a company or a person who wasn't involved directly in that action.

I think that's good. But what we've seen by way of the track record of this government over the last three years is not of that ilk, is not of that nature, is not of that philosophy. They have very clearly, in their attempt to bring Ontario into a free market system, bring Ontario into the global economy in a way that by their estimation makes us more competitive, targeted some people who are at the end of the day very much innocent bystanders, innocent victims, people who are not directly involved in inflicting the pain that perhaps the economy of Ontario was feeling. I'm not quite so sure about that, given the very good times that the government says we're in, the very good times that the government says we should expect over the next few years.

To target anybody other than those who are responsible for the running up of a deficit, the running up of a debt, perhaps the building of empires that became in some instances maybe too unwieldy - I don't know; I'm not making judgements here. But to blame a group of people out there on the fringes, for the most part, of our communities these days - the poor, those people on assistance of various sorts - for all of the ills that this province is having to deal with now as it grapples with the issue of deficit and debt and spending and revenue, to blame it all on them and to target them unnecessarily harshly, as is being done, in my mind is not in keeping with the spirit of the bill that we have in front of us here today, which is to be very clear about who wronged whom, to be very clear about the opportunity for that person to have recourse, but not to scattergun out and hurt people who weren't involved, particularly those who had in some instances absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to have challenged the person who was causing the wrong to the corporation in the first place. I think that's just totally unfair.

It's happening to a whole lot of people. Some of you recognize, if you've been following the debate on the changes to the workers' compensation system in the province, that the field has now been tipped very clearly and seriously in favour of the business sector, industry, corporations, as they deal with their injured workers. Injured workers no longer have the same recourse to the kind of recompense that they had before when they found themselves hurt or whatever. Now they're left to their own opportunities to try and right themselves. That's unfortunate. It's moving away from the spirit of that law.

I would say to the chartered accountants that they should be wary. You're winning today. Today is a day when you can celebrate and feel good and be happy about this bill. But be wary that other governments don't come along and take away what you've won today for your profession, because it can happen like that. It happens around here quite often in that way.

It has happened here over the last three years to workers in this province. Things that they thought were cast in stone, that they won by way of the evolution of the Labour Relations Act in this province, that workers who found themselves injured on the job got through the Workers' Compensation Board with the gains that were made there incrementally, ever so slowly over a number of years, in a matter of three short years changed, a lot of it gone and not there anymore. So we have to be careful, we have to be watchful all the time.

It's depressing to see what's going on out there. The poor of the province very early in this government's history - this government; I don't mean previous Conservative governments, but this government - in the Common Sense Revolution were targeted, were pointed to as the cause of most of the economic ills, the fiscal and financial ills of this province. They were targeted, very clearly, as the people responsible. They were taken to court, so to speak, and found guilty, without ever actually having gone through that process. They had 21.6% of their income taken away, then the services that they depend on to support them in so many important and valuable ways out there in the community: counselling, homes that were affordable, a whole variety of things.

With each budget that comes out, with each statement from the Minister of Community and Social Services, we hear of more that's taken away from these folks - from their birthright, because they are Ontario citizens - to the point where we now have the poor forced to go to the streets because they can no longer get the assistance they need. They are forced out on to the streets. We see them when we walk up and down the streets of this fine city, sleeping in parks, sleeping on park benches, standing there with their hats out, forced to beg.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): You didn't have any of that when you were in government?

Mr Martin: Not in the same numbers, Mr Ford.

But now let me tell you what's happening to those people who have no other recourse but to beg. They're being taken to court. They're out there not because of anything that they personally have done that wronged somebody or that was wrong. They are the casualties of an economic system that seems satisfied with an unemployment rate that's somewhere between 8 and 12%. In my own community of Sault Ste Marie right now it's about 20%. An economic system that seems to be satisfied with that kind of unemployment pushes people who can't find work because there is no work out into a realm that none of us would ever want to be in but may find ourselves in at some point.

Being the very caring and interested human beings that we are, we find ways. If we go for assistance, we're told we don't qualify; if we go for assistance, we're told we only qualify for this much, and it's not enough. So where do we end up? Well, some people end up on the street with their cap in their hand, with their tin cup out for a few pennies that people walking by could drop in. And what happens in Ontario? Now these folks are going to be prosecuted.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The place is depleting itself. We need a quorum in this House. Would you please check for a quorum?

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1710

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I was saying that we have people now in Ontario forced to beg for their living. What I found today, when I was downtown and picked up a flyer from folks, is that they are now actually being prosecuted for doing that. Where's a person supposed to go any more in Ontario if you don't have what it takes to sustain yourself?

Just let me read this to you:

"Every day in court homeless people are being prosecuted by the TTC and handed fines as high as $200 for simply seeking spare change on TTC property."

I've been to other cities and I've seen panhandlers, but I have never seen panhandlers as friendly as the panhandlers you have on the streets of Toronto. I haven't. To suggest for a second that they pose a threat of any sort to anybody is beyond the pale. It's just not true.

"Most are described as standing silently, cap in hand or sign at their feet, seeking a bit of spare change for a coffee or a meal. Most cannot be in court to answer to these charges. They have no address to mail the court notice to, so there's no one to speak up on their behalf. The `justice' rubber-stamps the conviction, the fines build up and jail time awaits that homeless person who will be unable to pay the hundreds or thousands in fines.

"Why are the homeless being punished? The TTC insists it is simply enforcing the anti-soliciting bylaw. Yet why are the homeless being denied the right to do what buskers, charitable organizations and advertisers do daily on the TTC?"

Which brings me to my point. Where do these people go to have their concerns addressed? Where do these people go for recourse at a time when we have a government in power that forever is taking away when it comes to the poor?

Every time we get a bill passed that concerns social assistance or social welfare, it's takeaway time, it's reduction time, it's kick-them-in-the-butt time. Where do they go?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I can only have one speech at a time. We'll give you a couple of minutes later on.

Mr Martin: A few years ago, when companies and injured workers found themselves locked in combat over who owed who what and what was fair, they came to the government, and the government addressed that concern by bringing in a piece of legislation that became the Workers' Compensation Act, which is playing out in Ontario today - mind you, being diminished by this government in a very serious way to no longer be as helpful to the workers as it was.

Where do the chartered accountants go when they need redress, when they look at some of the companies that are part of their organization and find that there are lawsuits now coming, more and more every day, that target the whole company in a way that puts very honourable professional people, working very hard to make a living, under threat? Where do they go for redress? They come to the Legislature, and with some help from the government side, with some assistance from the opposition through a process of bringing the bill forward, going to committee and hearing from people, we put together a piece of legislation that deals with that.

That's why I'm happy today to stand here and say that I will support this bill, because it's been through the appropriate and proper process and we've all had a chance to look at it. It will redress a very real concern. It will have looked at both sides of the issue, in this instance, and made sure on one hand that consumers who buy their service are confident that they will get the best of service in almost every circumstance, and if they don't, there will be insurance in place to make sure that they get compensated for that. But people who are innocent simply by way of association will no longer be hammered because of the ill activity of one of the members.

My appeal to the government in supporting this bill is that they will take the spirit of this bill and apply it more readily to everything else they do.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the honourable member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker, for your kindness, of course, in granting me some time to speak to Bill 6. I will continue from where my friend from Sault Ste Marie left off and add a few things.

I've got to tell you, today it seems that many of us are in a very charitable mood. In this regard, the chartered accountants are very lucky because we have nothing but good things to say about them today and about the government. Under normal circumstances I have been inclined to be a little more combative against this government, as you have observed from time to time, sitting in the chair. We often have the opportunity to remark on the larger picture stuff because often governments would like us to isolate and compartmentalize issues and not remind the general public about the larger stuff that really matters. You always have to put things into context, as I normally try to do.

You will recall Bill 26, a very anti-democratic bill. It was a very autocratic kind of bill that speaks to the nature of this government. It gives power to ministers. But I would have spoken at length, is what I wanted to say, about these things because there's so much to say on these issues of anti-democratic procedures and autocracy.

These people exemplify those characteristics very well. You will recall the callous disregard for the people of Toronto when they amalgamated the city of Toronto with all the other cities; the changes in election financing these people are proposing that will give Conservative ridings the ability to raise up to 90,000 bucks. This benefits Tories, you know that. It doesn't benefit us. I find it a very anti-democratic change that the Chair of Management Board is likely to introduce in this place. We're going to fight that when the time comes. Changes to the rules of this assembly which give us less time to speak in the House have been anti-democratic, in my view; the scandalous dealings of casinos in Niagara. As my friend from Welland-Thorold said, "That deal stinks to high heaven." We, through our leader, Howard Hampton, have been raising this issue on a daily basis, trying to get this government to account for those dealings. There is so much there.

But I have decided today that it isn't worth being combative all the time, that it's good from time to time to be charitable. It's a rare thing indeed that this government introduces a bill that has no controversy, or very little controversy. It doesn't happen very often in this place. As many of the regular viewers know, we have fought this government on a steady basis on almost everything they have done, from the education changes they call reform, which I as a former teacher and trustee have witnessed are a disaster for our children, our parents and our teachers; to changes to our health care that in my view and in the view of many who have had to experience the disastrous cuts to hospitals - they know this government has not been too friendly to the general population out there.

Today they introduced something that is less controversial. You have Mike Harris, the normally pugilistic kind of guy, the normally vituperative man, turned very gentle from time to time. The pussycat comes out, and I like to see it every now and again because it's part of who we are as humans. It isn't right that the Premier of this province is hell-bent on being pugilistic against every interest group - except those who are very wealthy, of course - and that's why we fight him on a regular basis.

1720

We fought him, as you know, on the whole notion of giving billions of dollars away to people who don't need it. Those are not interest groups, I would argue; those are just his buddies. Everybody else - the cuts to the poor, the cuts to hospitals, the cuts to education, the attacks on tenants through the so-called tenant protection package, and the cuts to workers' compensation, now renamed something else, meaning they are going to receive 5% less benefits. God, there isn't a soul this man hasn't touched, except his buddies that he wants to give hefty tax cuts to, in the order of $5 billion. The ones who really benefit, of course, are the top 6%, who get a whopping two billion bucks. Talk about lining the pockets of a select interest group.

Normally you would hear me attack him on those matters, but today we've got another issue and I'm being kind, for two reasons. First, we are under the watchful eye of chartered accountants who have been in this assembly listening to our remarks, taking notes so they could come back and chat with us in the event that we perhaps did not interpret this bill correctly. Under that watchful eye, people like me are very careful, obviously.

More important, I'm a little more charitable today because I attended the celebration of the life of Dan Leckie. As some of you know, he died several days ago. He was a former city councillor, a friend of mine and a friend of many. Five hundred people attended this celebration of Dan Leckie's life. He was described by one of the speakers, Gordon Cressy, as a gentle giant. Indeed this man was a gentle giant.

But I was not feeling very well today in thinking how fragile life is, how fleeting life can be and how easily someone could just leave this earth in a matter of days, as our good friend has done. It is these things that humble me and give me a sense of my own humility and my own limited time in this place. So from time to time I go after these guys with a great deal of passion and pepper, but today it has been toned down by that event I attended today. I just wanted to mention to those watching that Dan Leckie was indeed a gentle giant, a very humble man with great ideas. Five hundred of us honoured his life and his accomplishments today, and I wanted to mention that.

But on the issue at hand, we clearly agree with Bill 6, a bill that "provides for the formation of a new type of legal entity, a limited liability partnership." In limited liability partnerships, partners "are not personally liable for the negligent acts of another partner or an employee who is directly supervised by another partner. However, the partnership continues to be liable for the negligence of its own partners and employees." In this regard, we are very supportive of this.

I am told, and I have no reason to disbelieve the minister, that public education will indeed happen in this regard. We know that most consumers would not have a clue about what a limited liability partnership means and the implications it might have to them, but I am told by the minister that they are obliged - he may have announced this in the House; I'm not sure - to explain to the consumer when they meet with them or are engaged in some kind of work with them what this means.

The other matter I wanted to raise is the fact that there are three requirements here that I think are reasonable requirements that they must face, including, which is important to me, the second bullet of this, which says that the professional governing body must establish "mandatory minimum insurance coverage." I believe that gives a good deal of protection or should give some protection to consumers. I'm not quite sure what "minimum" means, but I am going to assume that it's sufficient to protect the interests of consumers.

I was somewhat disappointed that they didn't include the certified general accountants, and in the letter we have, and I'm sure the minister and others have, dated May 8, they say, "We believe that this is an omission" - meaning they have been omitted from this bill - "which should be rectified as there is no reason to treat the two accounting designations differently."

I am tempted to argue that this is true. I'm in agreement with this. I'm not quite sure why they were left out, although the minister argued that they can, through a change to their own act, do this on their own without having to have another bill here to do that. On the other hand, I think it might have been a whole lot easier had they both been included at the same time without having to force them to go through another process, which may or may not be too complicated, perhaps the minister might argue, but it certainly would have been a lot easier.

The certified general accountants also argue to Minister Tsubouchi, "Limited liability partnerships should not be limited to the larger firms. Limiting the benefits of limited liability partnership status to the larger firms is uncompetitive and unfair to smaller firms."

They raise interesting points. They may or may not be true, I'm not sure, but it's at least a question they ask and a point they make that seem to me a reasonable point. I'm assuming this is beyond our ability to control or to convince the minister that it should be corrected. On the other hand, we hope that certified general accountants will be able to change the act in order to allow them to have the same status as certified accountants.

I think this is a good bill. I commend the government on this very rare kind of bill that has me agreeing with them, because generally I'm in complete disagreement with much of what they do.

I will leave time to my other two colleagues to make some comments as well.

Mr Lessard: I'm pleased to be able to enter into the debate with respect to Bill 6, An Act to amend the law with respect to Partnerships.

What I need to point out at the outset is that this is a bill that amends the Partnerships Act, but only does so with respect to chartered accountants. One of the things I would like to raise during the course of this debate is the application of the Partnerships Act to other types of partnerships.

As you're aware, I'm sure, I am a lawyer in one of my other hats, other than the time I spend here as a member of provincial Parliament, which is pretty substantial. It's a pretty substantial part of my time, I should let you know. The other part of my time I do involve myself in a partnership with a lawyer in Windsor, Deluzio and Lessard Law Firm. My partner's name is David Deluzio. We on occasion discuss the possibility or the eventuality of having the limited liability partnership provisions, similar to what is being proposed in this act, applying to lawyers.

The Law Society of Upper Canada and the Canadian Bar Association - Ontario have been lobbying the government to make those changes with respect to limited liability partnerships for lawyers. We suspect that legislation will be forthcoming shortly to deal with that issue.

However, what we're dealing with here today is limited liability as it pertains to chartered accountants, which is something that I support. I would have supported as well having this bill go to committee to address some of the concerns members of the public, consumers, may have with respect to the idea of limited liability. Although many of us come in contact with chartered accountants or other types of accountants, CGAs as well, at times when we have to do our income tax, and when we as members of provincial Parliament run for election and need to have accountants look at our election finances statement as well, although we do have contact on occasion with accountants, as far as how they organize their business is concerned, that's something that the public generally doesn't understand to a great extent.

1730

I know there are chartered accountants here with us today, but I think it's important that when this legislation is passed, which I suspect will happen very shortly, they do what they can to educate the public, to engage in a public awareness campaign to tell the public what it means to have limited liability. Some people may be concerned that limited liability may mean that if they have a claim or if they've had some problems in dealing with their accountants that have caused them some loss, they may feel they may not be able to recover to the extent of the total damages they've experienced.

But I'm led to understand that accountants do have to have errors and omissions insurance, the same as lawyers have to have, and if there are consumers who may have a claim for professional negligence, that's something that would be covered by and large by insurance. What this bill is really all about is limiting the personal liability of partners for the negligence of another partner. It protects the personal assets of an innocent partner, which I think is a good idea. It doesn't mean that persons who may experience a loss because of the negligence of an accountant aren't going to be able to recover any damages, because we know that accounting partnerships by and large have substantial assets that could be subject to satisfying claims of individuals who may suffer loss.

That's something that accountants really need to bring to the attention of the public. But as I said, it's a good concept. It's something that should be extended to lawyers. It should be extended to architects as well, and other professionals who undertake their business as partnerships.

The formation of corporations has been around for a number of years, and we know that one reason corporations are established is to limit the liability of those people who invest in corporations. Corporations are entities that have been created by legislation. They only exist by virtue of legislation like the Business Corporations Act. They were created to satisfy a particular business need many years ago.

But for some reason certain types of professional organizations haven't been able to have that opportunity to operate their business as corporations. Accountants were one of those groups that haven't been able to do that. In fairness, considering the protections that are available through liability insurance and professional business practices, accountants, lawyers, architects and others, who really perform their functions in a manner similar to corporations, should be afforded the limited liability protection that corporations have. Many may argue that they should have the same income tax benefits that corporations have. Why should large corporations get the benefit of what may seem to be an unfair tax advantage compared to professionals who operate their business in the same manner, as accountants do?

Those were the brief remarks I wanted to raise today, Speaker. I thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I want to leave the remainder of my time to my very good friend, mon frère, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: Merci, Monsieur le Président et mon cher collègue membre de cette très honorable profession.

I take pride and pleasure in closing the debate on this very important piece of legislation, for you are the first to acquiesce in the common sense that Bill 6 provides you.

What Bill 6 does, in a few broadly summarized words, it simply provides for a new type of legal entity, that of a "limited liability partnership" whereby the force of the partnership, the resources, the wealth associated with that entity in that context, is open to scrutiny and recourse. But what you have is a limitation, and we would hope that the government in their wisdom - I hope I'm not overreacting - would apply the same common sense to other professions which are jeopardized.

They too have a system of compliance, of self-monitoring, and at times, with respect to you and your tenure, Speaker, if I dare say, the best way to have compliance is to ask the profession to do so. The doctors do it. You have under errors and omissions some protection if you see your friendly advocate, your friendly barrister, solicitor, lawyer, notary to the public elsewhere. But for the chartered accountant you have a parallel with validity, you have the same thing, a body that looks at themselves, a body that monitors compliance, and you have the possibility of insurance, hence protection for the client.

I commend you for being here for the duration. Bill 6 is not for some the most exciting of legislation. It is not catalytic. It's not going to make or break Parliament. One could say it's not filled with human dimension.

When the member for St Catharines was talking about Bill 6 and a range of other matters which had little relevancy, I could see the pain in the pages' faces. They began to roll their eyes, then to agonize. I felt quite sorry; it was their second day and I thought they would leave us in droves never to come back -

Ms Martel: The third day.

Mr Pouliot: The third day, I'm sorry.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): What bill was that?

Mr Pouliot: Bill 6. It's important if you're in the profession, if you're a client. I heard many lawyers who are also politicians, members of the assembly, talk about Bill 6 this afternoon. They have a close association with chartered accountants. I know, and the record will attest to that, that lawyers see chartered accountants far more often than you see them. They're an honourable profession, and when some of them are politicians, I can understand that it does not always draw the best of people's reactions. You have the favour of the general public. People know that you provide an essential service, not only to those who can afford your kind of special, welcome expertise, but through the human dimension, through some statutes you're asked quite often to explore a range which is forever getting larger.

1740

When we talk about limited liability partnerships, and others have done it, I wish you to bear with me. Question period for the past two weeks has been focused on one very special limited partnership - allegedly. You've heard it happen: $48,000; the Latner Group; integrity has been put into question. In the minds of some citizens of Ontario, this kind of limited partnership does not bode well, does not augur well, does not represent what is best in terms of partnership. Ontarians generally are not part of that limited partnership.

Limited partnership: Go and ask the 126,000, the most educated group in the province, our educators. They had a partnership with the two previous governments. By and large it was a healthy partnership, but as the government of the day moved up the food chain, starting with the welfare recipients - they have no partnership at all. They've been asked to go. They were given not a hand up but the back of the hand. It has been said that they choose that lifestyle. I know that New Democrats dislike poverty, but we don't hate the poor.

Limited partnership: For the rich and famous, for the wealthy they have a special partnership. As for the rest of us, if it's the poor against us, we have a liability partnership. We're left holding the bag from time to time. We're asked to pay for those. We're asked to pay for $4.6 billion of new borrowing. That was done right before this bill that we just voted on, Bill 15. Of course we voted against it. We don't think it's right to borrow money when you have a recovery.

Your parents probably told you, Speaker - I don't know you that well - "Pay your mortgage, pay your debt first," and then you can lower taxes. Would they listen? From the time they took office to the time they leave, the province will have accumulated an extra $20 billion in liabilities, in debt. Yet, if they had taken the money from the tax cut that benefits you know who, they could have cleared up the debt.

I ask the professional chartered accountants, with all due respect for yourselves and for your tenure, if you were to advise the government when you open the books and see the opportunity that a recovery avails them, would you not - I know you can't answer but I know you wish to - advise them to pay down the debt? That's the way I was raised. I have one credit card - I'm of moderate means - and when I get near my $5,000 limit - that's all they'll allow me, but that's another story - do I go and throw a big party or do I pay the card down? You're not from Harvard. I pay my debt down. That's how I stay alive. That's how I defend myself. It gives me a lot of latitude.

This government, $20 billion more, add to it the liability, some $32 billion, of Ontario Hydro, plus they have borrowed under the Canada pension plan provision, plus they will need another $8 billion to $10 billion to fix the mess of Darlington, another nuclear plant. I'm going to tell you, if I followed their philosophy, those people would have myself and my family in the poorhouse inside one generation.

They can't manage the books. They can't manage the boutique. If you can't do it, why don't you revert back to the previous government and we'll show you how to do it? Why should we have to wait until the next election? When you're this insolvent, when you truly lack the desire and perhaps the knowledge to administer, when you don't wish to listen to the bond rating agencies - simply put, in street parlance, if it came to a price-earnings ratio, they would be less than uno. If it came to a debt-equity ratio, what's happening to the cash flow, they would be out to lunch.

Why should we have to carry the guilt of those inefficiencies, of those people who cannot? The money is coming in, it's rolling in, yet the previous bill, under part V, allows them to go and borrow $4.6 billion. It's all a big coincidence, but the $4.6 billion represents almost all five or six instalments of the tax cut. Why don't they put it against the deficit? Once they balance the books, then they could say, "Okay, we're paying $9.5 billion worth of coupons." Does it make more sense? You pay more for coupons than you pay for education in the province of Ontario. Does that make sense to you? The money's rolling in and they're $20 billion more in debt than when they took office, and they're trying to convince the people that they're really good managers of prosperity. They're not.

At the same time, if you travel this vast and magnificent province, from the wonderful, diverse county of Renfrew - and I see that the dean of the House has blessed us with his presence today - to the shores of Hudson Bay to southeastern and southwestern Ontario, people are echoing the same sentiments. They can't see it on their paycheques, because they either make too little money to appreciate the tax cut or the Liberal federal government takes it away for employment insurance premiums and the Canada pension plan. You don't see it.

What you see is your limited partnerships. What you see is your schools, the heart of the community, your local hospitals; you see more user fees if you're a senior. You no longer look to the future with confidence. They tell you there is a recovery? Let's go for a little walk and you will see more poor people than ever before, because they have created a climate of winner take all. The rich get richer, the middle class gets eroded and the poor are left holding the bag.

That's not a recovery. Traditionally, a recovery meant that everybody benefited. When the cycle hit the positive, we all benefited. Now what we see is a growing gap between the haves, the middle class and the have-nots. If you adopt a policy that encourages this kind of endeavour, you do so at your own peril. It will matter not what your background is. What will matter is what your state of affairs is. If you miss out on this opportunity when times are prosperous, what will happen to us? The anxiety that the less fortunate, the marginalized and even the middle class are experiencing at this time will lead simply to fear when there is a recession or a relative slowdown. I fear that the likelihood of having the same philosophy applied to Ontarians will likely not be with us.

I'm disappointed that the government has not opted to pay down the deficit, to start addressing the debt, which is a burden to each and every one of us, but in lieu has chosen a quick fix to satisfy the appetite of the insatiable, for it does not benefit the middle class or the working poor nearly to the extent of those who are the most fortunate. A missed opportunity, and they will be judged harshly, for this is the legacy that this government has chosen. Oh, they will say to the electorate, "We're all seeking the same port, the same destination, it's just that philosophically we have chosen to take a different route to reach our destination." It won't wash. It will not be good enough.

From time to time, in conclusion in this House, we have the opportunity to reach unanimity. You're very much aware that in our great system, that of a constitutional monarchy, confrontation is often the order of the day. This is the way our system is. There is them and there is us. We tend to rotate in this House. This lot would wish to stop the rotation. I can assure you that we will need a lot more of the likes of Bill 6, a lot more cooperation among the parties, and while you're at it, why don't you dose the legislation with the human dimension, for nothing else matters.

Heck, if I may be so bold, if I can't look to the future with confidence, if it's not my place in the sun when revenues are coming in, when will it be my place in the sun? Today it's your day - cause for celebration, and why not? Cherish. The opportunity has passed and the government has seized it. It's a good moment. Limited partnership for tomorrow for those who should be included in a partnership.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Tsubouchi has moved third reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the law with respect to Partnerships. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

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

It being nearly 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 tonight.

The House adjourned at 1755.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

3 juin 1998