L069A - Mon 14 Dec 1998 / Lun 14 Déc 1998 1
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION
The House met at 1332.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
PREMIER OF ONTARIO
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): As you know, Mike Harris was in Sudbury last Thursday evening for a PC fundraiser and on Friday an editorial appeared in the Northern Life with the headline "Why Won't Mike Harris Talk to Us?" Mike Harris has the gall to come into Sudbury and take out several thousands of dollars but he won't spend time talking to the media, talking to Northern Life. We in Sudbury think that's an insult, but it isn't surprising when you consider that in reality Mike Harris doesn't talk to very many people across Ontario. What he does is take a jar of loonies around and visit from place to place, and he talks about loonies. One person in Sudbury reminded me this week that it would only be a loonie who would take a jar of loonies around.
The reality is that it is surprising that the Premier of the province won't talk to the people he is supposed to lead and represent. Why won't he talk to the Northern Academic Health Science Network and assure them that their funding will be in place so that there won't be a doctor shortage across the north? Why won't he talk about cancer care funding? Why won't he commit to ensuring that there is enough money for cancer care in Ontario? He hasn't made that commitment to date.
Why won't he talk about the need for the Ministerial Travel Accountability Act so that, without question, one never has to worry about the reputation of the cabinet of this province, and why won't he talk to the nurses about a bill of rights?
Mike Harris is happy to take money out without giving anything back.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Harris government will use and abuse taxpayers' dollars every which way it can when it comes to advancing their own partisan interests.
We know that the $600,000 payout of hush money that was forced on to the taxpayers of Ontario by the members of the government side of the Board of Internal Economy follows on the heels of an orgy of spending to the tune of millions of dollars. The meter's running and it's almost $50 million of taxpayers' money now that this gang here at Queen's Park has spent on incredibly partisan, clearly partisan, radio, television, newspaper and pamphlet advertising.
Where I come from the people can see through it; it's as transparent as all get out. They're sick and tired of having their taxpayers' dollars picked from their pockets so that Harris and his gang at Queen's Park can employ high-priced ad firms for glossy, slick ads - the furthest thing from the truth. The people know that the content of that advertising has no more relevance than the hype and spin that would accompany a new laundry soap or a new brand of toothpaste.
Most recently, the Tories admitted blowing $19,000 on focus group testings for a series of posters, the results of which resulted in zip, zero; $19,000 spent on more of the Tories' friends in the consulting industry.
Some Tory backbenchers have criticized the $600,000 payout. What have they got to say about the $50-million expenditure on partisan advertising by this government? It's time for them to stand up and speak out.
HEALTH CARE FUNDING
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In recent days, the provincial government has recognized the health needs of people in Wellington and Waterloo region and has responded with a healthy infusion of new funding and a commitment to significantly enhance local health services.
Last week, the Minister of Health announced almost $800,000 in new funding for our three hospitals in Wellington: Louise Marshal in Mount Forest; Palmerston and District and Groves Memorial in Fergus. This extra funding will assist the hospitals with their operating budgets.
In addition, as part of a $39.2-million investment, a new cardiac care centre and a cancer centre will be established in Waterloo region. The minister has also approved a magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, machine for Grand River Hospital.
With these new services, patients will receive earlier diagnosis and be able to receive better and more timely treatment closer to home.
In its editorial on December 5, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record wrote, "Waterloo region's response to health minister Elizabeth Witmer's decision to locate a cardiac care centre here should be straight from the heart: appreciation and relief."
Although the opposition parties have been saying that health spending in Ontario has been cut, this is simply not the case. Since 1995, when the current government assumed office, health care spending has increased by some 8.5%. The truth is, the only government to cut health spending has been the federal government.
I want to publicly thank the Minister of Health for the dedication, competence and integrity she has brought to her job and the impressive results she has achieved.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Last week, I asked the Minister of Education why they were once again forcing teachers into the rushed purchase of equipment; in this case, 10 days of time given to teachers to purchase $10 million worth of science equipment for the secondary school curriculum. Somewhat to my surprise, it seems the Minister of Education was not aware they had launched this new buying spree for school equipment. The minister's answer said that the secondary purchase is not yet underway, that the materials being purchased are at the elementary school level.
This government is rushing headlong into another fiasco with its spending of taxpayers' money, much like the fiasco in spending money on textbooks last spring when teachers had all of 10 days to two weeks to choose their materials, and yet the minister didn't even know that they were launched into it. It is incredible. You wonder who indeed is running the show over there.
There is even confusion now about exactly what curriculum teachers are supposed to buy the equipment for. The ministry's document said it isn't for the new curriculum, that it matches the old curriculum but should be usable with the new curriculum. Teachers are being told it's not for the new curriculum. No wonder, because teachers haven't seen the new curriculum yet, so how can they know what equipment to purchase to go with a curriculum they haven't even seen yet?
Voices from trustees to teachers, to parents even who are calling for reform, are now saying: "Slow down, government. Don't implement this curriculum until you can get it right. Stop making guinea pigs of students for your public relations purposes." They should delay the introduction of the secondary school curriculum.
1340
RIVERDALE HOSPITAL
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Everybody here knows about the decision by the government to close down Riverdale Hospital, where 435 people who need chronic care live. They are chronic care patients. As of today we still have not heard back from the minister as to whether or not the hospital is going to be granted its request to, at the very least, get an extension on the closing date.
I know both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care met with the hospital staff recently, the hospital president, and these issues were discussed. It's my understanding that at that meeting the Minister of Health expressed concern about the patients there and led the staff to believe there would be a plan put in place which would include at least an extension of the closure date for that hospital to between 2003 and 2005, instead of 15 or 16 short months from now.
The staff there and the patients also want a guarantee that should the hospital be closed - and I hope it won't - the chronic care patients who are there will have an absolute guarantee of a place for them to be if they're ineligible for long-term care, which I can assure you most of the patients living at Riverdale Hospital will be.
I see the Premier has just entered the chamber. I have talked to the Premier personally about this issue and very much want to say to him today, and to all government members, Christmas is coming. Before we leave this House on Thursday, let's have a guarantee for the patients at Riverdale Hospital.
GALE MOSSMAN
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I rise today to recognize the efforts of Gale Mossman, chair of the board of directors of the Rouge Valley Health System. Gale is the first person to hold this position as a result of the amalgamation earlier this year of the Ajax and Pickering hospital and Scarborough Centenary Health Centre. Like our government, Gale is determined to ensure that the residents of the eastern GTA receive the best possible health care.
Since taking office, our government has provided millions of dollars in additional funding to Centenary and Rouge Valley, well beyond the funding levels of the previous governments. In two years, over $3.2 million has been provided to reimburse the hospital for the cost of restructuring, which was approved by both the boards and supporters of the two hospitals.
The funding is part of a five-year, $2-billion commitment to support the reform and modernization of Ontario's hospitals. The Centenary site of the Rouge Valley Health System has been designated as a regional pediatric centre for Scarborough and western Durham region. Centenary will be receiving a portion of the $186 million announced towards renovation and new construction of 15 hospital sites in Toronto. Centenary's share will go towards improvements to the neonatal intensive care unit to provide the best specialized care for the youngest members of our society. Just last week, another $6.8 million in supplementary funding was given to Rouge Valley. All these investments in our community demonstrate that our government is truly committed to the improvement of health care delivery.
I congratulate Gale Mossman and her board of directors for the efforts they're making to ensure that the residents of Scarborough and Durham benefit from our government's health care reinvestments, and I thank them for their continuing advocacy on behalf of the residents of my community.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): If you're thinking of purchasing a used car privately in Ontario, be very careful, for it is much too easy for car thieves to register stolen vehicles at Ministry of Transportation offices. The Ministry of Transportation makes it easy for car thieves to get stolen cars registered with no questions asked and then they are given all the documents which seem perfectly legal to the unsuspecting purchaser.
But beware, for in Ottawa, for instance, even the police bought a stolen vehicle. Thirty-five cars a day are stolen in Toronto alone - yes, every day - and then they are easily reregistered at your local Ministry of Transportation office and then sold to the unsuspecting Ontario public. Yes, the Ministry of Transportation helps these car thieves launder stolen cars by not asking any questions, not closing loopholes and by basically rubber-stamping documents for car thieves.
If you are thinking of buying a used car privately, be very careful and ask a lot of questions, for this government refuses to even acknowledge there is a problem. They say everything is fine. This ministry is not doing its job and the poor unsuspecting Ontarian buying a stolen car gets shafted as the car thief and the provincial government tell us all, "Everything is just fine; everything is OK."
Ministry of Transportation, wake up, do your job, protect the Ontario public.
HOSPITAL FUNDING
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): While the government backbenchers continue to mouth the mantra that all is well in health care, I will continue to bring to the attention of this government the fact that health care in Hamilton is suffering badly.
Just a few weeks ago, I raised with the House the issue of the headlines on the front page of the Hamilton Spectator that said, "Hospitals Crippled by Huge Deficit: Patient service cuts likely." That was as a result of your cutting funding to our hospitals. On Friday, the headline in the Hamilton Spectator was, "Major Hospital Layoffs Ahead: Job cuts coming early in the new year." There are 8,000 workers at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. Almost one in four is likely to lose his or her job.
When we lose front-line service jobs in health care, that means service is cut. If you don't get it, it means that health care services in Hamilton are going down the tubes because of what you're doing. You've left the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp over $36 million short this year alone. When your minister came into town and announced the funding for her restructuring plan, which we didn't ask for in the first place, we're going to be left paying a bill of almost $70 million. All of this is on top of the Chedoke emergency ward shutting down and St Peter's Hospital losing its status as a full-care chronic care hospital. The added insult was when St Peter's received not one long-term-care bed.
Shame on you, Harris. You're killing our health care system.
WOMEN'S SHELTERS
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): The fourth annual Judge Albert Marck memorial fundraiser for women's shelters was held the first week of December. This fundraiser raises monies that are donated to women's shelters in various locations throughout Ontario, including Hamilton. The fundraiser is the brainchild of Hamilton barrister Anthony McCusker and has become a great boost to shelters for abused women and their children across Ontario.
OnTV is a vital partner and airs a series of mock bail hearings to advertise these fundraisers. Talk 640 and Q107 have joined OnTV in promoting these fundraisers. In 1997 alone, these radio stations donated $10,000 worth of promotional air time.
In 1995, OnTV and Mr McCusker raised $2,500 for Inasmuch House in Hamilton. In 1996, $6,300 was raised for Interval House and Martha House in Hamilton. In 1997, the fundraiser, along with OnTV, went province-wide and $30,000 was raised in one night in 1997.
OnTV received the Television Station of the Year Award from the Ontario Association of Broadcasters for its participation. Mr McCusker was nominated as a finalist for Hamilton's Citizen of the Year Award.
This year, broadcaster Matt Hayes, Hamilton Tiger-Cat football players Darren Flutie and Danny McManus, and myself participated in a series of mock bail hearings which were aired on OnTV on December 1 through 4, 1998. A record $35,000 was raised for 10 women's shelters.
I would like to congratulate all involved for their participation.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MOULD CONTAMINATION IN PORTABLE CLASSROOMS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (CONTAMINATION PAR LA MOISISSURE DANS LES CLASSES MOBILES)
Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 98, An Act to protect the health of pupils and teachers against the effects of Stachybotrys atra mould in portable classrooms by making amendments to the Education Act / Projet de loi 98, Loi visant à protéger la santé des élèves et des enseignants contre les effets de la moisissure Stachybotrys atra dans les classes mobiles en apportant des modifications à la Loi sur l'éducation.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The bill requires school boards and operators of private schools to conduct regular invasive testing and inspections for Stachybotrys atra mould contamination in portable classrooms. If mould contamination is found, it must be cleaned up or the pupils must be moved to another classroom.
BALANCED BUDGET AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE ET LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES
Mr Harris moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 99, An Act to ensure that the Provincial Budget is a balanced budget, to protect taxpayers against tax increases and to establish a process requiring voter approval for proposed tax increases / Projet de loi 99, Loi garantissant l'équilibre du budget provincial, protégeant les contribuables des augmentations d'impôt et établissant un processus d'approbation des projets d'augmentation d'impôt par les électeurs.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, 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 1351 to 1355.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Arnott, Ted Agostino, Dominic Baird, John R. Bartolucci, Rick Bassett, Isabel Boushy, Dave Caplan, David Carr, Gary Carroll, Jack Clement, Tony Colle, Mike Cordiano, Joseph Crozier, Bruce Cunningham, Dianne Curling, Alvin Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Duncan, Dwight Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve |
Grandmaître, Bernard Grimmett, Bill Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hodgson, Chris Hoy, Pat Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Kennedy, Gerard Kwinter, Monte Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Marland, Margaret Martiniuk, Gerry McGuinty, Dalton McLeod, Lyn Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Parker, John L. Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry |
Preston, Peter Pupatello, Sandra Rollins, E.J. Douglas Ruprecht, Tony Sampson, Rob Saunderson, William Shea, Derwyn Skarica, Toni Smith, Bruce Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Wettlaufer, Wayne Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Boyd, Marion Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn |
Hampton, Howard Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley |
Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 8.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The bill enacts the new Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Protection Act, 1998. Beginning with the 2001-02 fiscal year, the executive council must plan for a balanced budget and the Minister of Finance must present a balanced budget to the assembly.
Just a few little highlights: If there's a deficit, the salary payable to members of the executive council under the Executive Council Act is reduced. The new rules on taxpayer protection are established with respect to tax increases and new taxes. Before a tax rate can be increased or before a new tax can be imposed and before the authority to tax can be given to another person or body, there must be a referendum authorizing it.
I have a statement on this for later and I'll explain more fully at that time.
TOBACCO CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC
Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 100, An Act to amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 100, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): This bill amends the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, to make it an offence for a person under 19 years of age to purchase or be in possession of tobacco. This bill will hopefully address a very serious problem out there, a very serious health care concern.
At the same time the bill will also make another change to the existing Tobacco Control Act. At present, no person is allowed to sell or store tobacco in a place where a person has committed two tobacco sales offences. This bill will provide for an exception for a person who is not related to the person convicted of an offence. The bill also prohibits the person convicted of tobacco sales offences from selling or storing tobacco in any place of business.
1400
MOTIONS
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that Mr Cullen and Mr Barrett be removed from the standing committee on social development.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a bill that, if passed, will ensure that the provincial government never spends taxpayers' dollars recklessly again.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.
Hon Mr Harris: The Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Protection Act asks that provincial budgets be balanced. It asks that governments not be able to introduce a new tax or raise a tax unless they ask Ontarians if that is indeed what they want. It asks simply that governments of all stripes treat taxpayer dollars as carefully and as conscientiously as they would their own, and that they not be allowed to spend their way into debt, then casually increase taxes to pay for their spendthrift ways.
We must always remember this money is not our money. It's theirs. It's Ontarians'. It's taxpayers'. And indeed we have a sacred trust to handle it wisely and to handle it well.
When our government took office three years ago, we inherited a situation where we were spending $1 million more an hour than we were taking in. Since then we have worked hard to balance the budget and we are on target to balance it by the year 2000-01, just as we promised to do.
We cannot condone a situation, and the taxpayers cannot condone a situation, whereby after all the hard work and all the tough decisions of the past three years, future governments could tax and spend and drive that deficit up yet again. This act proposes that beginning with the 2001-02 fiscal year a deficit may only be run in extraordinary circumstances such as natural disaster or war.
Under normal circumstances, this legislation proposes that the budget must balance. If not, there will be personal financial penalties for the Premier and members of cabinet, with up to 50% reduction in their executive council pay. We would be held accountable.
The act proposes that the government receive the voters' permission before introducing any bill that imposes any new tax or increases the rate of personal income tax, corporation taxes, retail sales tax, employer health tax, gasoline or fuel tax, or education property taxes.
This bill is not unreasonable. It simply proposes that governments do what average working families do every day all across Ontario: balance their budgets, pay their debts, spend within their means. Spending within government's means does not mean simply raising taxes and taking away even more money from families' take-home pay. Ontarians deserve more; they deserve better. I know each one of us who pays our taxes, those of us in this Legislature and the working men and women of this fine province, would much rather our tax dollars be spent on health or education or children's services than on servicing a debt. I know each of us would much rather our children and our grandchildren not be held accountable for the debt of past generations.
The Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Protection Act is the toughest and most comprehensive of its kind in Canada. I believe Ontarians deserve no less, and I hope this bill is deemed to be worthy of all-party support.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I am delighted to see that the Premier has finally found religion when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
As I understand it, we are now on a speedy track to be the last province in the Dominion to balance its budget. If this passes, Ontario is going to be the ninth province or territory to bring in balanced budget legislation, and this comes forward from a Premier who's added $22 billion to the provincial debt. The tax cut alone is adding $10 billion to the provincial debt. The tax cut alone is adding $6,000 to each Ontario household; $6,000 in additional debt to every household in Ontario.
When it comes to fiscal management, this government, after three and a half years, has achieved the same stunning, stellar credit rating as the NDP did during their term of office.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the finance minister come to order, please.
Leader of the official opposition.
1410
Mr McGuinty: As I say, I'm delighted that the Premier has found religion. I'm delighted he's caught up with Ontarians when it comes to the importance of balancing the provincial budget, but there are a couple of other areas that I hope the legislation addresses. It's just been handed to us, so I haven't had an opportunity to confirm whether these details are in it, but I am hoping that -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition.
Mr McGuinty: I'm hoping in particular that this legislation, for example, would prohibit this government from wasting $180 million on a contract for US consultants when that work could have been performed for far, far less in-house. I'm hoping as well that this legislation will prohibit this government from spending in excess of $47 million on political propaganda.
The Premier said in his statement today that the provincial government will never spend taxpayer dollars recklessly again. Then I'm sure that in this legislation there will be a provision forbidding him from spending money on political propaganda and also there will be something in this bill which retroactively denounces and prohibits the expenditure of $600,000 in connection with the Al McLean affair. If the intent here is to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers, then surely this bill will address those issues.
Also, it is my hope that this bill will talk about something in the nature of an irresponsible tax cut when we speak to the future, as we understand that public health care in Ontario has been gutted and that we have patients spending nights in hospital corridors, and that we have, in hospitals to this very day, workers who are burned out and ambulances that continue to be on bypass. Given those circumstances, I would hope of course that this legislation will prohibit irresponsible tax cuts, because it seems to me that a reckless tax cut is just as dangerous as a reckless tax hike.
It's also important that we talk about the $400 million that has been cut from post-secondary education in Ontario. It seems to me that, given the fact that we are now at the bottom of the pack when it comes to funding post-secondary studies, and everybody recognizes that post-secondary education is the means by which we're going to find success in the 21st century, this government will not proceed with an additional tax cut until it has restored funding to post-secondary education.
I also assume that this legislation specifically says this government will not proceed with an additional tax cut until such time as it restores funding at the primary level for junior kindergarten, and for adult education and for special education and until we have in place the funding formula -
The Speaker: Thank you.
Interjections.
Would the minister responsible for Management Board come to order, please. Thank you.
Responses, leader of the third party.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I and my colleagues are opposed to this phony bill and I want to make it perfectly clear why we are opposed.
On Friday, the chief coroner of Ontario brought down a report into the tragic death of Kyle Martyn. In that report the coroner makes some very pointed recommendations. Most of all, what he says is that this government has cut so much money from hospitals that they can't provide the emergency health care the people of Ontario need. At the next opportunity, what does the Premier do? Does he say he's going to address the health care deficit? No. He says he is going to entrench legislation which is going to ensure that we will have continuing health care deficits in this province.
This legislation is completely unbalanced. What it does: It gives a much higher status to a temporary budget deficit and tries to pretend that something called a health care deficit doesn't exist, that an education deficit doesn't exist, that an environmental deficit doesn't exist and that a social deficit doesn't exist in this province.
We've had three reports in the last two months, one by the United Nations, for God's sake, that says that a horrendous social deficit exists in this province, that the gap between the very few who are very rich and the many who are growing poorer grows day by day.
Then we had the report from the Centre for Social Justice which found the same thing: The Harris income tax scheme gives the families at the top of the income ladder an average of $15,000 a year. Families who are struggling get a whole $150 a year from the Harris income tax scheme.
Then there's the Golden report on why there are so many thousands of homeless in this province, why children more and more are going to food banks and why families are going to food banks. What's the priority of the Harris government? To put in place legislation which will ensure these horrendous social deficits, health deficits, education deficits and environmental deficits will continue into the future.
This is completely unbalanced legislation. But it gets worse than that. We have a Premier who gets up and he's going to lecture people on reckless spending of taxpayers' money, a Premier who has borrowed, in the last four years, $22 billion for no purpose other than to finance an income tax scheme that only benefits the wealthiest people in the province; a Premier who denies hospitals the funding they need while he spends now $50 million getting his mug on television so that he can tell people they should vote for him in the next election, all paid for by taxpayers' money; a Premier who's prepared to give $180 million to a corporation, Andersen Consulting, that has been disgraced in jurisdiction to jurisdiction, not just in Canada but across North America.
Then he's going to lecture on spending, when you're going to spend, squander, $600,000 of taxpayers' money for a private sexual harassment scandal that has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the taxpayers of the province. Shame on you.
But, Speaker, it gets worse than this. I put it to you and I put it to all the citizens of Ontario that what this is about is ensuring that in the future, when it comes to a contest between not having a temporary financial deficit and having good health care, good education, environmental protection and good communities, health, education, environment and communities will always lose.
Alberta: This government likes to talk about its friend Premier Klein in Alberta. Alberta today is going to shave $200 million off health care. It's going to cut money from child services, people with developmental disabilities, social assistance, and generally children's programs. Why? Because they might be faced with a temporary $200-million deficit this year.
That's what this is about. You put this legislation in place and forever health care, education, the environment, the strength and the productivity of our communities will be in last place. I think the people of Ontario deserve better. I think the people of Ontario want a better health care system, a better education system.
1420
ORAL QUESTIONS
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. When Kyle Martyn showed up in the emergency room back in February, he met with circumstances there that prevail in hospital emergency departments right across the province: That emergency room was crowded, there was a backlog of patients, ambulances were being redirected because they couldn't handle the load, there were no beds available, and there were burnt-out nurses working there.
There was a coroner's jury that looked into those particular circumstances and they placed the blame for those circumstances squarely on you and your government. They said that health care in Ontario is being compromised through underfunding. Will you stand up now, Premier, and accept responsibility for compromising health care in Ontario, for compromising the health care of Ontarians as a result of your underfunding?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can respond.
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think we need to keep in mind the very tragic situation that we have been dealing with, and I think it's important that we not further politicize or prolong that situation.
I had an opportunity personally on Friday, after the recommendations came forward, to meet with my staff here and determine how we would work with the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Hospital Association and also the Credit Valley Hospital to ensure that we could follow through on the recommendations in order that this situation would not occur again for any other family. I hope that it would be your wish as well, Leader of the Opposition, that you would work with us to ensure that those recommendations can be implemented.
Mr McGuinty: The solutions have been staring you in the face, Minister, for a long, long time. You cut $800 million from our hospital budgets. As a result, you created the kinds of circumstances that I just described, the kinds of circumstances that Kyle's parents had to face when they went to the hospital back in February.
You had a report prepared. It came out in April. That report specifically said the solution lies in putting some money back into the system and opening up some long-term-care beds. You said you were going to do that immediately. You waited six months before you came up with the money. It's been eight months now and not a single long-term-care bed has been opened, against the recommendations of that report, which specifically said you've got to open them up right now.
You said you were going to address these recommendations. In the paper on the weekend, you said you were going to address them immediately. It took you six months for the money. It's eight months now and there are no long-term-care beds yet. What does "immediately" mean to you now, when you're going to come up and follow these recommendations?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I guess the one way our government has been different from what you did when you were in office is that the problems are the same; however, unlike you, we actually are taking action to ensure that over the long term there is a plan of action to deal with the problems.
I can go back and read the headlines from 1985 to 1990, and we can see headlines that indicate that this emergency room situation is one that has been ongoing. What's different about what our government is doing is that we recognized in 1995 that we had to restructure health services in order that people throughout this province could have better service, more service. If you take a look at the recommendations the Health Services Restructuring Commission has made -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.
Hon Mrs Witmer: - you will see that in most cases they are identifying the need to expand the emergency wards across this province. I'm also pleased to say -
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm going to advise that you take the opportunity to look at the recommendations of the jury. The jury says that health care in Ontario has been compromised through underfunding. Objective, arm's-length, third-party, lay people had an opportunity to review the death of a young boy in Ontario. They heard expert evidence. They considered it carefully. Their conclusion was that these circumstances were created as a result of your underfunding. That's what this is all about.
The only thing you have done in any expeditious and efficient manner when it comes to health care was to grab $800 million and take it out. That's all you've done in terms of efficient and effective action in Ontario health care.
The jury is asking that you act immediately with respect to putting the money back into the system and getting those long-term-care beds up and running. How much longer are we going to have to wait in Ontario for you to do these things immediately?
Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at what the jury actually recommended, it said, "The public expects a certain level of health care, and the provincial government must ensure that it is not compromised through underfunding." The statement is actually a little bit different from what you seem to be saying.
I would submit to you that immediately upon receiving the recommendations on Friday, we took action. We consulted with our partners, we took action within the Ministry of Health, because we don't want to politicize this situation. We don't want to prolong this situation. We want to move forward and we are prepared to move forward on every one of those recommendations. In fact, if you take a look throughout this province, you will see that people in this province have better health services than ever before.
The Speaker: Answer.
Hon Mrs Witmer: There are more and they're closer to home. You will see dialysis closer to home. You will see more MRIs. We have three new cancer centres -
The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I want to speak to you about your $180-million, wasted expense to US consultants. Today in the public accounts committee we heard that you and your minister were asleep at the switch when it came to the basic provisions of a contract you entered into. This was the largest contract of its kind in the history of this province. We are told that apparently you weren't even aware, for example, that the contract said Andersen could charge up to $575 per hour.
The question to you quite simply is, if you didn't know anything about this, didn't you understand that you were effectively signing a blank cheque for US consultants?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can respond.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member knows that we have a technology system in welfare that provides welfare benefits and financial income for people with disabilities, that it's some 30 years old, that it's in serious need of reform. There has been no question about that. It would have been helpful if perhaps their government, when they were there, had started to make some of those changes, but unfortunately they didn't.
We knew the ministry did not have the expertise to make this kind of significant reform. What is also important is that we wanted to make sure we could continue to deliver those benefits to individuals at the same time as we were making those changes. So through an open bidding process, which was actually started under the previous government, the NDP, we went out to seek expertise to make sure we could undertake this reform. The Andersen Consulting company was chosen through the open bidding process, and we have proceeded with those reforms. Taxpayers are protected; there are caps on how much money can be charged. We welcome the recommendations from the auditor about how we can improve the process.
Mr McGuinty: I think the minister actually is defending this contract, 575 bucks per hour for a US consultant for work that could be done in-house for, tops, $70 an hour.
1430
On top of that - this is how bad it gets - Andersen had charged $1.4 million out-of-pocket expenses for accommodation, travel and meals, and according to the terms of the minister's contract, no receipts were required. This is a minister who won't trust welfare mothers with a nutrition allowance of $37 a month because she believes they're going to spend the money on beer, but on the other hand she's prepared to spend $1.4 million of taxpayers' money for expenses, with no receipts required, no questions asked. Again, Minister, how can you stand up and possibly defend this contract?
Hon Mrs Ecker: We have acknowledged quite clearly that the management of the contract left a lot to be desired; that's why the recommendations from the auditor's report. We have implemented -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.
Hon Mrs Ecker: To the honourable member, I don't know where he thought the expertise to fix this system was going to come from. We went out to get the best we could get, because we knew this was a major reform, an important reform. If he really thinks that kind of reform can be achieved for $70 an hour, he doesn't know much about the expertise required to make sure this technology system will indeed work.
The auditor has made recommendations about how to improve the management of that process, because it was mismanaged. We acknowledged that very clearly. That's why many steps have been taken to fix that. We also have an independent review underway that will ensure that none of these things happen again. We welcome any further recommendations the auditor might well have about the management of this contract or further reforms of this kind.
Mr McGuinty: When Andersen Consulting saw you coming, they thought: "Finally our ship has come in. We can get away with absolutely anything in this club. We've got a minister who is not paying any attention to the details."
The details, the fundamental provisions of the contract, apparently were going completely unnoticed. This was a $180-million contract, the largest of its kind in the history of this province. You told US consultants that they could charge up to $575 an hour; they could charge $1.4 million for expenses for food, travel and hotel and you would demand no receipts from them. How can that be, from a government that is so hell-bent on ensuring that we drive towards fiscal responsibility? How could you send $180 million out the door at a time when you can only afford to pay $11,484 in welfare to a single mother and her child every year here in Ontario? Tell me the difference between the two and how you justify the former.
Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the honourable member might want to try some facts. Nobody has received $180 million; $180 million has not, in his words, gone out the door, and if he says that, he knows he is not representing the facts in an accurate fashion.
Second, he also knows that the only payments that went to this company for the reform work they were doing, the only payments this company received, were from the savings that had already been achieved. So no payments were made and no payments will be made unless there are savings.
This is a $5-billion program. We have already saved, above and beyond anything Andersen has done, $2.8 billion for the taxpayers of this province. I am proud of that record. It's a substantial savings. That has allowed us to make the reinvestments in health care, for example, in child welfare and in Healthy Babies. It's because of those savings we have found for the taxpayers.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you will know that on Friday the coroner's office released their report on the tragic death of Kyle Martyn. There were nine recommendations in that coroner's report that were aimed specifically at your government. The coroner's report is very clear. It says that your government has cut so much money from hospitals that they can't provide the emergency health care the people of Ontario need. I'm directing this question to you, not to the Minister of Health, because again it's very clear that these are the so-called Common Sense Revolution cuts, the cuts out of health care to finance your income tax scheme.
Will you ensure that Kyle Martyn's death will not be in vain? Will you ensure that every one of the recommendations of the coroner's report is put in place now and put in place within the time lines recommended?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister should respond to this.
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would ask the leader of the third party to accurately represent what indeed the coroner did say. Again, there were 19 recommendations and nine of those were directed to the Ministry of Health. Others went to Credit Valley and others went to hospitals throughout this province. What they said was that they expect a certain level of health care and must ensure that it is not compromised through underfunding.
Also, in response to action taken, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I was in contact on Friday with the family. I did indicate, on behalf of the government, our sympathy to the family. I also indicated that we were responding and moving forward on all of the recommendations immediately.
Mr Hampton: This coroner's report is unlike any other probably in the history of Ontario in terms of going right at your government and making nine very specific recommendations. It condemned your hospital funding formula because it doesn't take into account population growth or the local needs of the community. You like to say that the high-growth areas are getting the hospital funding they need. People in Mississauga and Peel now have the evidence which says that isn't so.
The trouble with your off-the-cuff comment that you're going to do something about this is that you don't have a very good track record as a government when it comes to health care. You're wonderful at making announcements, in fact you're incredible at making announcements, but then we come along five months later, six months later, nine months later, and lo and behold, nothing has happened.
What we need to know - and frankly, I need to know this from the Premier. Premier, we need to know from you that the recommendations are going to be followed and they're going to be put in place now.
Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the leader of the third party that, unlike your government, the difference between what you did and what we're doing is that we are actually taking action. We're developing a long-term-care plan and immediate responses. If we take a look at the funding formula, the reality is we were asked that the Ministry of Health review the funding formula for Ontario hospital operating plans, and we are already doing that at the present time. That is being actively reviewed by the joint Ministry of Health-Ontario Hospital Association Hospital Financial Issues Advisory Group and they will be making recommendations
As you know, they have already made recommendations, and last Thursday we made an additional $100 million available immediately to hospitals through a transition fund. As well, there was an additional almost $300 million made available to hospitals to deal with the year 2000 problem. So our government -
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, it's very interesting that you now have promised to do something yet again. One of the very first promises you made when you were made Minister of Health was that you were going to create a vision for health care. A little late, with all the hospital closures and all the changes that have happened in terms of health care, you are ordered by the coroner's jury to, within 60 days, develop a mission statement that recognizes and promotes the delivery of health care in a safe, efficient and timely manner. You're ordered to do that within 60 days.
1440
You've had many, many months as minister to undertake your promise of providing a mission statement for health care. Can we be sure that within 60 days, now that all these hospitals have closed, now that long-term care is in a disastrous situation, now that we've seen a ratcheting down of all the health care in the province, you are finally going to tell us what the mission is for a health care system in Ontario?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just say to the member from the third party that indeed there has been absolutely no ratcheting down of health services. As you know yourself, the community in London that you represent has seen a tremendous increase, millions of dollars in increased funding. The most recent was for mental health services in London, which was very well received and a surprise to the community that they would get additional dollars. There was the announcement regarding pediatric oncology. If you take a look at the press release from the parents, again there was the indication that for 10 years people had asked for more funding for pediatric oncology and finally our government was responding.
As far as the statement is concerned, obviously you don't read our business plans because the business plans each year have a statement indicating the vision.
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Premier. Premier, last week we heard you in this assembly give a long list of excuses as to why your government was going to sanction the spending of $600,000 to bail one of your political buddies out of a private sexual harassment suit. You tried to tell us that the Legislature might be liable. You tried to tell us that the Legislature might have to cover some costs.
Later on that afternoon, the lawyer for the Legislative Assembly, a very good lawyer, in fact an expert lawyer in this particular area, released a letter which basically said that every excuse you gave in this Legislature was completely bogus. In fact, he said it is almost certain that members of this Legislature would not have to cover the cost of your backbencher Al McLean.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.
Mr Hampton: Premier, justify again why $600,000 in taxpayers' money is being spent to help one of your -
The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, to respond to the preamble, our government is not sanctioning or unsanctioning anything; we are simply leaving in the hands of the Legislative Assembly that which is in their domain.
Mr Hampton: I guess what people are hearing is the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Acting Premier, standing in the Legislature and defending the expenditure of $600,000 of taxpayers' money on what is a private sexual harassment suit. Unless people are watching television from some other planet, I think people are pretty clear that you're defending this action.
Here's the big problem: Three lawyers came before the Board of Internal Economy and said: "Look, you have no liability here. This is a private matter. Mr McLean can handle this, should handle this and legally must handle this. We know Mr McLean has the financial wherewithal to handle this. He should be paying this."
Premier, what is it that you're afraid of? Why don't you want Mr McLean to have to give testimony under oath? Why don't you want Ms Thompson to give testimony under oath? What is it that you're afraid of and that you want to keep out of the public view? Tell us, please.
Hon Mr Harris: I'm neither defending nor involved. If you're suggesting that you'd like the government to take over the affairs of the Legislative Assembly and the Board of Internal Economy, I would be very shocked and surprised at that. I think it ought to remain an independent body that operates independently from government. That's the case now and I've always favoured that.
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Premier, it's interesting that you're in such an all-fired rush to settle this case. Think of the case of Marion Dewar and Judith Hunter, the members of the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board whom your government wrongfully dismissed, as was found by the Divisional Court unanimously and the Court of Appeal unanimously. They ordered you in January 1998, almost a full year ago, to pay Ms Dewar $17,641 and Ms Hunter $11,051. Unlike good ol' Al, who has a good income, these women don't and you haven't paid a cent.
On October 29, the AG general counsel Dennis Brown wrote to their lawyers saying: "I apologize for not having responded sooner to your calls. I would have thought my clients," the Ontario government, "would have put me in funds by now. However, apparently some unexplainable problem arose. I might say the problem is yet to be discussed with me."
You have rushed to settlement with your friend Al McLean. These women are still waiting for a settlement that six judges in two court levels ordered the government to pay. What's wrong with this picture, Premier?
Hon Mr Harris: Since I have nothing to do with the Board of Internal Economy decision, I don't know what the relationship is. If you're bringing a case forward that has to do with the government, I'll be glad to look into it and get back to you.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Premier, who began the day by talking about protecting taxpayers' interests. My question is in regard to the Andersen contract worth $180 million, which is not the maximum. The Provincial Auditor said today that the ministry could not provide a basis for its agreement to pay Andersen a fee of up to $180 million; in fact the preliminary cost called for $50 to $70 million. We want to know, where did $180 million come from and how can you defend a contract which, according to what the deputy minister told us this morning at committee, you had no briefing on, no knowledge of, no details of until after the contract was signed by the deputy?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister will answer that.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't know if the honourable member across the way is asking for ministers to politically interfere in open bidding processes; if she is, she should say so. I think she will also understand that if she was there she could have asked the deputy minister the question. I understand she did. Obviously she wasn't listening to the answer.
We were very clear that the reform needed to be done. We recognized that trying to take a system that over a million people depend on for their livelihood, for their income, was going to be a very important reform and we were going to have to be very careful about how we did that. That's why they went out through an open bidding process. That's why references were checked. That's why they took a look and tried to get the best expertise we could for this particular program, to ensure the reforms were done properly.
Again, as the honourable member likes to ignore, one of the protections for the taxpayers here is that not one red cent goes to the consultant unless savings have been achieved. We believe in paying for performance; this contract very much was structured to do that.
Mrs Pupatello: That is completely inaccurate. In fact the references for this company were not checked, and that is in the Provincial Auditor's report today. The deputy confirmed that today.
What I will ask you, Minister, is how you can defend $180 million, which is just the beginning of this, only the tip of the iceberg. Your agreement that you apparently knew nothing of until after it was signed called for the support and reimbursement of additional costs, including computer hardware, purchase of third party software, production support, help desk services, annual application maintenance and any applicable taxes, in addition to the $180 million.
You may say that your system needed reform, but it did not say that you should hand over a blank cheque to a private company with no holds barred. How do you stand today and rationalize and defend a $180-million contract, the largest of its kind in the history of your ministry?
Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I would really like to caution the honourable member about checking the facts not only as presented to her today but as presented by the auditor a month ago when the same issue was raised by the auditor and was discussed in this Legislature. References were checked on this company, and to suggest that they weren't is trying to play fast and loose with what the facts really are.
1450
The second thing is we are looking at a $5-billion program here, that is, $5 billion of Ontario taxpayers' money. That money goes out to support people on welfare, people who have disabilities. It is important that they get their cheques on time. They depend on that money. We felt that it was appropriate to make sure that this reform of the system was done in a very appropriate fashion. That's why we were prepared to go out and get the expertise that we needed to do it. Perhaps the honourable member forgets, one does have to pay for this expertise; however, payment was made out of savings that were already achieved.
TORONTO OLYMPICS BID
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Premier concerning the finances of Toronto's Olympics bid. A forensic accountant named Charles Smedmor, a former senior manager at Price Waterhouse, says that it is headed for a deficit of close to $1 billion. Mr Smedmor says, for example, that the so-called Olympic stadium has been estimated by the bid committee to cost just $92 million. He says if you look at Sydney, Australia's Olympic stadium, it's projected to cost $690 million and he points out that SkyDome, when all the bills came in, cost over $600 million. It leads one to believe that Mr Smedmor knows what he's talking about.
Premier, can you guarantee the taxpayers will not have to pick up a deficit from the Toronto Olympics bid?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly that's one of the areas we are most strong on in negotiating agreements with the city of Toronto, which will be the lead proponent, and obviously there will be involvement of provincial and federal governments and the Canadian Olympic Association. But I can assure you that we have stated from our point of view - and I know that Morley Kells, who sits on the board and represents the province of Ontario, has these concerns uppermost in his mind.
I can also assure you that things are very preliminary at this stage. I think it's normal and healthy for there to be conflicting viewpoints from estimates of costs, but it's a little early at this point in time to deal with the preliminary estimates. Whether it's a permanent stadium, a temporary stadium, all these things are still being worked on.
Mr Hampton: Mr Smedmor has a worldwide reputation. He has been sent to different countries around the world to look at financial scenarios and he says an $890-million deficit at least. Premier, on a day when you come in here and introduce a so-called balanced budget bill, can't you give people more of an assurance, more of a guarantee that they won't be facing a deficit? I notice the people who are on this bid, Paul Godfrey and Trevor Eyton, if my memory serves me correctly, are the people who brought Ontario the huge deficit at SkyDome.
Premier, with an $890-million deficit already at this point, what are you going to do to assure the people of Ontario that they won't be picking up a $1-billion deficit after all of the Eytons and the Godfreys have had their good time?
Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate how fast and loose you are with people who have a significantly better reputation than do you or your party or your government when it comes to deficits. I'm actually surprised that you're worried about a deficit. It's the first time I've heard a New Democrat say they're actually worried about a deficit. You weren't worried about the $11-billion annual deficit that we inherited. You weren't worried in the four years between fiscal 1990-91 and 1994-95. You increased Ontario's debt per capita by 98% from $4,000 a person to $8,000 a person. You didn't seem particularly worried that you built on the Liberals' increase on the total debt from $30 billion to $40 billion and rapidly ran that up from 15% of GDP to 29% of GDP.
I can give you this assurance: I think if you look at the record of this government versus yours, if you look at the record of Mr Kells versus anyone you could possibly appoint, if you look at the reputation of the people involved, our commitment is that there will not be a deficit or a debt to the people of this province. I think it's in a lot better hands -
The Speaker: New question.
ADOPTION
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The member for Riverdale has introduced a private member's bill on adoption disclosure. This bill has passed second reading. Will you comment on your support of this bill, please.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member for Huron for the question. She has been involved in this issue. I'd like to congratulate the member for Riverdale on her legislation. It represents a very significant and positive contribution to this issue. Adoption reform is an extremely important issue.
As you know, the government has not been averse in the past to moving forward with proposals from the opposition. For example, the member for Lawrence brought forward proposals on international adoption which we incorporated into legislation that has proceeded, with the support of this House - a very important reform. I look forward to proceeding with adoption reform proposals.
But I must say that our priority this fall, based on the recommendations of coroners' inquests and expert opinion that we have sought, has been to improve the legislation to protect abused children more. That has certainly been the priority this fall and remains this government's priority this week. We had thought it was a priority of the two opposition parties. Unfortunately, it appears that it is not. We look forward to moving forward with that very important legislation this week.
Mrs Johns: I received a letter this week from a constituent. It says:
"Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and well being of children, is currently before the House for second reading. This set of amendments is crucial to aid in the protection of Ontario's most vulnerable children. There are, as you know, only four days left in the current legislative session and it is imperative that action on Bill 73 be taken prior to the end of the legislative session.
"The children's aid society of Huron county fully supports the proposed legislative amendments. These amendments were written in recognition of the need to revise the act in order to help the children's aid society keep children safe.
"Thank you for helping to protect Ontario's most vulnerable children by ensuring speedy passage of Bill 73."
Minister, I'm wondering when we can expect this very important bill to proceed through second reading and be referred to committee.
Hon Mrs Ecker: We spent a lot of time this year consulting with children's aid societies on this legislation. We also had an expert panel that spent much time and received many submissions from experts in the field and also from children who had gone through the children's aid process, to get input. We tried to choose very carefully those amendments to the legislation that had the highest priority, to better protect abused children. That is the basis of the package we brought forward for the consideration of the House this fall. It is certainly my hope that we will be able to get that legislation in before the end of the session this year, because I do believe it is a very important reform.
As I've also said to the honourable member, there are many issues in the Child and Family Services Act which need reform, many issues which we have not been able to deal with this fall, and we look forward to proceeding with those proposals and amendments, because we do need to make those changes as well.
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier, and it deals with the Al McLean affair. Last week, you claimed in this House on a number of occasions that you weren't briefed on this matter, yet you seemed to have an awful lot to say on Focus Ontario this past Saturday. You seem to blame almost everyone, and I'll quote directly from the transcript of the interview. You seem to blame the Legislative Assembly, the Board of Internal Economy, the Speaker's office and the Clerk - he can't even defend himself here.
But the comment that really struck me, and I'm quoting directly from your interview, is where you say, "...it should have been settled a year ago, and could have been a year ago, were it not for the opposition members and, quite frankly, I believe management within the Speaker's office; it could have been settled for half this a year ago."
Two out of the six members are in opposition. Your government members can get their way on any issue whatsoever. What evidence do you have to support the kind of public statement that you made on Focus Ontario when you didn't have anything to say in this House? What is your evidence for making that kind of statement, that it could have been settled for less than half of that?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I simply relayed what our members have reported. Their view of the matter is, and I think everybody has said, that it was badly handled, the whole affair. That's what's been reported to me and that's what I've relayed to you.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Supplementary?
1500
Mr Gerretsen: Sir, where it was badly handled was in the fact that four of your members on the committee - contrary to three legal opinions, from the best legal authorities in this matter we could possibly get, that argued against any payment whatsoever. That's where it was badly mishandled. You had an awful lot to say about this matter on Saturday and I would like you to explain to the taxpayers of Ontario how you can possibly justify the payment of $600,000 in a situation where the best legal authorities in the province say not a penny should have been paid. What justification do you have for that?
Hon Mr Harris: I don't have any justification. I've been reporting to you, as I've indicated, as I've been briefed by members on the committee. I would think that the best legal minds in the country, or whatever phrase you used, to advise the Legislative Assembly would have wanted their $200,000 paid. I assume you're including that.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You have consistently said that the problem with the Andersen project was that the management left a great deal to be desired. You refused to admit that it's the details of the contract itself that leave a lot to be desired because the taxpayers are being so ripped off under the circumstance.
Minister, it was your ministry that negotiated a deal where Andersen could receive up to $180 million out of future savings, when Andersen themselves only estimated $50 million to $70 million of costs. That $180-million maximum can be increased under specific conditions, Andersen can be reimbursed for certain project costs outside of the $180-million fee, Andersen can increase its billing rate by the hour without any ministry approval, and the interest rates paid to Andersen are much more favourable than the interest rates that were ever paid to the ministry through this contract.
Minister, when were you first advised of the details of this boondoggle and why didn't you think there was anything wrong with what was going on?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member well knows, this contract was negotiated by the staff team. There were protections built in there. It was not managed appropriately. That's why we've accepted the auditor's recommendations to improve the management of it. That's why there is an independent review of this contract.
I think, as she also would acknowledge, this is to be paid out of savings. There may well have been expenses that were allowed for in the contract. That is very common in any kind of consultant contract that I've been familiar with in the past. I repeat: The savings were only to be used to pay Andersen's fees.
The other thing is that I think what the honourable member forgets is that we need to do this reform, and this reform is moving forward. We want to make sure that the technology system that supports the delivery of financial benefits to people with disabilities, as well as to people on welfare, is a system that is going to work.
Ms Martel: The issue is not the reform of the technology; the issue is the sweetheart-of-sweetheart deals that your government signed with Andersen Consulting.
The fact of the matter is that the vendor themselves anticipated costs of only $50 million to $70 million. Yet your ministry went ahead and wrote out a contract that will give them $180 million, $100 million more than the vendor themselves said it would cost them to do this project. We already know that $1.4 million of travel and accommodation were paid out. There were no receipts that were provided until your government got caught.
Minister, there are a number of other times in this contract that make it clear that Andersen Consulting is assuming no risk, but the taxpayer is sure assuming a financial risk under this scheme. I ask you again very clearly: When were you made aware of the details of this contract and why did you do nothing about the very, very serious issues involved in this contract?
Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, as has been explained to the honourable member, the initial estimates were for $50 million to $70 million in terms of what they thought the project might well be. The whole point of the negotiation process that happens between the team and the consultant is to clarify what kind of work might well need to be done. In this case the magnitude of the job, the magnitude of taking a system that has virtually a million lines of code and is in hundreds of different locations across the province and involves something like 7,000 staff, the magnitude of that work meant that the contract was increased in value, and that's not been a secret. That's public information.
The other thing is that there were receipts for the expenses. They were not filed. They should have been. They should have been verified and checked.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.
Hon Mrs Ecker: We have acknowledged that. That's why procedures have changed, to make sure that indeed doesn't happen. Again, the whole point of this -
The Speaker: New question.
WOMEN'S ISSUES
Mr Bob Wood (London South): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Recently, the minister held round table discussions for women on economic independence in Ottawa and London. What concrete results does the minister expect from these meetings?
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Our government is totally committed to promoting women's economic independence so that young girls can get good jobs, contribute in their communities and be self-sufficient in their own homes with their families. We're actually working with communities across the province - our groups are called partners for change - and we're asking women in other communities to help us get the message out, and the message is basically that young women should be planning for that good job. They should be keeping all doors open by taking the right courses and being well informed as to where those good jobs are.
Last week - you're correct, to my colleague from London South - we had a meeting in London, Ontario, and we had one the week before in Ottawa, and women in those communities are keen to get involved, to help us get that message out through their mentoring programs, through being good role models, for setting examples and working with schools and other agencies within the communities so that young women can make good decisions.
Mr Bob Wood: When does the minister expect we will see these results?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We have been meeting in Toronto for some period of time with the Partners for Change Network. Their focus has been working with the government to make resources such as videos, such as Women Entrepreneurs: Making a Difference, which is a world-acclaimed video now used in different countries.
I will also say that we're looking to start these round tables in the new year in communities across Ontario where we haven't already had those meetings. We're totally committed to making certain that women will be exposed to others who have been successful entrepreneurs, successful accountants, successful engineers, successful women in non-traditional roles who will inspire them to take the right courses, stay in school and get those good jobs.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Education. The Hamilton district school board at this point has about 400 kids on a waiting list for psychological assessment. These are kids with learning disabilities, kids who have emotional or behavioural problems. These are kids who need help desperately. They need the assessment and they need the help.
The waiting list at this point is almost one year. That is almost one year for kids who need help and assessment and they can't get it because the board does not have the resources to provide those services. As a result of your funding formula, you've changed and you've cut services by social workers, speech therapists, psychologists, child and youth workers.It is unacceptable and irresponsible of your government to allow this to continue to occur, that kids who need assessment, kids with learning disabilities, kids who are not doing well in school have to wait for a year to see a counsellor to receive an assessment as a result of your formula.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.
Mr Agostino: Minister, will you today acknowledge that you've failed in that funding formula and change that formula so that kids don't have to wait a year to get an assessment for behavioural and learning problems in our schools?
1510
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm proud to say a couple of things. One is that the professional and paraprofessional services, which I think would cover the topic that the member opposite has indicated, are now part of classroom funding, and the monies involved across Ontario have increased in that category. Two, they're part of a protected classroom funding, so no longer can school boards take money earmarked for paraprofessional help, for example, and spend it outside of the classroom on administrative functions.
In terms of special education, which may be of assistance to some of the individuals involved, the funding for special education has been protected by itself and protected at about $1.2 billion, which I would say is about $400 million more than was available when the Liberals were last in office.
Mr Agostino: Minister, your rosy picture and this wonderful stock answer that you have for all of the province do not help the kids in Hamilton. Let me tell you again: 400 kids are on a waiting list. They must wait a year - kids with learning disabilities, kids with behavioural problems, kids who are violent as a result of difficulties - and it's taking up to a year for someone to assess them as a result of your cuts. Your wonderful, rosy picture doesn't do a darn thing for the 400 kids on this waiting list in the city of Hamilton. You don't seem to understand that.
Very clearly we have a problem, very clearly you have a responsibility, and when you talk in those general, wonderful, feel-good terms, you're ignoring the fact and the reality of these kids. It's unacceptable, and you know it's unacceptable, that kids who have behavioural problems and learning disabilities have to wait a year. Maybe you think it's OK. Minister, stand up and tell us now: Do you believe it's acceptable for kids in Hamilton who need assessment to have to wait a year as a result of your funding cuts?
Hon David Johnson: If kids are not getting the service they need and deserve, then it certainly is unacceptable. That is precisely why we have protected classroom funding: because kids were not getting the kind of service they deserve. Monies were being spent on administrative buildings or bureaucracy or monies were being wasted, so we said, "No more. We'll put an end to that. We will protect classroom funding. We'll protect the money going to teachers, money going to textbooks, money going to speech pathologists, money going to other professionals who are needed in the classroom. We'll increase it and protect it," and that's exactly what we've done so there are more monies available.
I would say that if in this board or any other board the kids are not getting that kind of service, then the board has got its priorities wrong and should be directing the money to where the kids need it, because we have put more money in the classroom to serve exactly this kind of situation.
LEGAL AID
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Your government has already eliminated intervenor funding for those seeking to act as advocates for the environment in court. The Canadian Environmental Law Association asked that you include the environment in the definition of "clinic law," for which legal aid support is available. But your Legal Aid Services Act doesn't include any reference to the environment at all. It's my understanding that environment was included in the draft of Bill 68. I want to ask you today, why was the environment removed from that?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): This is a bill brought forward by the Attorney General, so I'll refer the question about legal aid funding for environmental groups to him.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This was an issue that was obviously canvassed as the new legal aid bill was being created. An independent board is being created to run Legal Aid Ontario. These are decisions that will be left to the legal aid board to determine whether they wish to include areas of coverage for, in this case, environmental law, whether they see a need for that, whether there's demand for that, and that will be left to the independent board.
Ms Churley: Minister, that is exactly the problem. The definition includes several categories, but it's my understanding that the environment was there and was taken off. That's why the environmental community is concerned; not just the environmental community, all our communities. Studies have shown that low-income individuals and communities experience disproportionately high impacts from environmental problems.
What I want you to do today, and I'd rather get this from the Minister of the Environment, for the record is to say that your government supports funding for environmental protection in our communities through the legal aid system as it is now. Please give us that commitment today.
Hon Mr Harnick: Again, that is an issue that the board of the legal aid plan will determine. It will be within their purview to determine that. They will determine, based on their appreciation of the demand and the need, whether it should be something that the clinic system could ultimately become involved with. That's one of the reasons we've restructured legal aid the way we have: to ensure that a responsive legal aid board is there to determine what the demands are on legal aid and to be cognizant of and responsive to those demands.
HOME CARE
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. Recently, the Durham MPPs met with the board of Durham Access to Care, Janet Harris and board members Barb Hiemstra, Victoria Earle, Doug Hird and others. This volunteer board is working very hard to improve patient services at home.
An article I read today in the Globe and Mail reports that Ontario is spending over half of the country's home care budget. While I commend you for your leadership in this area, at the same time I'm concerned about how these changes are helping my constituents of Durham East. Under the NDP program they received half of per capita funding for home care. Minister, how can you guarantee this situation will improve for my constituents of Durham East?
Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I want to thank the member for his question. Residing in the GTA, he will know that the past two governments discriminated against seniors in the GTA because they were receiving the lowest levels of home care anywhere in the province. As well, their hospitals were operating without any recognition of growth in their areas and did not have access to the hospital growth fund that both my ministers of health colleagues have brought in in this province.
In particular to residents of Durham, when this government took office, we were spending about $21 million on services in that area. We've increased community-based support services for seniors and persons with disabilities to $41 million. That's a 94% increase in three and a half years, and we are, as I say, overcoming the discrimination of past governments to ensure that this additional funding is more accessible to seniors. It is enhancing the quality of their lives by giving them additional access to homemaking support services, nursing support and physiotherapy in their homes, closer to home where they are requesting them.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for this recognition of growth in Durham. A 94% increase, as you've reported, is spectacular.
In the same article I was reading today there was a man who had had cancer surgery and wanted to go home to recover. Three years after his surgery, he still gets visits from the Victorian Order of Nurses three times per week. He also said in the article that his mother, who died four years ago of brain cancer, didn't receive more than a week of home care under the previous administration. Minister, please share with the members of the House the actions and steps you're taking to improve the important home care services that Ontarians need.
Hon Mr Jackson: In the case referred to of this individual's mother in Peel, in fact Peel was receiving the lowest level of care in the entire province. In our most recent increase of about 105%, we transferred $10 million to the home care program in Peel region.
The larger question is the fact that our government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, has expanded and committed future governments to a $1.2-million expansion of long-term-care services, including a $650-million commitment to build 20,000 new long-term-care beds after we waited a decade when not one single new long-term-care bed was built in this province. The backup in our emergency departments is because we've had no place to put these seniors and others who are lying in hospital beds inappropriately in this province - no planning by the previous government.
Finally, the bigger problem is that neither of the other two political parties in this province has committed to expanding long-term-care services in this province, something seniors have asked for and this government is delivering.
1520
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question once again is for the Premier about Andersen Consulting. I'd dearly like the Premier to please stand up for taxpayers and defend this contract. Could you please explain to me why today the deputy minister admitted that they don't know most of the time why people are leaving the welfare system? If you don't know why they're leaving the system, then you also don't know how much to attribute to Andersen in order to pay them for the contract.
The Provincial Auditor also found $2.6 million in savings that were found by manual review by the ministry staff, not by Andersen Consulting. That process began before you even signed the contract, yet you're giving money to Andersen Consulting for work that was done by the ministry staff.
Premier, after everything you said today about protecting taxpayers, please stand up and say something in the defence of this atrocious contract that your government signed with Andersen.
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Since this has nothing to do with the breakfast program, as I was led to believe, I will refer it to the minister.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Again, the honourable member had this explained to her this morning at committee. Of course some of the work is being done by ministry staff. The ministry staff do work, Andersen does work; of course that's the case.
Second, no government ever knew what happened to people when they left the welfare system. That's why we went out and did two independent surveys where we asked that question. We have that data. We do regular reports now to the taxpayers. Some 60% of the people who are leaving social assistance are doing so for jobs. That's a success story.
VISITOR
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just before we begin petitions, I know you'd like to welcome the mother of the member for Hamilton East, Mrs Teresa Agostino, who's in the west public gallery, to the chamber today.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We welcome all the guests with us, particularly the mother of the member for Hamilton East.
PETITIONS
AIR QUALITY
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a 507-signature, 39-page petition. It was circulated by Marie France Daoudi, who is co-chair of the Sudbury Committee for Clean Air, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas SO2 emissions from mining and smelting operations remain a serious threat to the health, environment and property of Sudbury citizens;
"Whereas there continue to be ongoing intolerable peaks in levels of SO2 emissions from mining and smelting operations;
"Whereas the threat of fugitive emissions remains constant to the Sudbury region;
"Whereas existing government regulations and thresholds for SO2 emissions may be in need of immediate reassessment;
"Whereas the elimination of 26 regional Ministry of Environment jobs by the Harris government has resulted in lowered monitoring effectiveness;
"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government aid the citizens of this community in having these emissions monitored closely and reduced significantly."
This is now a petition of 2,015 people, and of course I affix my signature to it.
ABORTION
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is a pleasure and a privilege to present a petition 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 in fact 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'm very pleased to present this on behalf of my constituents in Durham.
CHILD CARE CENTRES
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): "Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and
"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed for tax cuts; and
"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for the Toronto school boards; and
"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and
"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts, with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;
"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately; and
"Further be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and
"Further be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."
I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I've affixed my signature to it.
SCHOOL SAFETY
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition signed by many people regarding the Safe Schools Act and it reads:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and
"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and
"Whereas Dan Newman, MPP for Scarborough Centre, has introduced a private member's bill entitled An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and create positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students."
This bill will require boards to design and implement safe school programs, have intervention strategies, provide violence- and weapons-free school policy etc.
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"To pass into law Mr Newman's Safe Schools Act as quickly as possible."
I sign this petition.
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition on behalf of the residents of the former city of York with regard to the closure of their schools: Weston Memorial, C.R. Marchant, George Harvey and Lambton Park.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and
"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and
"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and
"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and
"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"We demand that Mike Harris stop the school closings."
CHILD CARE CENTRES
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): While this petition contains several significant factual errors and appears to have had its genesis in the offices of the Liberal member for Oriole, I present this petition on behalf of some constituents who are associated with Junction Day Care Centre, Ferncliff Daycare, Howard Park Children's Centre, Sunnyside Garden Daycare. It reads as follows:
"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and
"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed for tax cuts; and
"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for Toronto school boards; and
"Whereas, under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160, there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and
"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts, with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;
"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately; and
"Further be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and
"Further be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."
1530
VISITING SPECIALIST CLINICS
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): To the Legislature of Ontario:
"Whereas the objective of the visiting specialist clinic program is to provide specialty services in communities where the population base cannot support a full-time specialist and where specialty services are established more than 40 kilometres away from those communities; and
"Whereas communities in Algoma-Manitoulin, including Espanola, Manitoulin Island, Elliot Lake, Blind River, Chapleau, Wawa, Hornepayne and Manitouwadge, are situated great distances from the nearest established specialty services and travelling such distances poses undue hardship on people requiring these services; and
"Whereas the Ministry of Health has withdrawn funding for specialist support staff, seriously threatening the clinic program; and
"Whereas funding by the Ministry of Health for travel grants would far outweigh the costs to the ministry of providing support staff funding;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to restore funding for support staff for the visiting specialist clinic program."
It's signed by a number of my constituents, and I'm happy to affix my signature.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition from a number of citizens from our area on the issue of the secondary school curriculum. It asks that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario delay the implementation of secondary school reform until successful pilot projects are conducted on the new curriculum and until Ontario students, parents, teachers and administrators are confident that quality control procedures have been observed, thus guaranteeing a quality education for our Ontario students.
HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads like this:
"The Health Services Restructuring Commission has given notice that it intends to direct the Hotel Dieu Hospital to close and to require that the Sisters of the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph cease to be governed. If the proposed direction is made and implemented, then access to high-quality health care will be seriously undermined in Kingston and region.
"The sisters are recognized for their leadership in the health care community. They have developed the plan for and operated an efficient outpatient teaching hospital and have provided a high quality of patient care for 123 years from the same location. Their distinct values and philosophy, coupled with the sisters' tradition of compassionate care, must not disappear.
"The HSRC's proposed direction calls for the dismissal of the sisters from their role in the governance of outpatient health care at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. This is not in the best interests of the patients and families in this city and region. The people of Kingston deserve to have access to the kind of quality health care for which the sisters are well recognized.
"Those who must use public transportation to get to outpatient clinics will be seriously affected. The taxpayers should not have to shoulder any extra burden in paying for a new outpatient facility when the Hotel Dieu site can accommodate the needs of the people of Kingston. Many downtown businesses will suffer greatly should the site be closed.
"The sisters of Hotel Dieu Hospital are asking that you help them in their response to the commission."
I affix my signature in full agreement.
STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:
"Whereas the Asian and Russian economic crises have contributed to a flood of steel imports into Canada at record-low prices; and
"Whereas the value of steel imported from Russia increased by 50% in the first half of 1998 over the first half of 1997; imports from Japan increased by 57%; and imports from Korea increased by over 500% in the first eight months of 1998 alone; and
"Whereas prices for almost every primary steel product have dropped by as much as 25% since the beginning of 1998; and
"Whereas the low-price imported steel threatens the viability of every steel producer in Canada," particularly in Hamilton and in Sault Ste Marie; and
"Whereas the potential impact on our community and its families of the growing steel imports crisis is devastating, threatening thousands of jobs directly and indirectly;
"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Canadian government to apply Canadian trade law quickly and effectively against this blatantly unfair competition, and further, to consider and explore any other extraordinary measure possibly available to Canada under its various trade agreements to deal with this unacceptable threat to our community's future."
I add my name to those of my constituents in Hamilton.
PALLIATIVE CARE
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 31 people.
"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;
"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.
"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.
"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."
NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:
"Whereas Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci's private member's Bill 84 entitled the Nurses' Bill of Rights states that nursing is key to quality health care; and
"Whereas Bill 84, the Nurses' Bill of Rights, gives every nurse the right to be given the opportunity and means to provide high-quality care; and
"Whereas under Bill 84, the Nurses' Bill of Rights, every nurse has the right to be heard and consulted by other hospital staff and employees on health care issues relating to their patients; and
"Whereas under Bill 84, every nurse will have the right to participate in health care reform; and
"Whereas under Bill 84, every nurse will have the right to carry out his or her duties without fear of reprisals by the hospital or other hospital staff or employees; and
"Whereas under Bill 84, every nurse will have the right to work in a setting that is free from harassment and discrimination and that promotes professionalism and teamwork;
"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Rick Bartolucci's private member's bill, the Nurses' Bill of Rights, and to call it for second and third reading so that nurses' rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."
Of course I am in support of this petition and I affix my signature.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 Budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenus dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle loi.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 9, 1998, I'm now required to put the question.
Mr Young has moved second reading of Bill 81. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.
1540
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I move third reading of Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 Budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute.
Today I'd like to speak in support of the passage of Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, 1998. If passed, this bill will complete the implementation of measures announced in the May 1998 Ontario budget and enact some new measures. Some budget proposals have been improved in response to comments and suggestions by stakeholders.
The tax incentives introduced in this bill will benefit Ontarians with disabilities and make more capital available to businesses, particularly small businesses, in communities throughout Ontario, enabling them to grow and create jobs.
Special credits will help to create well-paying jobs in the new-economy industries of interactive digital media, computer animation and special effects. Tax credits will also help the domestic sound recording industry, which is the chief developer of new Canadian musical talent.
The bill contains a number of provisions to improve compliance with tax legislation and to help motivate individuals and corporations to meet their tax obligations.
A new act is included in the bill to replace the fees charged by the province on grants of probate or administration of estates and maintain this source of revenue.
In addition, measures in this bill will also help parents get and keep jobs while ensuring that their young children are well looked after, both by reimbursing parents for part of their child care costs and by encouraging construction and renovation of licensed child care spaces.
Forty million dollars from the existing child care tax credit will be combined with an additional $100 million in 1998-99 to create a new program that supports working families with young children. The Ontario child care supplement for working families will provide support to help parents in the workforce, in school and in training. Under this program, low- to middle-income working families would receive annual payments of up to $1,020 for each child under age seven. That is a tax-free monthly payment of $85. More than 350,000 children in 210,000 families are expected to benefit under this program.
It is urgent that these payments go out to the families across the province who so desperately need support for their essential child care needs. The Ministry of Finance has heard from parents all over Ontario who not only welcome the program but want to know when they will be getting their payments. In many instances, this is the only child care support these parents and guardians will receive.
The first payment will be made following royal assent. If royal assent is this month, a lump sum payment will be made for the period July 1998 to December 1998. Starting January 1999, the supplement would be paid monthly.
Benefits will not only go to working families but low- to middle-income families where one parent stays at home to care for their child under age seven. In addition, parents who attend school or are getting training and have child care expenses for their children under age seven are also eligible.
This supplement gives working families and low- to middle-income families real choices in child care. The supplement is intended to go to the families who need it most. It goes down in value as family net income rises above $20,000.
For example, for a family earning $20,000 with one child under age seven, the annual payments through this new program could amount to $1,020, or $85 monthly. For a family earning $25,000 with two children under age seven, the annual payments could be $1,640, or $136.67 monthly. For a family earning $35,000 with three children under age seven, the annual payments could be $1,860, or $155 monthly.
The amount parents or guardians receive will be based on a number of factors: the number of children under age seven in the family; the family's prior-year earned and net income; child care costs, and whether the child care costs are subsidized.
The benefit year is July to June. Prior to each new benefit year, qualifying families will be sent an individualized application form which must be filled out and returned.
It is truly a supplement for low- to middle-income working families, because benefits disappear at income levels: for example, $32,750 for a family with one child under age seven; $45,500 for a family with two children; $58,250 for a family with three children; $71,000 for a family with four children; and $83,750 for a family with five children.
Bill 81 would also increase the access of working parents to affordable child care by providing a new tax incentive to incorporated and unincorporated businesses that create or improve licensed child care facilities or that make contributions to child care operators to construct or renovate facilities.
The tax deduction for corporations would be equal to 30% of qualifying expenditures incurred after May 5, 1998, in constructing or renovating licensed child care facilities. Unincorporated businesses would be entitled to an equivalent refundable tax credit of 5%. The tax incentive would be available to businesses other than child care businesses operating permanent establishments in Ontario.
This incentive would also be available for contributions of cash, property or services by businesses to child care operators if the contribution is used by the operator constructing or renovating licensed child care facilities. Capital costs for playground equipment would also qualify.
This legislation is a companion piece to the government's historic Ontarians With Disabilities Act, which was introduced on Monday, November 23, the same day as this bill. Our bill provides positive fiscal measures to encourage and facilitate the participation of Ontarians with disabilities in the social and economic life of this province.
To support businesses that hire employees with disabilities, the workplace accessibility tax incentive would provide corporations with an additional 100% deduction for qualifying expenditures incurred to accommodate an eligible person with a disability. An equivalent 15% refundable tax credit would be given to unincorporated businesses.
This bill also contains provisions to enhance the community small business investment funds program and the labour sponsored investment funds program. These provisions will increase access to capital for small businesses in communities throughout Ontario, helping them to grow and create jobs. The bill implements the 1998 Ontario budget proposal to further increase the flow in investment capital to Ontario's small business sector and proposes enhancements resulting from consultation.
Tax cuts to create jobs: In order to encourage job creation and growth in high-technology, knowledge-based industries, the bill proposes tax incentives to support the interactive digital media, sound recording, computer animation and special effects sectors. These incentives will help businesses in these industries to grow and contribute to the development of long-term internationally viable Ontario industries, with jobs for the future.
This bill further supports job creation by reducing the payroll tax burden on small business. The phase-in of the $400,000 employer health tax exemption is being accelerated by increasing the exemption for 1998 from $300,000 to $350,000 for employers and self-employed individuals. In 1999, the employer health tax for self-employed individuals will be eliminated. This measure was enacted in 1996 with Bill 47.
Addressing the underground economy: Tax compliance incentives such as new or increased penalties for failure to comply with corporations tax, retail sales tax and tobacco tax legislation form a part of the revenue-protection measures referred to in the title of this act. Proposed amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act enhance existing sanctions by prohibiting possession of unmarked cigarettes by unauthorized persons and parallel the existing provisions relating to the possession of unmarked cigarettes for the purposes of sale.
Non-taxation measures: This bill also includes non-taxation measures intended to implement other measures that have previously been announced.
On October 22, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ontario's probate fees are taxes and therefore the regulations which attempted to impose fees were not authorized by statute. The court suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months, until the province can address this issue. The province must react to the revenue issues flowing from the court's decision in order to be able to protect services vital to Ontarians in the areas of justice, health and education. It is important to note that under the new estates administration tax, probate charges will not increase and the government will not get any increased revenue from this measure.
The amendment to the Pension Benefits Act would enable the government to implement by regulation a response to its current public consultation on possible access to locked-in retirement savings in situations of financial hardship or shortened life expectancy. The amendment would also enable the government to implement by regulation possible reform of rules governing life income funds which are a type of locked-in retirement savings arrangement. The government is planning consultation on this issue. The amendment is an enabling provision that would address a limited technical point in the legislation.
The regulations prescribing the circumstances of additional access will be developed following ministry consideration of submissions received during the two consultations. This provision relates to money that was taken out of a pension fund when a former employee terminated employment before retirement. It does not involve access to money or benefits in a pension fund.
The Minister of Finance announced in the May 1998 budget that in light of the agreement between the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the government, the government would be introducing legislation to amend the Teachers' Pension Act. The Ontario teachers' pension plan is now exempt from the requirement under the Pension Benefits Act that actuarial gains in the pension fund must first be applied to reduce any unfunded actuarial liability of the plan. The amendments in this bill to the Teachers' Pension Act repeal that exemption.
1550
Turning to another non-tax measure provided by this bill, schedule A of the Services Improvement Act amended the Ambulance Act to provide for the transfer to municipalities of full funding responsibility for land ambulance services as of January 1, 1998, and full responsibility for ensuring the proper provision of such services as of January 1, 2000.
This government has proven in the first three years of its mandate that tax cuts create jobs. This year we were able to bring in the 30% cut in personal income tax rates we promised, a full six months ahead of schedule. By spring of this year, we had already announced 30 tax cuts. The deficit has declined steadily. With this bill, the government will bring the number of tax cuts it has made to 67. The measures in this bill will continue to help foster a climate for businesses to create even more jobs and give many more Ontarians the opportunity to earn a good living.
I think we can all appreciate the essential nature of this bill, as it has a wide-ranging and very positive impact on people across the province. People are depending on approval of this act. I urge support for this bill.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to discuss this bill, Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act. I'm thankful to the member for Halton Centre for his comments today.
In my comments, I'd like to point out that the bill was first itemized in the 1998 Ontario budget, in the past spring. The bill builds upon what this government has been saying and doing since we were elected. It's a government that means tax cuts for Ontarians so that we can create jobs and make Ontario the best place in which we can live, work and raise a family. The bill also addresses the concerns of working families by increasing access to child care for working families who have children. It increases access to capital for small business and works towards a fairer tax system.
The Harris government is supporting job creation by reducing the payroll tax burden on small business. The phase-in of the $400,000 employer health tax exemption is being accelerated by increasing the exemption for 1998 from $300,000 to $350,000 for employers and self-employed individuals. In 1999, coming soon, the tax on self-employed individuals will be eliminated altogether.
We're working towards increasing access to capital for small business through the community small business investment funds. In 1997, Ontario introduced this fund to promote greater access to investment capital for growing businesses with $1 million or less in assets. Incentives were also provided to encourage labour sponsored investment funds and financial institutions to participate in this initiative.
The legislation encourages job creation and growth in high-technology, knowledge-based industries with tax initiatives to support the interactive digital media, sound recording business and the computer animation and special effects industries. These initiatives will help these businesses to grow and contribute to the development of long-term internationally viable Ontario industries, with jobs for Ontario's future.
The bill proposes a new $140-million child care supplement for working families to replace the $40-million child care tax credit for lower-income families introduced in the 1997 Ontario budget. The supplement will be available to low- and middle-income Ontario families who are working or attending school or receiving job training and who receive the Canada child tax benefit for their children under age seven. Families in this program can receive up to $1,020 per year for each child under the age of seven. In total, it will help 210,000 families and 350,000 young children across the province.
The first payment will be made following royal assent. If royal assent is this month, December 1998, a lump sum payment will be made for the period July 1998 to December 1998. Starting in January 1999, the supplement would be paid on a monthly basis. Monthly payments will be made directly by the province to the parent and not through the annual income tax return.
As usual, the government acts when there is a need or a problem, as opposed to previous governments which embarked on ideological initiatives, spending millions of dollars that did not create one single daycare space. The Harris government is a government of action and today is helping 210,000 families with their daycare needs.
We are also introducing with this legislation the workplace child care tax incentive. This initiative in the 1998 Ontario budget supports businesses that create additional licensed child care facilities in the province. The workplace child care tax incentive would provide corporations with an additional 30% deduction from Ontario income for capital costs of construction or renovation of licensed child care facilities in Ontario incurred after May 1998. This incentive would also be available for contributions of cash, property or services by corporations to child care operators if the contribution is used by the operator for this purpose.
Thirdly, Bill 81 supports businesses that hire employees with disabilities. The workplace accessibility tax incentive would provide an additional 100% deduction for qualifying expenditures incurred to accommodate an eligible person with a disability. A 15% refundable tax credit would be provided to unincorporated businesses.
Finally, Bill 81 contains a number of provisions intended to improve compliance with tax legislation and to motivate individuals and corporations to meet their tax obligations.
By making a very important change to the tax system in Ontario, we are helping young families obtain child care, we are assisting people with disabilities and continuing to cut taxes to create jobs. The record gains in employment in Ontario have clearly indicated that people and businesses have confidence in the province and in the province's future. The beneficiaries of this bright future are our children and our grandchildren.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I listened very attentively to the comments of both members of the government on Bill 81. It sounds like this is another attempt to bring in a large omnibus bill to make major changes. It's a bill with 118 pages and it changes 13 parts of a schedule. It deals with a lot of, I guess, campaign promises to re-elect Mike Harris. It sounds like there's money going out to bribe some of the voters into thinking they're going to get something.
This is the third time this government has tried to bring in legislation to deal with child care. It failed in 1996, it failed in 1997 and now, in 1998, they have what they call the Ontario child care supplement, which is going to do nothing to open up more daycare spaces across the province, which we need. It's an attempt to take money away, money that's been clawed back from social assistance people, money that's been taken out of health care. We heard the coroner's jury report on the sad state of the health care system in Ontario. We know there are large numbers of schools that were going to be closed starting next September and now they want to postpone it until after the election.
We're dealing with a large omnibus budget bill that looks like it's a plan by Mike Harris to try to get re-elected. It's a campaign that is starting here, as we're debating Bill 81, to re-elect Mike Harris. I think we should be electing Howard Hampton as Premier instead.
1600
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to provide some comments on the speeches by the members for Halton Centre and Wentworth East. I noted that both of them clearly had a good understanding of Bill 81, which is a significant bill in size as well as in scope. It follows up on many of the commitments made by the finance minister in his budget earlier on this year.
I noted from the comments of the member for Halton Centre the tremendous importance of the speeding up of the plan to phase out the employer health tax. That's very important for members such as the member for Halton Centre, who brings with him a business background. He understands the impact the employer health tax has had on small and medium-sized businesses. I thought his comments on that part of the bill were most important and certainly hit home. I know they hit home with the constituents in Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
I also noted in the comments from the member for Wentworth East the importance of the revisions in the bill to the child tax credit. I've had a number of calls about this, a lot of people wondering how the implementation of this will roll out. The member for Wentworth East indicated the importance of this to his constituents. He's also going to be looking very closely at how that's going to be implemented. I think it's going to have a very significant impact on lower-income families who have children, particularly those families that have children under the age of seven. That's where the amendments are targeted: They're targeted at hard-working Ontario families that have children under the age of seven. That part of the speech given by the member for Wentworth East was particularly cogent and on point and it certainly caught my attention.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was quite interested in the speeches by both Conservative members. This is a very large bill. There are lots of parts of this bill that actually have nothing to do with other parts. That's why they call it an omnibus bill. I was interested in that they didn't speak much about the downloading of the ambulances. They didn't talk about the difficulty we're going to have, particularly in Algoma-Manitoulin, in places like Elliot Lake, Little Current, Gore Bay, Wikwemikong, Manitowaning, Espanola and various other communities, in sorting out this mess with the downloading of ambulances. I notice they didn't mention that at all.
One other thing I'm quite bemused by is that I recall when I read the Common Sense Revolution there were to be no subsidies to business. I'm not opposed to the measures that are in here, but clearly these are subsidies to business. I was just wondering if they would like to dance around and tell me how they're not subsidies to business.
As I read through further, we come to the child care tax credit, which of course is really going to work like a baby bonus for working families. That's probably a good idea, but I don't hear the government talking very much about how that works and where the money came from to make it work. We all know this is part of the federal government program that applies to all Canadian provinces, that each province was able to administer the money. The federal share in Ontario is $100 million, or about 70% of this entire program. I just hope when the members stand up to reply they'll clarify some of this information for us.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to add a couple of comments as well in response to the speech from the members for Halton Centre and Wentworth East. This bill indeed is a very detailed piece of legislation, a very comprehensive analysis of a number of areas where the government thought it was appropriate to increase the number of tax breaks that are given to various groups within our society, not the least of whom are the disabled and pensioners.
I would direct your attention to part IX of the act, a change to the Pension Benefits Act, which will now allow the minister, in hardship cases, to allow senior citizens in Ontario to access their existing pensions in circumstances that heretofore were not allowed. That is a significant step forward because from time to time people find themselves in circumstances they hadn't planned for, a time of distress, perhaps an emergency within the family, and it's quite appropriate that the minister now have increased flexibility to deal with the needs of those people.
As well, a new section of the Corporations Tax Act will permit the workplace accessibility tax incentive to be deducted from income. The amount of the incentive is based upon the cost of certain support services and physical accommodations that are intended to enable employees with disabilities to carry out employment functions. The maximum deduction is $50,000 per employee with a disability. Again, you would hear from our critics opposite that our government has not responded to the needs of Ontarians with disabilities. Right here you see the perfect example of how we've encouraged the workplace, not through edict, not by the sledgehammer attempts of the previous government, but by working co-operatively with them, giving them a tax incentive to change their workplace to accommodate those people who may have a disability. I think this legislation goes a long way to addressing a number of tax problems.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Halton Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mr Young: I thank my colleagues in my own caucus and in the House for their comments. It's funny, the NDP criticize us when we spend money helping working people; they say we're trying to buy votes. Then, on the other hand, they say, "Why aren't you helping people?" So it's a little hard when you're getting these mixed messages all the time, and from the Liberals as well.
I'd like to take a look at one family that will benefit under the child care supplement. This would be a family, as I mentioned in my address, that has an income of $35,000 a year and three children. My wife and I were in a position very close to that 10 years ago and there are thousands of families in that position in Ontario today. If only one of the spouses is working it's fairly straightforward, but sometimes it's both of them working part-time or one of them working part-time and one full-time. Sometimes the spouse with the lower income will sit down at the kitchen table and say, "Why am I working?" They add up their cost of living, the cost to get to work - whether it's GO Transit or TTC or their own automobile; if you're taking your car to work your insurance costs go up, you go to work and you have costs to go to lunch with your colleagues. People budget so closely in deciding whether they should work or not, they even sit down and look at the costs when they pass the hat around the office for somebody's anniversary or somebody's birthday or the cost of the coffee break, because those things add up.
This family will receive, under this bill, a cheque monthly for $155 to do with as they please. If one of them, the mother or father, wishes to stay home to care for the children in the home, that option is available to them. They could use it in various other ways for getting child care. It makes a very tough decision much easier. In fact, $155 a month could make it easier for the parent to stay home with the children.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue the debate on Bill 81. There are many aspects of the bill. I'd like to start with the new tax in the bill. It is a new Mike Harris tax that will raise about $1.5 billion. It's called the estate administration tax. I want to make two points on it. One is that this tax is designed to raise money off estates. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the fees that the province of Ontario was charging on estates were illegal, so this bill is to essentially turn those previously called fees into taxes.
The point I'd like to make on this is that I remember when Mike Harris was in opposition and the Rae government brought in a new set of fees for estates. I remember how angry Mike Harris was on that, and how he objected to those fees and railed against the fees. What we have in this Bill 81 is that not only has Mike Harris adopted the Rae fees, he's put them in the form of a tax, and he did it retroactively. By the way, this bill is retroactive to 1950 - but also for the future.
1610
I understand the need for the province to recover the revenue. I just think it is at least mildly embarrassing for Mike Harris, today of all days, to have a brand new tax when we are dealing with the balanced budget legislation. He's got to get this thing in before that. It's a brand new tax. It raises $1.5 billion and it is expressly designed to do what he specifically criticized Bob Rae for doing, but more specifically, it's in the form of a tax.
The second point I'd like to make on this is that the reason the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the fees previously charged for probate or estate fees were illegal was because in the court's mind, and I think most Canadians would agree, if you're going to tax people, you have to do it through legislation, voted on by duly elected people. It's taxation with representation, as we know. The previous way of collecting estate fees was done by what's called regulation, behind closed doors, in a cabinet room with the stroke of a pen.
The reason I raise this is the Supreme Court ruled that illegal. I want to tell the people of Ontario that right now $5.5 billion in property taxes - you look at your property tax bill - is raised through taxes set by regulation, by the cabinet. I would say that if the courts ruled the estate fees were illegal, in my judgement the courts very likely will rule that Mike Harris cannot set property taxes by regulation, $5.5 billion of taxes being raised by regulation.
We never debate that. We never have a chance to debate the taxation rate that Mike Harris is setting for education property taxes. It is 100% the responsibility of Mike Harris; it is not here in the Legislature.
That's the first point I wanted to make. I assume, by the way, that I should notify the House that my plan is to share my time with one of our other members, the member for Scarborough North.
The second point I want to make is that the bill makes a very profound change in teachers' pensions. As most members in the Legislature are aware, the teachers' pension plan is a jointly administered plan between the teachers and the people of Ontario, namely, the government of Ontario.
The changes we're dealing with in the bill are being done unilaterally, without the agreement of the other partner. It is, as I say, a 50-50 arrangement. The teachers of Ontario put in half of the money in the pension; the taxpayers, the people represented by the Ontario government, put the other half in, and it is jointly administered.
What we've got here in Bill 81 is a unilateral move to change the teachers' pension. I would say to the people of Ontario, particularly the teachers, that there was never an opportunity for the individual teachers or the teachers' organizations to come before the Legislature and make their views known.
This bill was introduced, we began debate here in the Legislature, and then there was something called a time allocation motion that was moved and approved by the government, but objected to by the opposition because we felt there was a need for public input. There was never an opportunity for a single member of the public to ever make their views known before the Legislature on this bill.
I would say to the teachers, my colleague our education critic today has communicated to the Minister of Education on behalf of the pension people their concerns. This is a government that will ram this thing through. We've had no hearings, we've had no public input, and I believe that at a quarter to six today the debate is over on this bill. There is no opportunity for the teachers, who have some significant concerns, to ever have input into it.
By the way, I would just say to the public, if you follow what goes on around here, last Monday, a week ago today, a major property tax bill was rammed through this House. There was not a single person, a single group, allowed to come and present their views on that bill. The major organizations that are required to make the property tax system work, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the senior elected people, and the clerks and treasurers of Ontario, the senior municipal public servants -
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Please check for a quorum.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Phillips: I was discussing the process that we follow around here to let the public know, and particularly to let the teachers know, that even though they have joint management between the government and the teachers on the pension plan, and the changes in this bill were never agreed to by that joint organization, there was never an opportunity for them to come before the Legislature and let their views be known. As a matter of fact, there was never an opportunity to amend the bill.
It's not unique. As I said, it was just a week ago today that the property tax bill was rammed through. The major people who had to try to make the property tax bill work begged for a chance to come here and give us suggestions on how to improve the bill, but the government wouldn't let a single, solitary person come and give us advice.
There was a day of committee hearings, but it was designed exclusively to adopt a bunch of what are called amendments that the government had to make to its own bill.
Then on Tuesday we dealt with another bill called the Greater Toronto Services Board Act. There too there was never an opportunity for a single person to come and let their views be known in spite of the fact that it has a profound impact on the greater Toronto area.
Among others who were here trying to speak and let their views be known was the regional chair of Durham, Mr Anderson, a well-regarded regional chair. They had some significant concerns and input into the bill, but we never allowed them to even speak for a moment.
Here we are on this major bill that has a huge impact on teachers' pensions. The teachers are saying, "Listen, by law we are joint partners in this; we want a chance to express our views," and there is not even a chance for them to express their views. I regret that very much. It's a government that will ram things through and is forgetting that all of us are here to serve the public, but they won't even allow the public to be heard.
1620
I wanted to chat a little bit about another aspect of the bill; that was the pension part, and I've talked about the probate fees, the brand new $1.5-billion tax that Harris has introduced here. The third part of the bill I want to talk about is the ambulance part, part I of the bill, and say for the public that what this does is give the minister essentially unfettered power to determine the ambulance service in regions of the province.
Here's the problem with this: Now 100% of the taxpayer cost of ambulances is on the property taxes. It has all been downloaded on to property taxes. If you happen to live in an assessment-rich area, you can afford ambulance service; if you happen to live in an assessment-poor area, it's far more difficult. That's 100% of land ambulance and 100% of public health.
Here are the numbers. These are the government's numbers of how much has been added on to property tax. You may not be able to see the numbers, but ambulances, $200 million; and public health, $211 million. That's $400 million of cost taken from the province and put on to property taxes.
It's wrong in two respects; one is that about two years ago Mike Harris appointed a committee called the Who Does What committee. It was headed up by David Crombie, a well-regarded individual, and there were 14 other people, all selected by Premier Harris to serve on this, to say, "OK, what things should be handled, managed and funded by the province, and what things should be handled, managed and funded by property taxes?"
Crombie went through his proposals, and then he got wind of what the province was planning to do. I remember it very well because it was a press conference that Mr Crombie held here at the Legislature, in a building very close to here, the day before New Year's. It was 3:30 in the afternoon. Because the government was so embarrassed at what he was going to say, in the jargon we use here, they tried to bury the story. They set up this press conference for the day before New Year's, hoping that no one would pay any attention to it.
But Mr Crombie and his group - remember, they were all hand-picked by Mike Harris - what did they think about putting ambulances and public health on to property taxes? Here's what they said. This is from Mr Crombie and his panel: If the province proceeded to do this, it would "undo much of the work accomplished by the disentangling proposals" - by moving health back down to property tax - "The panel strongly opposes such a move. We are unanimous in" that view. In other words, the hand-picked people who advised Harris said, "Don't do it," and they were unanimous in that, which is quite extraordinary. You take 14 individuals who all presumably have the support and confidence of Mr Harris and they all told him together, "Don't do it." But it's done now. That's $410 million of health costs taken off the province and put on to property tax.
First, it's wrong. I don't think the quality of your ambulance care should depend on the ability of your local property tax to fund it. It's not what we should be doing in this province. It shouldn't be that your level of ambulance service will be better if the assessment in your area is better.
Equally important is that surely what we are looking for is what's called a seamless health care system rather than, to use the health jargon, these silos where you don't have the elements of health care working together. This, by taking ambulances and putting them on to the municipalities, is clearly building a silo, so I say we should have listened to Crombie; we should listen to our own, dare I say, common sense. My colleague from Manitoulin Island just went over the concerns of his community, about which I happen to know a bit; in fact, now that I think about it, the member raised two cases just last week, serious cases in his area where local ambulance service was threatened. That's a part of this bill that should cause all of us some concern.
The next thing I wanted to chat a little bit about was the child credit issue. I think everybody in the province understands that Harris is getting ready for this election. It will probably be in May. You can tell he's getting ready. He has spent $50 million of your taxpayer money on clear, blatant political advertising.
I don't mind the Conservative Party spending their own money, and believe me, they're out raising money like we've never seen in this province; I think they've now got $11 million in the bank. I understand them spending their own money that they go out and raise in fundraising, but now they've spent $50 million, every penny of it taxpayer money, going out to fund the Harris re-election campaign.
The reason I raise that is the child credit issue contained within the bill here. It's a plan that's retroactive to July 1. It's a plan that was announced in the budget back in early May, as you know. We could have dealt with that in May; we could have dealt with it in June. The people who are affected by that could have been getting their subsidy by now. But no, what Mike Harris has done is quite clever. This is retroactive to July 1, and for the average family, as one of my colleagues says, it's about $150 a month. Mike is letting it accumulate, letting it grow, and I guarantee you that probably in February or March these 210,000 families in Ontario will get another one of Harris's propaganda pieces. We'll pay for it. It will have his picture in it and all the nice stories in it. It won't be inexpensive, of course, because a mailing of 210,000 is not inexpensive, as you know, and it will be retroactive to July 1. It's Mike Harris's equivalent of the baby bonus. It will be in many respects that old-style, "Here, I'm going to try and buy your vote for the election."
I would just say that the people I know say: "Why in the world couldn't you deal with this back in the spring? Why have you held this back from me up until now? I have had to pay out all these expenses. Why did you wait until seven or eight months after the budget to finally deal with this?" It's very clear: It's all part of the re-election strategy. It will be mailed out, as I say, with a neat brochure from Mike. I might add that a mailing of 210,000 every month is not inexpensive.
Mr Michael Brown: Canada Post will love it.
Mr Phillips: As my colleague said, "Canada Post will love it," and it may work. The old style may work, where people get that nice cheque with Mike Harris's signature on the bottom and a picture of Mike -
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member thinks he has been here long enough that he's on a familiar enough basis with the Premier that he is not covered by the rule that says you're supposed to refer to members by either their ministry or their riding. I wonder if you could direct the member to come to order on that matter.
1630
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. The member has heard it and will address it in this proper way, I'm sure.
Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check to see if we have a quorum present.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Phillips: I'd like to continue. The member for Scarborough East has raised an issue with me. I'm taking my lead from him when last Thursday he made an unfounded accusation against one of our members and used the member's name, not his riding, eight times. It was a completely unfounded charge that had no basis or foundation.
Mr Gilchrist: Two wrongs make a right.
Mr Phillips: I know Mr Gilchrist doesn't like to hear this, but any sensible, decent person would have got up and apologized today. I heard no apology from him.
I want to continue on the elements in this bill. I've covered the concern on the pension issue: no agreement with the teachers on it. The probate fee, the downloading -
Mr Michael Brown: Where does the money come from for that child -
Mr Phillips: Well, my colleague - on the tax bill, the budget bill, I was interested in the 1998 economic outlook because it was instructive to me. One thing I notice is that the province's credit rating - this is it here. Premier Mike Harris has been Premier now for three and a half years and I was wondering what's happened to the credit rating of the province of Ontario. Believe me, I remember that Premier Harris used to attack Bob Rae mercilessly because the credit rating of the province was downgraded three times. Now, Mr Rae was Premier in a significant economic downturn; Mike Harris has been Premier now for almost four years in a time when Canada has been going through a solid economic growth. What's happened on the credit rating? Not a thing.
Mr Michael Brown: It's the same as Bob Rae's.
Mr Phillips: Mike Harris's credit rating is exactly the same as Bob Rae's, three and a half years later. Incredible. Why is that? I'll tell you why it is: Because the credit rating agencies worry about his ability to manage the finances of the province.
I was looking at the financial tables that are impacted by this budget bill, Madam Speaker, and you can see - you may not be able to see, but you can get your own budget book and see - that the debt of the province has gone up $22 billion. What that means in real human terms for every family in Ontario is that their share of the provincial debt has gone up $6,000.
Mr Marchese: How is that possible?
Mr Phillips: My friend Rosario says, "How is that possible?" It's possible because Mike Harris decided that he could afford the tax cut, $22 billion, and every single family, if you look at how much money you now owe, it's up $6,000. By the way, you're paying interest just on the increase in the debt of about $500 a year.
Most of my business friends don't believe that. I've got to send them the chart. They say: "No, there's no way that Premier Harris could take the debt of the province up $22 billion. There's no way he could take it up per family by $6,000. There's no way that our credit rating hasn't gone way up."
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Keep repeating it. Those sound good.
Mr Phillips: Well, take a look at the numbers. I know Mr O'Toole thinks $22 billion isn't much, but the people in my riding can't believe that the debt's gone up by $6,000 per family. I wanted to cover that because that's a big part of this budget bill.
On a relatively small matter, there is a part of the bill in here dealing with the setting up of community small business investment funds, and it's not a bad idea, actually. It was in the budget a year and a half ago. This isn't new, this is a year and half old. I can remember in the budget of a year and a half ago, this was a huge priority. This was a very important part of the government's plan for small business. It was a big priority, it's got to get going. Has anybody in the province got any idea how many of these things now exist, a year and a half later? The answer is zero, none, a year and a half later.
There is one that they tell us is being developed although no one will tell us where it is. It's a bit of a mystery. If you go back and look at the budget of a year and a half ago, this was a big part of the budget. Premier Harris was out trumpeting this. It's the pace they work at: A year and a half later, none of them exists. There's one that's being developed somewhere but it's all a big mystery and no one will tell us where it is.
As I begin to turn over to my colleague, I just want to finally say that on the health side, because we talked about the ambulances, I remember just before the last election - I remember the election too - because it was the time of the federal budget. When that budget came out, I can remember that's when there were cuts to payments from the federal government to the provinces. There were cutbacks in spending. What did Premier Harris say?
Mr Michael Brown: It wasn't enough.
Mr Phillips: That's right. He cheered them on. He said, in the wake of that budget "the spending cut component, which we publicly endorse." It's on the record. I know Harris wouldn't like this to be around because now he's saying: "That dreaded federal government, they've cut spending. We've got to get after the federal government." But Harris sure makes it difficult because he said "the spending cut component, which we publicly endorse." We didn't even do it privately. In fact, I can remember him saying, "We're concerned he didn't cut quite enough." I know he now finds that he was wrong then and that he shouldn't have been saying that he supports those cuts. He's been asked this question: "Would you spend any more money on health care, Premier Harris? Are you not spending enough?" "No, no, we're spending enough." So it's never been a question of whether they should be spending any more money.
1640
Mr Gilchrist: Dalton says you're spending enough.
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist is back, barking again.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough East, come to order.
Mr Phillips: He's never in order, Madam Speaker, but he loves to try those tactics.
Here it is, the Common Sense Revolution, fifth printing: "...the spending cuts, which we publicly endorsed...."
I know what Mike Harris is trying to do. The federal budget comes out and he'll be railing at the federal government. The problem is he's got himself on record here saying, "I support those cuts." As a matter of fact, if you go back and check the record, you'll find he said, "I don't think they cut quite enough, but I support the general thrust of it."
So here we are with Bill 81. Just to review, because the way the government works, there's virtually no time for debate, no committee time, there's no public input allowed -
Mr Gilchrist: And you've made so many concrete suggestions.
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist, who's one of the leaders of trying to shut these down - as a matter of fact, Mr Gilchrist appeared on Thursday at a committee and tried to stop them from even looking at the Andersen Consulting project. That, by the way, is $180 million of taxpayers' money, the biggest contract in the history of the province of Ontario, but Gilchrist didn't want it even debated. He tried to stop any debate on it.
That's the one where the auditor said, "Listen, I can't tell you how concerned I am about this $180-million contract." They're getting paid for work they didn't even do. They took the rates up dramatically. The basis on which the decision was made to hire them, I gather, was because of the people, and then over half the people have left the project. It's $180 million, and there's not even a ceiling on it. That's the amazing thing. They're going to get more than $180 million. They were submitting expenses that they had no backup documentation for. The rates went up dramatically. They were actually submitting bills and then charging a markup on the interest costs. It was the sweetheart of sweetheart consulting deals.
But you know what happened, Madam Speaker? Last Thursday, when what's called the public accounts committee - this is the committee that has the Provincial Auditor overseeing the expenditures. This is the watchdog committee. Mr Gilchrist came into that meeting and tried to shut the committee down. He didn't get away with it because luckily the media and the opposition -
Laughter.
Mr Phillips: Sure, he didn't get away with it. He's laughing now, but he was caught. That's what we're dealing with. That's typical process.
Mr Gilchrist: That's right. My one vote would overwhelm all the other members'.
Mr Phillips: I think the public should realize, as they hear him barking over there, which is fairly typical, that - I'll just go through the numbers.
Last Monday, the property tax bill, Bill 79: no debate, not a single individual allowed to appear, in spite of the fact that AMO and all the major people wanted to.
The next day, the Greater Toronto Services Board: not even a minute of public hearings. The regional chair of Durham, wanting to express his views on behalf of the region of Durham, could not be allowed to speak.
Then on Thursday the classic one, where the debate was about to begin on the Andersen Consulting project and who comes bursting through the door, not even on the committee? Mr Gilchrist, trying to shut it down.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Gabbing as usual.
Mr Phillips: Gabbing, but also doing the heavy stuff, trying to stop any legitimate debate.
Actually, I appreciate the chance. I'm glad Mr Gilchrist is here, because he reminds me of the things he does. I appreciate him always yelling over there, because he inspires me to reveal what he's been doing.
Finally, as we turn it over, I go back to the issues in this bill: the new estate planning tax, the $1.5-billion new tax. I understand the need to collect it, but it enshrines in law something that Mike Harris objected to in opposition. The child credit one, which could have been begun to be paid back in July, is being accumulated. It's all part of the master plan. It will come out - you can visualize the envelope with Mike Harris's picture in it, and probably in February eight months of accumulated payment. That's the process we're following here.
I'm pleased to yield the floor, as we say, to my colleague and just say that I think the public understands this is just another one of the typical moves by the Harris government.
Mr Curling: I always feel privileged to follow my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt because of the knowledge and insight he has. Although they may tell you they're not listening, they know that the knowledge of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is always listened to very carefully. They're sometimes frightened to follow the pattern because they know people will see, wide open, that the Conservative Party, the Mike Harris government, hasn't got a clue about what they're trying to do when it comes to looking after all the people of the province.
It would take about two hours or so to express some of the frustration and some of the concerns I have about this Conservative government, and also the way in which they are handling Bill 81. It's typical, of course, that they try to put omnibus bills in place, to ram everything in at one time without any kind of substantial debate or contribution to it, because they don't believe in that kind of stuff. They feel they got their mandate in 1995, and they immediately lost any capacity at all to listen.
But again, people will continue, as vigilant as they are and as vigilant as the opposition will be, to put forward some of the discrepancies in some of the attitudes of this government. When the time for the election comes about, the results will reflect, very much so, their discerning approach to this government.
We live in a province which we consider to be one of the richest in this country. It's a very rich province: richness in resources, in the sense that we can look after all our people, because that's what government is all about, that those who need support will get support from the government. But what have we seen? What we have seen in the last three and a half years is that the rich are getting richer and the gap between the rich and poor is just widening. The evidence is all over.
This government should be fiscally responsible; in other words, gathering taxes from all the citizens of this province and in the meantime distributing them to the most vulnerable in our society.
Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Speaker: We've got a very important budget bill before the House and I don't believe we have a quorum. Would you check, please?
The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
1650
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough North.
Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, you should have heard the member for Scarborough East saying that if we do this strategy by not having a quorum in the House, it takes the time out of my speech or the contribution of their speech. It seems to be a typical manner of the Conservative Party that if they can listen to as little as possible of the contribution of the opposition, they like that, even the contribution of people giving their time.
As I was saying, what a government is all about, first and foremost, is to serve those who need power, who are powerless, and those without property. But this government itself serves more those who have power and those who have property. Those who are most in need are not being served by this government. It is the old Conservative, old Republican strategy: "We will empower the powerful and we will give property to most of those who have property. We must serve, of course, those who are in need."
What happens when they do that? They would say, "If we do that, what is left over from the rich will go down to the middle class and those who would like to be middle class." In other words, the old trickle-down theory that says they can feed after the fat and after the rich have been fed, that those who are in need will get the crumbs from the table, but we know very well that this will not work.
This Bill 81, this omnibus bill, couples an enormous amount of different items on the agenda with limited time to discuss them and restricts the public from ever having a contribution to all this and having any presentation. They like that, so they put time allocation to everything. This government has been known to have shut down more debates in the House than any other government we have seen.
My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt mentioned a very important point, and I hope that the people out there are listening very well because we saw that this government brags about the fact that it's going to cut its deficit and today is introducing legislation that we're going to have a balanced budget.
They all got up and applauded it. Everybody would like a balanced budget, but who are they going to balance it on? On the backs of the poor. They started their first onslaught: "Make sure we give a tax break. Let's cut the taxes and then take it and give it to the rich people, while the poor people pay for it most."
The first move they made was to cut people who were on welfare subsidies 22%. They cut 22% of their money from those welfare recipients. Who got it? It was very clearly evident. Andersen Consulting got it all. They took the money and gave it to Andersen Consulting, and when they couldn't pay Andersen Consulting the amount of money, Andersen Consulting turned around and said: "We'll tell you how to do it. You can have a plan to pay us over the years. What we'll do, we'll charge interest on the money you owe us, and furthermore, we'll charge another consulting fee on how to do it." They got the big bonus, so when the poor needed that money, all of a sudden it was given to this large consulting company.
Now the fact is, when they are looking for people on welfare, they would have to come up and make sure all the recipients on welfare must show all their assets. Can you imagine? If they have a car, if they have anything, if they have a little savings, they must show it immediately. Andersen Consulting wasn't even consulted in any way on how they get the job. As a matter of fact, the minister herself didn't even know about it, she said, until afterwards. Can you imagine running the show here, trying to save money? Here's someone trying to balance the books, reducing the deficit. But lo and behold, as my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt pointed out, while the deficit was reduced, the debt increased. You over there have increased the debt to $25 billion. This fiscally responsible government has, over time, increased the debt.
You would think a fiscally responsible government like this that brags around would have reduced the debt, or if you take money from the people, you would pay down your debt, but your debt has increased. Everyone was saying: "Where is this fiscally responsible government? How come this government that talks about balancing the books has a greater debt?" And the debt is on the backs of the poor. People were looking for greater access, a government that would treat them fairly with legal aid and what have you, but they have cut back completely on the legal aid process.
Not only did the NDP cut back, but you added to those cutbacks and came forward now with a reform of the legal process, to have access. The Attorney General, who is here, came in here and bowed to us all and said, "I have to cancel out many of the people who are waiting for justice in the court system." They no longer could receive justice, because it had been on the books too long. They didn't give adequate funding to the justice system so they could be heard in court, so people who were waiting for justice were denied justice.
I really admire the Attorney General. He's a person I respect a lot.
Interjection: "However."
Mr Curling: As my colleague said, "However," many of the people who were seeking justice did not get justice because it was on the books too long. Many people who were looking for legal aid, as I said, couldn't get it. But what did this government do? They went ahead and paid legal fees to their rich colleague - not only legal fees, they paid all the fees. I wouldn't mind at all if we had looked at the other party, who was not being heard. I'm not judging if the individual is guilty or not; I'm saying there's a legal process there. You know what the Premier stood up and said to the people of the province? "It's a very expensive way to get justice, so I'll pay it off more quickly."
I would like the people out there who are seeking justice in the courts, who cannot afford a lawyer, to ask if this government will bail them out, if this government will come forth right now and say to them, "I'll pay all the fees for you right now." But no, they turn around to their colleague, their rich buddy, and say, "It's going to cost us too much money if it goes through the court system." Can you imagine? The system that this government is responsible for, they're saying is too costly. "We can't put our colleague through all this, so we'll pay."
I would ask those who have been waiting for their human rights cases for four and five years, who have lost their jobs, who have no money at all to afford this kind of legal support, an expensive legal expense, to ask if this could be paid for. I would like to ask the member for Scarborough East, when he's babbling around and trying to defend the attitude of this government, if, when in his constituency, he will pay the legal fees for the many people who are seeking justice. I want him to recommend to his government that all those who have been waiting for the past two or three years to get their cases heard - will he pay for them? If you want to balance the social injustice that's happening here in our society, would you pay for them? Would you do that? The almost $600,000 that was paid out - do you know how many court cases and how many settlements that could do? They talk about it being too expensive. Sure, who's paying for it? It's not too expensive for their buddy over there. Not one penny came out of their pockets.
1700
This Premier stands up and says, "If we don't balance the budget, we will take it out of the pockets of MPPs." What sort of hogwash is that? Why don't you take the money right now? Why don't they go into the pockets of the Conservative members here and say, "Pay for the legal fees that you paid for your big buddy over there." The people would applaud you and say yes. But oh, no, it's the welfare recipients' money they took; it's the cutback in daycare, the cutback with hospitals closing where they're saving money, the cutback in education of kids. They use that money to pay their buddy and talk about being a fiscally responsible government, a government that has increased the debt, a government that brags about it all -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Scarborough East.
Mr Curling: - an increase of $25 billion in debt. In the three and a half years that they have been in power, they have not even increased their credit rating. This government that said it is responsible, that said, "We'll wipe out the deficit by the year 2000," has increased the debt and has not even got an increase in credit rating. These people, who are very close to the financial market - all those who can read a balance sheet are telling them right now: "You haven't done well one bit. You haven't fooled us one bit. The Conservative Party of Ontario, the Harris government, has not fooled us one bit. Your credit rating has not yet increased."
Even my extreme socialist friends over there, when they took over - you thought for one moment, "My golly, this province has gone to the dogs." This government has not even improved it one bit. You have not fooled anyone on Bay Street, Wall Street, whatever big streets you walk on. They said you have not done better, not even better than the New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party balanced those budgets. We balanced them a long time ago.
It's an old thing. Coming here and thinking it's new, like it's sliced bread all over again - you're gleaming and smiling and standing up with applause that you have done a great thing in balancing the deficit, and you will take it out of the pockets of every MPP if they don't, and increase it if they don't a second time. My feeling is that's no effort. The effort I would like to see you make is going to your own individual pockets and paying for the stuff you're doing in trying to balance the budget.
Let me tell you what a Liberal government would do. We don't look at the rich on Bay Street and empower them more or at those with property and empower them more. We feel we are a government to serve all people. We don't divide the rich from the poor, the 905 from the 416, the teachers from the students, the medical practitioners from the patients. We don't do that. We believe a government is here to serve all the people.
We believe that if people work hard and acquire wealth - yes, but not on others' backs. We believe in fair treatment, of course, for those who must be paid proper wages. We believe that women should be paid proper wages, wages equal to those of men, and all will have equal pay and equal access.
Mr Marchese: What about employment equity?
Mr Curling: We believe in employment equity, fairness of training. We believe it very much - not like the NDP. We don't believe in employment equity like the NDP; we don't believe in employment equity like the Conservative Party.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York, order, please.
Mr Curling: We believe that regardless of unions, regardless of access, regardless of whether they are seniors.
If we go back, Madam Speaker - I know that you will fully agree with me - when we speak about access, we speak about access for all. Regardless of colour, class, creed, whether we are old or junior or senior or whatever age, we believe in that kind of access. We believe that if we have access for the disabled, we will not write a little two-page thing and say, "This will hold you over for the time being." We believe that for those who need handouts to support them, they will be there, and we will spend the necessary money to do that - not the necessary money to give the rich so it will trickle down and maybe, hopefully, the middle class who work so hard, or those who want the middle class, are being deprived of that.
Then we can come and talk about a fair tax system, where we can tax everyone freely, not take it away from the poor and give it to the rich. We believe, of course, that any government should face the people upright and say, "We represent all people." In 1995, the people asked for a fair and compassionate government. What did they get? They got the empowerment of the rich. They asked for fair treatment and justice. What did they get? They got the fact that they can give 12-year-olds guns, but in the meantime punish the 18-year-olds on other aspects of it. The fact is that just for political opportunity they would do that.
This government has not treated the people fairly. They have not in any way looked at the province and said, "While we are looking richer, let us ourselves look after the poor." Here are the people who in 1995 said, "There are homeless in our city who would like homes, who would like affordable access to homes." What they got was that they're on the streets. There are more homeless people on the streets everywhere as you walk along in Toronto and even in other cities around.
Did people get from this government what they asked for in 1995? They got the reverse. They got a government that is in itself so undemocratic that you can't get a good public hearing for any of the bills.
They asked for a government that will listen, but it's a government that shuts down this place whenever it wants and bullies through. This is not the kind of thing we're looking for.
We asked the government for affordable housing. What have they done? They've cancelled rent controls. We asked the government for fairness in every respect. We asked for a government that would not on the backs of children - we are seeing that children are starving in our rich province. We're seeing more poverty among children in our province, this rich province.
Is this the government that said they are prepared to balance the deficit, to balance the budget? At what cost? At a cost to the poor, at a cost to those who need it more, because government is about those who need it more. They don't get that. They abuse the poor. They abuse women in the way in which they have legislated laws.
I tell you that the day will come, and it has come, of course, that people will say, "Enough is enough." Enough is enough. We saw a government that has spent $47 million, almost $50 million talking about the things they are doing and saying, "We have done it well." The propaganda, taxpayers' money - who paid for that? Who paid for that again is the poor. You take that money, when you could have given it to people who need it most, to have your propaganda, to put Mike Harris's face on TV and say, "Whatever we are doing, these are tough decisions."
They took $400 million out of the education system. My golly, they're paying for it now. The teachers stood up and said: "No, this is wrong. We are at the heart and core of it all. This is wrong, what you've done."
They took $800 million out of the hospitals and they're paying for it right now and will continue to pay for it.
What are they doing now? They know of course that an election is coming. The people know that too. Mike Harris walks around with the cheques of the money he took away from the poor, the money he took out of the hospitals, the money he took out of education. Then with another cheque he's giving them less and saying, "Look at how good and compassionate a government I am. Here is a big cheque," dropping the cheques as he goes along. Then he gets the applause and the photo ops and all that.
The people are much more intelligent than he would think they are. He feels that they have not watched him and have not seen the things he has done. He has done some awful things. Sure, they will take the money as you put back into the system.
I tell you, the people understand the fraudulent manner in which it was done, we are saying the hypocritical manner in which the process has been played. The people will speak and they will speak very loudly of the way the Harris government is now looking to say - I remember - "We will not raise taxes. We are tax fighters. We will not put taxes on."
They changed the name, but the players are the same. They changed the name to "user fee," and they will bring in the most user fees you can find around here. It's a tax. It is the same government, the same individual, the same Mike Harris who said, "A tax is a tax is a tax." In other words, a user fee is a tax. But today, of course, it's no longer a tax; it's a user fee which he has put on the people.
1710
I see the young pages here as they leave here today for their last week, and they're concerned. I see the expressions on their faces. They're saying: "Will my post-secondary education be guaranteed? Will my parents be able to afford the tuition fees for college?" Do you know why they ask those questions? They ask those questions because they have seen the increase in tuition fees escalated under this government. There are those who want to be trained and they're wondering, if there are programs in place, if they can afford them. They are saying, "I don't think it can be." The OSAP program has been completely dismantled, and they have only loans. I'm telling you, by the time they graduate, the banks will be owning them, $24,000 or $30,000 in loans.
Then the law will state, while SkyDome can seek bankruptcy protection, that a student cannot seek bankruptcy protection if they don't have the money, because governments have cut a deal with the banks and say, "You cannot declare bankruptcy; we shall be holding on to you until you pay that money," even if they can't. They're worried. They're concerned about the cost. The government of the day has no concern about that cost.
I want to give them some hope and I'm going to give them hope today. The hope I'm going to give the young people here is that this Liberal government, as your mom and dad go out and vote Liberal and your friends go out and vote Liberal, is a government that will be compassionate enough to make sure that your education will be guaranteed, that you will not have that burden on your back that the Conservative government has put on you. We're going to give you that hope.
We're going to give you more hope. We're going to give the people who are homeless some hope; not only hope, but we will put money there and take action to protect them from being on the street. We'll give all those people hope and we will invest the money where it's needed most.
We are not here to look at the bottom sheets of a balanced book and say, "That's what we are all about." No. We're about people. With the amount of taxes and resources we have in this province, the amount of wealth we have in this province can be shared. We feel that individuals will not only be empowered but may be carried to the point where they will say, "I am richer, and they are poorer; we'll bring the entire family."
Dalton McGuinty always says that, being from a big family, he knows his values. Many of us know those values, not from Parliament or from policy papers; we know our values from when we were at home, where family believes in bringing everybody together and everybody will be fed. If there is one bread and four of us, we'll cut it in four, not give it to the rich or give it to the stronger in our society or the strongest member of the family. No, we will share with all, because we'll all work together, because by working together we have a better place.
The wonderful thing about all this is that it's easy. It's easy in a province like Ontario, because we are a rich province, because we have the resources to do it. But it becomes complex and harder when you have a government like the Conservative government that just wants to empower the rich and deprive those who need it most and deny people who are disabled access to empower themselves and empower the province.
I have great hope in this province and that the people of this province will make sure that a Conservative government like this, if they don't see the light early, will be cast out. I have hope that the people will elect a government that's more compassionate. We have hope that the government will not borrow on the backs of the young people or the poor to distribute the wealth to the rich and leave out the poor. I have hope, and I'm sure that with all of these bills we will one day see a better Ontario which includes everyone.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Grimmett: It certainly is going to be fun to have two minutes to comment on the speeches by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the member for Scarborough North. I have to say that since I've been here from 1995 on, I've always been very confused about the position of the Liberal Party of Ontario, especially on tax cuts.
My confusion began during the election campaign in 1995 when the Liberal Party had a position on tax cuts. It says right here in the red book: "Rising taxes also kill jobs. Paying higher taxes than their competitors is the last thing Ontario businesses can afford. As for Ontario families, many can't afford the taxes they're paying right now."
We were then elected on a campaign of doing a number of things, among them cutting taxes in Ontario, and ever since we were elected the Liberals have voted against every single tax cut we've brought in - every one. Bill 81 will now bring the total, if this is passed, to 67 tax cuts.
I'm a little confused because earlier today we had a vote on second reading of Bill 81. There was no sound from the Liberal benches, but technically the vote was passed because no one objected to the vote going ahead. The silence from the Liberal benches on that matter was deafening and I think it's an indication of the ambivalence of that party on just where they're going, not only on tax cuts but also on balancing the budget.
Then today we had the Premier introduce the Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Protection Act. That is a very important piece of legislation, where our government is saying that we're not going to allow future governments to have deficits. We had the Liberal Party today apparently supporting this piece of legislation but I can tell you, from the speeches we've heard today, it's very difficult to believe the Liberal Party really believes in the idea of tax -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let there be no doubt about it. I'll tell you what we're not confused about. We are not confused about the deal that your members on the Board of Internal Economy allowed to go through, where in effect $600,000 of the taxpayers' money was being wasted.
Interjections.
Mr Gerretsen: The member for Nepean knows this quite well. Everybody in the province of Ontario is absolutely outraged at the fact that this government allows -
Mr Young: Point of order.
The Acting Speaker: Just a moment. Take your seat. Point of order; be quick, please.
Mr Michael Brown: He's not in his seat.
The Acting Speaker: Oh, you're not in your seat; that's correct. Thank you for pointing that out.
Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's very interesting that whenever you hit one of these raw nerves of the government, they come up with all sorts of nonsensical interjections. The member isn't even in his seat. As a matter of fact, he doesn't even sit on the government side; he sits in the rump over here, the members who somehow couldn't make it on the proper side of the House, and he dares to say that.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Gerretsen: All I know is that the people of Ontario are absolutely outraged over the kind of money, $600,000, that has been used to basically shut up a member and basically not allow the truth to come out with respect to the sexual harassment case. Madam Speaker, you and I know that was the wrong thing to do and the government bears the full blame and responsibility for that.
The people of Ontario are also outraged at the $47 million that has been wasted on government advertising rather than putting that money into good health care and education programs for which the people of the province are crying.
Mr Len Wood: I listened to both the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the member for Scarborough North commenting on the fact that the phony tax scheme Mike Harris has brought forward, the 30% tax cut, is hurting health care.
An example of how health care is being hurt in the north: I can remember that Mike Harris, in the 1995 election, went into all the hospitals and the board rooms and said, "There's going to be a little bit of savings in administration but we don't have any plans to cut hospital budgets." Two weeks ago a letter went out to all the hospitals in my riding of Cochrane North - Hearst, Kapuskasing - and to some of the hospitals in the new riding I'll be representing after the next election, Timiskaming-Cochrane, explaining that they're going to cut off all the funding for all the specialists who come up to the north to treat people in their home town. As a result, all the hospitals are going to have to lay off staff now or drastically cut back on the number of hours they use to serve these specialists who come up to the north.
1720
As a result, the northern Ontario travel grant is going to go completely out of control, because instead of bringing a dozen or 15 specialists up to each hospital two or three times a month, now you're going to have hundreds and thousands of people who are going to have to spend money out of their own pockets. Sure, they're going to get compensated a little bit through the northern travel grant, but they're going to be spending hundreds and thousands of dollars travelling down to Toronto and London and the other major areas to get consultation.
The Mike Harris government has directly cut off the funding that goes to these programs in Hearst, Kapuskasing, Kirkland Lake, New Liskeard and a lot of these other hospitals. The patients are going to suffer as a direct result of trying to make the wealthiest people in this province wealthier by a tax cut. It's wrong.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Gilchrist: I am indeed pleased to comment on what we've heard so far in the last hour, although I should take a second and suggest to those who would have the Howard Hampton, Len Wood and Rosario Marchese tax protection act that the suggestion that the NDP would claw back tax cuts that were made for people at $80,000 when they themselves make $78,000 I think is very obvious.
The members of the official opposition spent the entire hour on tangents, on personal attacks; not one suggestion. They spent an entire hour commenting about, among other things, the lack of opportunity to have debate on this bill and didn't make one suggestion on how the bill could be improved. I have to take from that that the members opposite are happy with the bill and instead took their hour just for pure grandstanding.
When we go back and look at things, their leader at the time, Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, said: "It's time that government started following a policy of zero tolerance for tax increases. A Liberal government will reduce overall taxes by 5%."
The members opposite in the Liberal Party - the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Scarborough North - have voted against every tax cut we've tabled - every one. I hope when the members opposite go to see their constituents in a few months, they remind them of the fact that they didn't want the income tax cut. They didn't want the tax benefits that we're giving to afford greater access for disabled people in the workplace. They don't want improvements to the Pension Act. They don't want any of the tax cuts this government has delivered.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Shame, shame.
Mr Gilchrist: It is shameful, and it's the typical Liberal hypocrisy, the flip-flop back and forth. The bottom line is, when you see that even in New Brunswick the Liberal government there proposed a tax cut in this year's budget, you see how out of sync they are with everyone else in Canada.
Mr Curling: Under this Conservative government, the provincial debt will grow by $25 billion.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, come to order. You too, member for Nepean.
Mr Curling: I want to say it one more time: Under this Mike Harris Conservative, fiscally responsible government, the provincial debt will grow by $25 billion.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Perth.
Mr Curling: Although the NDP contributed $49 billion to the debt in their time, they added $25 billion. They stand here and say that we have not voted in their favour. Do you know why? Because in your direction you're going $25 billion more in debt. I ask the people of this province, would you want us to support that, to send the government and you and everybody, on the backs of young kids, into more debt? No. That is why we didn't vote for your phony little tax bills. We see the direction in which you're going.
Who will agree with us? All the credit rating companies agree with us. If they did not agree with us, they would have raised your standing as being a very fiscally responsible government.
Mr Michael Brown: It's the same as Bob Rae.
Mr Curling: It's the same as Bob Rae of the NDP.
I want the people to understand; I want them to know. They know that while you're talking about having balanced books and getting rid of the deficit, you are $25 billion more in debt, and paying interest on that too.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Marchese: It's always a pleasure to listen to Liberals in this House. It is so good to know that they support everything and also good to know that they oppose everything. It is wonderful to know that they always have a solid position to stand on. God bless that they have two feet, because if they only had one foot, I'm not quite sure where they would land. God bless, it is always an honour to listen to most of them speak.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, is there a problem?
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): We like the way you started off.
Mr Marchese: It is so nice to have so many good friends. Camera, please, on the left. The member for Scarborough East, one of the most loved individuals in Ontario, is here to my right, making sure that I have enough time to debate the issue. I'm happy they're here, but I would remind the good people of Ontario that as a result of the changes they have made, the third party gets absolutely squeezed in this deal. The Tories get to have as much time as they want, if they want it, and they usually take it; the Liberals usually take all of their time, as they do; and the poor third party gets squeezed like a bottleneck. Picture that: like a bottleneck: The fingers can barely get around, so tightly squeezed the debate is becoming in this House. But we still have a few minutes and that's all we need to make our points.
Mr Gilchrist: It's quality, not quantity.
Mr Marchese: I suppose.
There is so much to say because, again, this is a magnum opus. Many of the lawyers would know what that means in Latin. It's huge, and it's an attempt, of course, to cover so much as an omnibus bill because they can't seem to get anything right in the first place. That is why it's a compilation of so much; that's why the word "omnibus," Latin once again: to cover so much that they do so artfully.
Mr Len Wood: Child care: They had to redo it. Three times they had to do it.
Mr Marchese: Child care: Three times they had to deal with this particular matter. It's in this bill.
This bill was introduced a couple of years ago, a $200-million child care program.
Are my Tory friends leaving me?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Come to order.
Mr Marchese: Please, make your way across so that I can be free to have 10 minutes, or sit quietly here while I make my speech.
Three times they tried to fix this problem. It was announced in 1996 and nothing happened. That was scrapped. Then it was reannounced in 1997, and that was put into a credit kind of system, a tax credit. I guess that wasn't good enough either, you recall, Speaker, because now this program is dead, making room for yet another program. It's a direct payment: $85 for every child under seven.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: The member for Cochrane North, who would have liked to have spoken but there isn't enough time, said, "This creates no new child care spaces." God knows they are needed, and so many working women are hoping that this fine Conservative government would make room, would make way, would release a few bucks so more spaces could be had, so people could be working. They haven't done it.
Interjection: The speech started so much better.
Mr Marchese: I've got to attack the Liberals; I did. Now I'm coming to you. It's a balanced approach.
Now they want to give $85 for every child under seven. It's a re-election ploy.
Mr Len Wood: Trying to buy votes.
Mr Marchese: Trying to buy votes. It's bribing those poor people.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Sure it should hurt you. It should hurt you, member for Scarborough East, and now it's time to go perhaps.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: What we've got here is a serious problem, an attempt to buy votes with 85 bucks. It's a good Christmas package.
1730
Interjection: I have to go.
Mr Marchese: Goodbye, my friend. We'll see you again.
They came to help me out. When I was beating up on the Liberals they were here and now I'm beating up on them and they can't take it.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, member for Nepean.
Speaker, 85 bucks, what a good gift to give someone because people out there say, "I could use $85."
The Acting Speaker: Take your seat for a moment. It seems really chaotic in here to me and perhaps you'd agree with me. Would members please take their seats. I'm having trouble hearing the member for Fort York.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. I'm glad to have some silence so people can hear what I've got to say.
On the child credit stuff, on this new $85 tax gift that people are getting, the member for Halton Centre talked about how this is going to benefit the working people, the working poor. Remember that? He said that about an hour ago. It almost makes it appear like they really care about those working people, about the poor and all that.
Mr Young: Oh, come on.
Mr Marchese: The member for Halton Centre says that's not fair. Let me tell you how fair that is. You remember the UN committee in Geneva that conducts periodic reviews of how countries live up to their obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They beat up on this Conservative government and they certainly beat up on the federal Liberal government as well. It was a fascinating report. The committee slammed Ottawa and the provinces for having "adapted policies which exacerbated poverty and homelessness among vulnerable groups during a time of strong economic growth and increasing affluence." They beat up on the federal Liberals and the provincial Tories, and rightfully so. It's an embarrassment, many writers have written.
Most Canadians are getting wealthier but about five million of our people in Ontario, including 1.5 million children, live on the poor side and are falling behind in good economic times. What do the Tories have to say to that?
Mr Len Wood: Take from the poor, give to the rich.
Mr Marchese: They have been taking from the poor to give to the rich. It's a disgraceful act by these Tories.
Jean Chrétien, that fine Liberal, and his cronies up there and Mike Harris have slashed billions from social programs, shoving people deeper into poverty and into distress. And they boast about 85 bucks that they give to the working poor and the working people to give them a hand up, I'm assuming. They get beaten up by that group that conducts periodic reviews on how countries live up to their obligations.
Ottawa and Queen's Park hardly even acknowledge a rich-poor gap, much less express concern about it. What a wonderful performance it must have looked like to witness those civil servants from the federal and provincial level. Ottawa ignored the question on how many people have been hurt and how badly, although welfare has taken a beating coast to coast, as have hospitals, and university fees have soared. Ontario's reply was roughly the same as Ottawa's response.
"Why has Canada allowed more people to fall into poverty at a time of great growth?" was the question that was asked of them. Ottawa acknowledged the high rate of "relative poverty," but here too the feds didn't have a word to say about why those people have been pushed deeper into misery. Ontario got high grades, evidently, for being very, very brief. "Presently, there is no standard measure of poverty," was the answer the civil servants gave to that committee on the issue of the question of poverty.
Food bank use has doubled in the past decade and the questions were asked: "Why has Canada let this happen? Is this consistent with article XI of the covenant? How many children who use food banks go hungry? How many parents?" Again, both governments dodged the question. In Ontario the response was, "The government of Ontario does not fund food banks and does not collect statistics on food bank usage," and then a few words about programs to help the children.
"How many people are homeless in Ontario and is it becoming an emergency?" "The provincial government does not collect data that would reflect the extent of homelessness in Ontario cities."
On another question, "How many families have been forced to move out of homes or have been evicted because of social assistance cuts?" "The number of evictions resulting from non-payment of rent has not been tracked by the courts and, therefore, no data exist."
What a catalogue of embarrassing answers those civil servants have given. But it's not their fault. They reflect the government in power, governments like that the member for Nepean -the camera over here - supports. Their answers reflect their policy and that's why they look bad.
You, the good people of Ontario, have to assess to what extent these bills, which are bills designed to support business - the member for Halton Centre, the member for Wentworth East, both have said, "This is a bill that makes more capital available to business." The member for Wentworth East said, "This legislation encourages job growth and tax initiatives to business." It's all about business. There is nothing in this bill that supports working people, those who earn modest incomes. They work harder, longer, for less, and it gets worse and worse. More and more people are working at two or three jobs to make ends meet, working harder, longer, for less.
Yet we have the Fraser Institute, again friends of the member for Nepean and others, who are trying to develop a new definition of "poverty" so that fewer people would fall victim to the dreaded disease called poverty. They're redefining it.
The Fraser Institute is a conservative think tank. Certainly they're trying to help the Liberals too, I agree. They're redefining poverty and they also have invented something new. Its name is productivity. It used to be that the Fraser Institute attacked deficits; now it's productivity, meaning people have got to work harder because they're presumably lazy, and certainly we can't give them any more money because presumably they're getting too much money as it is. They have not had a raise in seven or eight years, including in good times, yet the new Fraser Institute types at the federal Liberal level and the Conservative level here are saying: "We've got to produce more. People have to work harder." They are working harder, longer and more, for less and less, and people understand that.
When we have these bills that help the business community, what's contained in here is no worse than the tax cut they have given to the richest Ontarians in this province. They had to borrow $22 billion or so to give out $6 billion to their wealthy buddies, and $2 billion of that goes to the richest friends -
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Don't point at me.
Mr Marchese: - that the member for Kitchener knows very well; two billion bucks. The member for Nepean knows that too. Giving it away, borrowing money they don't have to give money to wealthy Ontarians.
Good people of Ontario, how does that sound to you? We pay, the children, our children pay for that miserable kind of Tory policy that we see put in place.
Mr Young: This is awful.
Mr Marchese: Of course it's awful. The member for Halton Centre is leaving because he knows it's awful. I'm glad he's leaving this place. He should be leaving this place because it has been an assault on the working poor and the working people of Ontario.
There's so much more. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about the probate fees and he talked about Bob Rae increasing the probate fees. It made it appear like we were the ones who did this. The reason the Tories made it retroactive to 1950 is because every government imposed them, which includes Tories of the past, Liberals of the recent past and us. What's more condemnable is that the Tories attacked us when we did it, and now this fine mess of a people have been creating so much more chaos in this province which we've got to deal with.
1740
Speaker, you've got to help me out here now. Has my time run out? I need to know.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): You have 12 seconds.
Mr Marchese: One more minute? God bless. The clerks are so precise.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about the credit rating. These Tories never mention that. But you remember Mike Harris when he was here in opposition: "Oh, the credit rating went down when the NDP was in power. Imagine." Under three and a half or four good years of economic productivity, of doing well, the best times we've ever had, and their credit rating has not improved. Can you explain it, fine member for Nepean? Of course you can't.
They're bringing us down. Even in good economic times, these Tories are pulling us down. The middle class is becoming extinct and the poor are getting poorer while their Tory buddies are getting more and more money in their pockets that they do not need.
I oppose this bill and will be voting against it.
The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 9, I am now required to put the question.
Mr Young has moved third reading of Bill 81. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
Aha, I've got a letter just in the nick of time. It reads, "Dear Madam Speaker" - he even changed that. Congratulations.
"Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I would like to request that the vote on Bill 81 be deferred until December 15, 1998. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
"The Honourable David Turnbull
"Chief Government Whip."
So the vote is deferred.
EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE
Mr Maves, on behalf of Mr Flaherty, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 92, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time between now and 6 o'clock equally.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It gives me great pleasure to commence debate on second reading of Bill 92, the Emergency Volunteers Protection Act. Our government has worked hard to support those selfless individuals who volunteer their time and talents to the community. We believe giving a higher profile to volunteerism will encourage others to come forward.
Volunteers are often the visible glue holding communities together. As anyone who has ever lived in small-town Ontario knows, smaller communities depend on the commitment and courage of volunteers to come to the aid of their neighbours in times of crisis. These courageous individuals need to be assured that in the unfortunate event of an injury they and their families would not face undue hardship.
Bill 92 would ensure fair treatment for volunteer firefighters and ambulance crews injured on the job. It would give municipalities the flexibility to choose a level of compensation coverage that would promote volunteerism. Better still, it comes with only a minimal extra cost to Ontario municipalities.
I would like to thank municipal leaders and volunteer firefighters for bringing this matter to our attention, as well as the member for Wellington, Mr Arnott.
An extraordinary amount of correspondence has been received by government members on the topic. This outpouring is a testament to the value municipalities and their taxpayers place on volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers. In no particular order, here are some of the townships, counties and municipalities that contacted us. As you listen to the communities being named and then locate them mentally, you'll notice they share one thing in common: They have placed their security and their families' security in the hands of these courageous and selfless volunteers.
The township of Maryborough; Puslinch fire department, Puslinch township; town of Palmerston; Chatham-Kent; township of Perry; Port Elgin fire department; town of Ajax; town of Brighton; Springwater township and fire department; City of Port Colborne in Niagara region; town of Seaforth; township of West Perth; town of Perth; Oro-Medonte township; and the city of Orillia.
There are many, many others that wrote in. I must say that in the 61 hours and 26 minutes of debate that we had on Bill 99, which of course this act amends, we didn't really have anyone come in and make a presentation about this problem in Bill 99. That's why it's important that this correction is being made. The members opposite should know that if they go back and look at the debates on Bill 99, they'll find that this was an instance that wasn't brought to anyone's attention. It's something that didn't come up in those hearings.
We're delighted that those people from those townships and those fire departments and Mr Arnott from Wellington caught this problem and that all three parties today have agreed on the changes needed to the legislation.
The president of the Oro-Medonte firefighters' association, I believe, said in a letter to the minister: "Our municipality is served by 96 volunteer firefighters, covering more than 350 square miles between Barrie and Orillia. We are volunteers because we want to serve our community."
He goes on to say, "I urge you to correct this as soon as possible and make this a win-win for all involved." That is exactly what the government is doing with Bill 92.
Minister Flaherty also asked me if I would mind mentioning Mr Joe Casey, the deputy fire chief of Oro-Medonte, who has been very helpful to us with Bill 92.
This bill has already attracted unanimous support, as I said, from all three parties. That this is true is a clear sign that this government and this House is listening to the sounds of those communities -
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): You screwed up.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Oriole, come to order.
Mr Maves: - and the concerns of volunteer firefighters. In the government's case, we are listening and we are acting. It is the right thing to do.
As I said, through 61 hours and 26 minutes, this was not brought to our attention by the members opposite or by members of the public or townships. We appreciate that it did come to our attention. We appreciate all those townships and all those volunteer firefighter associations that did bring this to our attention as well as the member for Wellington, Mr Arnott.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I am pleased to join the debate on this particular bill. Let me begin by saying that the official opposition will support the bill in its entirety.
I want to respond for a few moments about why we are doing this bill. I guess we should be happy because, unlike property taxation, this is only the first rewrite, not the seventh rewrite. When the government passed Bill 99 with 61 hours of hearings, that sounds like a lot to the average person out there listening. What the government forgets to tell you is that it was a complete overhaul, a complete rewrite of workers' compensation legislation in this province, and what the government did in effect was jam it through. Despite the fact that they have all the resources of government behind them, despite the fact that numerous individuals made representations to the opposition about this issue, nobody on the government side did anything about it.
Mr Caplan: Because they don't listen.
Mr Duncan: They don't listen. They dilly-dallied and they heard from a township here and a township there and from volunteer firefighters, and they continued to dilly-dally. Finally, to his credit, a member of the government bench had to bring forward legislation to force his own government to deal with this situation.
Let's remember what that situation was. That government, the Harris government, ignored small-town Ontario. It ignored the thousands of volunteer firefighters in this province who risk life and limb to protect us, and then the government didn't even have the decency, the courtesy to respond in a timely fashion. It relied on one of its own members, through a very critical piece of legislation, to force the government.
1750
The government would have responded much more quickly if it was the president of a bank or if it was the Health Services Restructuring Commission. They could close the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines faster than they can amend a bill like this, because their priority is closing hospitals. They can close schools faster than they could introduce this little amendment to the legislation. By the way, I'll remind the government members who spoke earlier that this amendment is simply about restoring what they took away; it's simply about that. It's also about the importance of public hearings, of public consultation and how we write our laws and regulations.
Since it came to office, this government has insisted time and time again that it can simply push legislation through without thinking of the consequences. How many times has that happened in the life of this government? We see a funding formula in education that has now been thoroughly discredited, so we have to rewrite that. We have to come in and bail out and pretend that we didn't cause a crisis in education.
It's really quite humorous when I hear the member for Niagara Falls try to suggest that the government looks anything but silly in this whole episode. It's unfortunate, because this is something, thank goodness, that due to the efforts of a government member is being corrected, but there are literally dozens and hundreds of mistakes that this government has made because they have introduced legislation and regulation and haven't thought through consequences, haven't consulted.
The property tax mess: seven bills to finally get it right.
Interjection: They haven't got it right, though.
Mr Duncan: And they still don't have it right.
The education funding formula: What's going to happen to that? Where is that going? How many schools will eventually be closed?
What about hospital closures? I paraphrase, but I remember Mike Harris saying, "It's not my plan to close a hospital." We are up to what now? Are we at 40 now?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Over 40.
Interjection: It's 45.
Mr Duncan: It's 45 hospitals.
This government tries to claim competence. This is an example of incompetence. You ignored the needs and wishes of small-town Ontario and volunteers right across this province. Shame on you. We'll support fixing your mistakes.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In the few minutes that I have in the agreement among the parties, I want to say clearly that we support this legislation and we see it as a victory for the member for Wellington, who brought the matter before the House and who highlighted the problems with the legislation his government had introduced previously and said that it had to be fixed, that it had to be remediated to protect the volunteers who give of their time, their resources and their efforts to protect life and property, particularly in our small communities across Ontario.
I know this has been a major issue in my riding, and I know the member for Wellington has many small communities in his riding where this is an important matter as well. I think it's a victory, though, not just for the member for Wellington and for this Legislature, but for those very volunteers, who work so hard on behalf of their communities across Ontario.
I must say that I find it a little bit amusing that the member for Niagara Falls would say that somehow the opposition is at fault for allowing Bill 99 to get through the Legislature because we didn't bring this matter up. All that means is that the government was so incompetent that it convinced itself and even the opposition that this was not a problem. In fact, they should have known it was a problem, and they would have if they had taken the time to consult with the people who are affected by Bill 99.
The problem with this government, as it often is with people who think they know everything, is they don't listen. Having known the member for Wellington for so many years, I know that he is an exception on that other side. He actually does listen to what the people of his constituency have to say. He is concerned about the people in his riding, whereas the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General stood in this House repeatedly and said: "There's nothing wrong with Bill 99. Everything is all right. All the concerns that have been raised by the firefighters' associations across Ontario are just scaremongering, and all this is is a bunch of people who are concerned about the status quo."
Mr Maves: Who was the minister at the time, Bud?
Mr Wildman: Let's see. Who was it?
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: The Minister of Health, Mrs Witmer.
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: Well, you Tories all look alike. It's hard to tell the difference between them, except there is one diamond in the rough, the member for Wellington, who stood up for the people of his constituency and who listened to the people of his constituency and wanted to resolve this.
I'm being a little facetious, but I do seriously believe that this is a victory for the people of small-town and rural Ontario, because all of us who live in those parts of the province owe so much to the women and men who get the training and do the work and go out for the practices week after week and who respond to emergencies, whether it be a home fire, a fire in a business, a serious emergency health problem or, in my case in particular, accidents on the highway where the first response is usually the area volunteer fire department. They get there usually before the ambulance and the police are usually the third to arrive at the accident, just because of distances.
It's so important that we have people who have the training to know how to stabilize an injured person, who know what action to take to protect property and to evacuate people who may be in danger, and those people should not be concerned that if they get hurt in responding to an emergency they will not be protected. Those people deserve to know that their jobs will be protected and that if they have to collect compensation benefits, they will be adequate to help them provide for themselves and their families. That's what this bill does, that's why I support it and that's why I pay tribute tonight to the member for Wellington.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Maves has moved second reading of Bill 92. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 this evening.
The House adjourned at 1759.
Evening meeting reported in volume B.