role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 15, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L075 - Wed 15 May 1996 / Mer 15 Mai 1996

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIRECTED BLOOD DONATIONS

DISCRIMINATION

ROYAL WEEK

ST JUDE'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

EDUCATION FINANCING

YORK SOUTH BY-ELECTION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WEB SITE

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAW ENFORCEMENT

GASOLINE PRICES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

POLICE SERVICES

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

BOATING SAFETY

NEGRO CREEK ROAD

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

EDUCATION FINANCING

TAX REDUCTION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

RENT REGULATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TRANSITION HOUSE

GASOLINE PRICES

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

TRANSITION HOUSE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from the Administrator of the government signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The Administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1997, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIRECTED BLOOD DONATIONS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm rising today to address a matter of grave concern to many people in this province: the issue of directed blood donations. The matter was first brought to my attention when one of my constituents came to see me about their son, Ryan, who is 17 months old and is facing serious heart surgery. Ryan's parents, Nat and Margaret Chiefari, would like to donate their blood for their son's operation, but have been told that it is not possible.

Ryan and his parents are here today in the gallery because they have a plea to make: that they be able to donate their safe blood for their son's operation.

Directed blood donations are not an unknown. They exist throughout the United States and closer to home. Only a few weeks ago, Justice Claude Benoit of the Quebec Superior Court ordered the Red Cross to accept the blood of the parents of Antoine Bruneau-Quinal for use in their son's operation.

I've spoken to hospital administrators, who are not opposed to directed donations but simply require Red Cross approval to proceed. Even the Red Cross is supportive, claiming that it would be willing to allow direct donations in certain situations "where the provinces support them as a matter of health policy."

The hospitals, the Red Cross and, most importantly, people like Ryan are waiting for action. The matter for Ryan is urgent, since he is scheduled for surgery on June 4. We hope the Minister of Health will act immediately to look at guidelines which will facilitate direct blood donations in Ontario.

DISCRIMINATION

The answer I got from her with respect to the study was, "First of all...discrimination is against the law in this province"; secondly, there's an equal opportunity plan that they have that presumably deals with this; thirdly, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Code were to be reformed.

The Chinese Canadians who called me understand that discrimination is against the law. They know it is, but in spite of that, discrimination continues. They're worried that this equal opportunity plan means nothing more than the words "equal opportunity," that they're going to continue facing discrimination. They're afraid that because you've taken away all the tools to deal with that, they will continue to suffer the injustices in the workplace. Something needs to be done. They're keeping an eye on this minister and this government.

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I rise to inform all members of the House that we are in the middle of Royal Week, 1996. Organized by the Monarchist League of Canada, Royal Week precedes Victoria Day, on which we honour the birthday of the mother of Canadian Confederation, Queen Victoria. On that day, the Dominion of Canada celebrates the birthday of our reigning sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada.

This year, we celebrate the 70th birthday of our Queen. We remember with heartfelt gratitude her more than 40 years of devoted service to Canada. For us, it is also important to reflect on the multicultural panorama that comprises the Queen's ancestors, including 40 different Asian, African and European backgrounds. Her Majesty also has Jewish, Muslim and Christian forebears. At the time of her 1986 visit to China, the media there asserted her descent from the T'ang dynasty of Chinese emperors. As the head of a multicultural nation like Canada, the Queen maintains us all in direct contact with the mainstream of our historic roots in a tangible way.

During Royal Week, when so much is being said about the issue of national unity, governments at all levels should reflect on the historic unifying role the crown has played in our history and can play again today if we but give our royal traditions a chance. God save the Queen.

ST JUDE'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): It is with great pleasure that I ask for your attention to the east gallery in order to present to you, Mr Speaker, and to the members two grade 5 students from my riding, Nick Trottier and Josée Goulet.

Nick et Josée fréquentent l'école St Jude de Hawkesbury. Ils ont été choisis pour venir passer deux jours à Queen's Park, non pas parce qu'ils sont les meilleurs étudiants de leur école, mais plutôt parce qu'ils sont les deux étudiants qui ont démontré le plus d'amélioration au niveau de leurs études au cours de l'année scolaire. Félicitations, Nick et Josée, pour vos efforts.

Also, I selected students from St Jude's school because it is an institution where I have witnessed some of the worst conditions. The school is in fact a renovated hockey arena with many portables. Classes are very crowded, and although enrolment is expected to increase next September, the government still refuses to give its blessing for this previously approved construction project.

Teachers and parents are shocked since the moratorium on all capital projects from the Ministry of Education and Training. We hope the ministry's position in this matter will be reviewed soon and that the construction of this much-needed school will be permitted to go ahead as planned.

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Yesterday was the start in Vancouver of the Women's March Against Poverty. "The march for bread and roses, jobs and justice" recognizes that more and more women are being driven into lives of poverty by right-wing governments which slash services women fought so long and hard to establish, services that make our communities better places to live.

Thousands of women are marching from Vancouver and, later this month, from the east coast to arrive in Ottawa on June 15. Women across this country want a chance to make their voices heard. But this march against poverty could just as appropriately have been kicked off on the steps of the Ontario Legislature. No government has attacked women with the zeal that this government has.

Just this week, we learned of cuts to policing in our communities. Cuts to police services and crime prevention at the same time this government is slashing funding for second-stage shelters and programs to prevent violence against women is more than just another broken promise; it's a direct attack on the most vulnerable in our society: women and children.

On Monday, the labour minister announced the gutting of the Employment Standards Act, which will hurt the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers: women.

There's much more. When the Women's March Against Poverty arrives in Ontario on June 1, I look forward to welcoming the marchers to my constituency in northwestern Ontario. I encourage all women in Ontario to participate --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): In the past 10 years, Ontario's welfare system has changed from a safety net to a web that entraps far too many people and their families in a life of dependency and hopelessness.

In just over 200 days of this government, social assistance rolls have decreased by over 130,000 individuals.

I held a meeting last night, in fact, in Port Colborne to discuss local implementation of Ontario Works, our mandatory work-for-welfare program. It was a good session, and I plan to have another tomorrow night in Fort Erie.

Now that we are making progress finally in the fight against dependency, I would have expected that the opposition would agree that we are taking a commonsense approach to welfare reform. But judging by what I've heard from a by-election campaign in York South, this is, disappointingly, not the case. The Liberal candidate there, Gerard Kennedy, has indicated that he would actually favour raising taxes to keep welfare rates high.

The Liberals have not supported our efforts to make this essential reform to our welfare system in the past, and it's continuing in York South. Gerard Kennedy, their candidate in the York South by-election, has stated publicly that he does not support mandatory work for welfare.

This government is doing what it said it would do: We're cutting income taxes to create confidence, investment, growth and jobs for a change. We support mandatory work for welfare, and we support a tough stand on crime. Rob Davis is listening to the people of York South and has a proven record supporting these crucial issues. I look forward to welcoming him to our caucus soon.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): It is clear that this Conservative government has decided that fighting crime is no longer a priority of the highest order. The Tories obviously believe that maintaining law and order is no longer the exclusive purview of government. Ontarians are being told by the progeny of the Tory Family Compact sitting smugly across the aisle that fiscal probity outweighs safety and security. How else could the government explain its musing about the possibility of not prosecuting all economic crime such as break-and-enter?

Already there is clear evidence that the Harris government will break its election promise not to cut law and order. The budget offers proof that some $139 million are to be cut from policing and the justice system and $658 million in cuts to transfers to municipalities, which will force them to either increase property taxes or cut the number of police officers.

This is just the beginning, because I believe there is an even more sinister plot afoot here. I believe this government's real agenda on law and order, like in so many other areas of public administration, is to get out of providing the kind of public service we in Ontario have been developing over generations.

This Tory government will go as far as creating a two-tiered system of law enforcement and public security. If you can pay for it, you will get it. And we will begin to see the walled communities spring up everywhere in this province. It is the Americanization of Ontario. It is the end of our way of life.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, you will recall me coming into this Legislature wearing a pink ribbon and explaining to you and everybody else here that this was part of the movement being led by young people, students, in the Niagara region and especially across Niagara south, the pink ribbons representing the pink slips that this government is handing out to hundreds of teachers in the Niagara region alone and to thousands of teachers across this province.

These young people, who are present in the members' gallery today, are representing students at Welland Centennial Secondary School, Port Colborne High School and Steele Street School in Port Colborne.

These young people are leaders in their school communities, leaders in their neighbourhoods, who have developed a strong consciousness of what these types of right-wing cuts mean in terms of their futures and the futures of their children. They understand that they're being confronted by a government that with an economic violence that's unprecedented is attacking quality education that has been built by their parents and grandparents over a succession of decades, with great commitment, great sacrifice and great struggle.

These young people aren't about to take it lying down. These young people have organized, they've led marches, they've attended at their boards of education. They've made it clear that they're committed to the kind of Ontario their parents and grandparents sacrificed so much to build for them. They've made it clear that they're not going to take this privatization orgy, this attack on quality education, indeed the attack on health care or the attack on security for Ontario citizens.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. There can be no demonstrations in the galleries, please.

YORK SOUTH BY-ELECTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I rise today to talk about the clear direction this government has taken on taxes and deficits.

This government recognized the high taxes and deficits that the Liberals and NDP saddled our province with were unsustainable. The opposition record is clear: 65 tax increases, tripling the debt, deficits in the billions, and as a result less opportunity for jobs, growth and investment that Ontario deserves.

But from an all-candidates meeting on Monday night for a by-election in York South, it seems that the Liberals have not learned anything about their experience. Let me quote from the Liberal candidate, Gerard Kennedy. In his own words, when asked if he would support putting taxes back up in order to spend more money on welfare, Mr Kennedy replied, "Yes, I would." When asked if he would favour adding to the deficit, he said, "That's correct."

It is clear that Mr Kennedy's solution to the problems faced by York South is to return to high taxes and unmanageable deficits. But in the last 10 years, the city of York alone lost 29% of its manufacturing jobs and 15% of the total employment because of the tax-and-spend policies of the Liberal and NDP governments. He doesn't offer a clear vision for the future with a plan that people support; he offers a return to high tax, high spend, high deficit days which he himself has criticized.

After 10 years of mismanagement, you would think the Liberals would have learned that the reckless tax-and-spend approach simply doesn't work. It kills investment, it kills jobs, it kills growth.

There is one candidate in the election who believes that tax cuts for jobs, mandatory work for welfare --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you indicate to the members of the House what rule allows for instant replays of statements?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WEB SITE

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm pleased to say that Ontario has entered cyberspace big time. Through the electronic information highway my ministry is telling millions of Internet users about Ontario's extraordinary investment opportunities, as well as the province's exclusive tourist attractions.

The Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism has taken the lead role in designing a one-of-a-kind Ontario-Canada Web site capable of riveting the attention of millions of Internet users.

At a special presentation of Ontario's Web site earlier today, I invited the private sector to join us in building on the Ontario-Canada site as a significant international marketing tool. I invite members of the House to help us re-establish Ontario's pre-eminent position as the greatest place to live, work, learn, visit and do business.

We have established a welcoming electronic gateway into our province for the growing millions of individuals, corporations, organizations and governments that share information daily on the Internet. Ontario's Web site is accessible, informative and interactive. That means the world will more easily learn about Ontario's advantages, its people, its economy, its dedicated, hardworking workforce, its breakthrough technological advances, its exciting achievements and its promising future.

A special interactive feature allows users to obtain direct answers to specific investment and tourism questions. A "Breaking News" page on the Web site home page carries news on cutting edge business developments in the province. With the addition of the extensive database of the Ontario investment service, Ontario's Web site becomes one of the most comprehensive sites available.

Through the "Links and Gateways" icon, the Web site user has direct access to municipalities, the federal government, tourist attractions, and public and private sector organizations. I believe that the Ontario-Canada Web site distinguishes this province as the economic powerhouse of Canada and a soon to be unsurpassed place to live, work, learn, visit, invest and do business. Indeed, Ontario is open again for business, at last.

Each member will receive materials from my ministry that outline more details about the new Ontario-Canada Web site. I invite members to pay an electronic visit to Ontario at www.Ontario-Canada.com.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): We welcome the government of Ontario entering cyberspace, but over the course of the last few months they seemed to be locked somewhere between virtual reality and the ozone.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I can't hear the member. Would the House please come to order.

Mr Duncan: I'd like to talk for a few moments about the things you won't see on the Web site, about the messages the government won't be giving to people, like people in York South who don't trust you with their children's education. They don't. They know you've cut $400 million from schools. Like these young people who visit us today, they know the capital requirements to make our schools competitive and the best in the world aren't there. At a time when governments around the world are investing in education, you're cutting in education. Shame on all of you.

That ought to be on the Web site. Young people need it. When the people of the United States are committing to bringing their schools on line, you've cut capital funding for two years, at least, for all our schools.

Let's talk about health care, because the people of York South don't trust you with our health care system. They are saying that at the doors. They know you've broken your commitments on health care. They don't buy the line that you're reinvesting because they know you're not. They know the $1.3 billion in cuts could force the closure of Northwestern hospital and that would be a shame in that riding, just as it will be a shame in other communities where your slash-and-burn policies won't bring about better finances, but will bring about instability in our economy, a loss of jobs and deterioration --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You know the best thing that could happen to you? Gerard Kennedy could win.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Duncan: So the people of York South and across this province do not trust this government with their health care, and, we submit, for very good reason.

Let's talk about crime and about the ability to fight crime in this province, and let us talk for a moment about broken commitments. Let us talk and let us acknowledge that this government has cut $139 million from front-line policing. There will be fewer police officers, there will be more crime, and ultimately there will be more problems for the people of York South and virtually every other urban community in this province. You've broken your commitment, and they don't trust you on crime-fighting. They know that when push comes to shove, you can't be relied on to increase protection. They know that.

Let us talk about rent control for a minute. That is an issue of great importance in the riding of York South and indeed in most of the major urban centres in this province. One minister says one thing; yet another says another. The only thing that is clear is that you don't know what you stand for, and tenants don't trust you and they ought not to trust you.

Interjection: Put that on the Web site.

Mr Duncan: Rent control ought to be on the Web site and you ought to come clean on what your position is, because when we're in York South, the people there won't vote for your candidate, because people living in apartments know you can't be relied on to protect their interests.

What about jobs? Mr Speaker, they said 725,000 jobs in the Common Sense Revolution, and they've now acknowledged in their own document that even with relatively robust growth of the economy, they cannot possibly deliver on it. They're going to cut 10,000 at least in our own public service that will affect the people of York South. So this government isn't trusted by the people of the province of Ontario. You won't see that; you won't see that on the Web site. You won't see the fact that they cancelled the Eglinton subway to York South and to the west of Toronto and 3,000 jobs to that community. You won't see that on the Web site.

Finally, lots of people will log on to the Web site, and they're going to send back a message to this government. They're going to send back the message that you're hurting our children, you're hurting our health care system and our education, you're not creating jobs, you're putting this province at great risk. The people of York South will give you a very clear message next week that it isn't working, and we'll stand right behind them all the way.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): When I was told that the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism was making an announcement today, I thought: "Well, that's good. We're going to hear finally how the government is going to achieve its objective of 725,000 jobs. Finally the minister is going to give us the game plan that will explain to us how they're going to do that." And I was told, "No, no, it's not about jobs."

Then I thought, "Well, let me look through the announcements that the Minister of Finance has made." And I thought, "He did say in the budget statement that the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism would be making two important announcements in the days to come, one dealing with partnerships for jobs and growth. Maybe that's what it is." I was interested to see how the minister was going to repackage some of the services and programs that he's cut into a new program. But it isn't that either.

When I was told it had something to do with telecommunications, I thought, "Well, finally he's going to tell us about the telecommunications access partnership strategy," again a repackaged and retitled initiative that we had started, but it isn't even that.

What we hear about, of course, is the establishment of the Web site. How can any of us be against the establishment of the Web site? Of course we think it's a good idea. We welcome this. We welcome this as a continuation of work that we had begun.

But I have to say to the minister that when he says that part of the information that's going to be available through this service is under the category of "invest in Ontario," it's going to show how Ontario offers the most generous research and development support in the world, I wonder, Minister, if it's also going to indicate the serious cuts that you've made to exactly those investments and those support opportunities for business.

I wonder, when you talk about the diversity of the economy and the strengths that we have within this society and within Ontario as being a good place to invest in, whether you're also going to have information on the Web site that will point out how piece after piece you are dismantling the very fabric of this society and you are tearing apart the many things and the exact things that you are claiming make this place a good place to invest in.

I'm particularly interested in one part of this, called "Breaking News," which says it's going to carry fresh new summaries from government, industry and -- get this -- opinion-makers. I have to ask myself, who are those opinion-makers going to be? Will this be used as simply another way for the Mike Harris view of the world to be expounded through the Web site, as if they don't do enough through other vehicles?

We'll be watching. Certainly we believe in the use of the Web site. We believe in the use of the technology as we've been not only suggesting but in fact implementing during our course of government.

But we also say again to this government and to this minister that you cannot achieve the overall objective that you have set for yourself, which I remind the Premier and the minister they have said was the overall objective of the Common Sense Revolution, which was to create jobs, if you also continue to insist on taking an approach that says that government simply should get out of the way, that you have no role to play to work with business and to work with labour in creating those opportunities and creating that climate.

That is something that we will continue to remind this minister and this government about because this is going to be, at the end of their mandate, their one, overarching failing grade and I expect to see with all of the information that they want to put through this Web site, that at the end of the day, when Mike Harris will not have fulfilled that basic promise to Ontarians that the last piece of information we will see in this Web site is his letter of resignation.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to deal briefly with a point of order raised by the opposition House leader as to whether a minister who makes reference to a document during a speech is required to table that document in the House.

It is my understanding that the question before us is not whether the minister has made reference to a document but whether the minister has cited or quoted from the document. I would submit to you that ministers may make reference to any document they please, as do other members in the House. However, if the minister has cited or quoted from a public document, then the minister should, as a courtesy, table that public document in the House so that all members may have access to it.

It should be mentioned here that since this House deals only with public documents in its proceedings, this ruling applies only to those documents and not to any private documents or correspondence. This does not preclude the minister from tabling such private documents, but does not obligate the minister to do so.

I would like to address another important point of order that was raised yesterday by the member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for St Catharines on the subject matter of decorum in general and, in particular, the remarks made by the Premier during question period and directed to the Leader of the Opposition.

Upon review, I would caution the Premier that the remarks made yesterday were not in keeping with the spirit of our standing orders and make it difficult to maintain order and decorum in this House.

Yesterday was not one of our better days, and while interjections are to be expected, they were particularly loud, which prevented me from hearing the answer given by the Premier. I would submit to you that had I heard the words spoken, I would have directed the Premier to reconsider his comments and I am certain that he would have complied.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's our problem.

I would ask for the cooperation of all members to tone down the intemperate remarks that have dominated question period over these last few weeks and to ask for their assistance in a particularly noisy House, that if they perceive any unparliamentary language to be spoken then they have a duty to bring it to the attention of the Chair so that the Chair may take the appropriate action to have the offending words withdrawn immediately. The Speaker cannot be expected to review Hansard and reflect upon the words spoken. The words have to be heard in the particular context in which they were spoken to determine if they were unparliamentary or not.

Members may wish to know that I have named more members in this House in my short term of office than any other Speaker, and this record, I must tell you, I am not proud of. However, if the members on all sides continue to abuse their privilege to speak using unparliamentary language, then I will continue to name them as a commitment on my part to bring order and decorum to this House and to restore the dignity which it deserves. Thank you.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wasn't aware that -- if there was a point raised, perhaps it was when I wasn't in the Legislature yesterday, and it's just upon hearing your ruling that I realize somebody had raised the point -- I guess the member for St Catharines. So I might say that if anything that I have said out of order, or in order, or from my place, or not from my place, has contributed to any of the unruliness in the Legislature, I would respectfully apologize, and assure the Speaker that I and our caucus will do our best to meet the objectives of a kinder, gentler, quieter Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the minister of justice. Last week your colleague the Minister of Finance tabled in this Legislature a budget with deep spending cuts for your department. Specifically, your government's budget calls for budget cuts to the department of the Attorney General representing $116 million worth of cuts in this fiscal year -- deep cuts of 15.4%.

How is it that you as minister of justice for Ontario intend to maintain a reasonable level of law and order in this province with these unprecedented 15.4% cuts to your budget year over year?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Once again, the opposition has read the numbers wrongly and I'd like an opportunity, which I'm now going to take, to set that straight. The number that's in the budget is $753 million as the total budget for the Ministry of the Attorney General. There has been a one-time advance to legal aid, to be paid back over three years, and because we now have accrual accounting in Ontario, that reduces the budget of the ministry to $718 million.

The rest of the money that has come out consists of legal aid payback of advance, $12 million; legal aid reduction as per MOU -- that's the agreement that the former government reached with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the administrator of the plan -- $20 million. The only other two amounts that represent the number to get down to $652 million consist of $32 million for the business plan reduction, and $2 million for other adjustments, and the net reduction to the ministry this year is $34 million. It is not $116 million. Again, the information that the opposition relies on is wrong.

Mr Conway: It is cruel accounting. During the election campaign, law and order was a sacred trust for this Harris Tory bunch. Now, we see at the end of year one that law and order and its commitment in this government is in the sale bin, at the deep discount end of this revolutionary offering.

Minister, in the city of Toronto there are 400 fewer cops on the beat today than when you took office a few short months ago. I was out yesterday in the city of York, and people there are absolutely incredulous to hear and to read that your government is planning to offer welfare recipients as police officers in certain parts of the city of Toronto. They're incredulous to hear that there's going to be policing for the rich, and everybody else is going to be abandoned to Guardian Angels.

That's what people are hearing on the streets of Toronto and across the province. Paul Walter was quoted recently as saying that his police officers here in the city of Toronto feel betrayed by what you have done as opposed to what you promised to do. Minister, how do you square your promise of last year with the reality of this year?

Hon Mr Harnick: Interesting as we go through Police Week that I was meeting with the police in my riding this morning, and the staff inspector at 32 Division indicated to me how excited he is and police officers are about the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto Police are about to hire and assign 350 new front-line officers for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

To get back to the numbers that my friend is now conveniently avoiding in the second part of his question, where he changes from the administration of justice, for which I am responsible, to the issue of policing, on the $34 million or $35 million that is going to be cut this year, I want to tell you about a couple of those things.

We're going to combine the office of the accountant of the Ontario Court (General Division) with the office of the public guardian and trustee. That's a saving, right off the bat, in administrative terms, of $9 million. We're going to get rid of a whole middle layer of bureaucracy created when the Liberals were the government. They created a whole layer of regional bureaucracy. We're going to dismantle that and we're going to put services back on the front line. That's another saving, in administrative terms, of $6 million.

If this party is concerned about spending, they would be applauding these ventures, because we are going to do better with the amount of money we're spending, and we have an administrative saving that we are going to be able to make that is responsible to the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Conway: Out in the city of York yesterday, people were keenly aware that you, Minister, you and your pal Mel Lastman got the subway; they got screwed. They know you're going to get the cops and they're going to get the Guardian Angels.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Will the member come to order. Would the member please withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. If that offended, I withdraw. But on the streets of York yesterday, they know that you're going to get the cops and they're going to get Guardian Angels. They're going to get welfare recipients patrolling their neighbourhoods. People in York and elsewhere in Ontario are beginning to understand that the Harris revolution is really going to be radical, that if you're rich, you're going to get policing; everybody else is going to get a buy-a-cop or rent-a-cop. You're going to be faced with a privatization of much of law and order. Isn't that your real agenda, Minister?

Isn't that how you're going to meet the deep spending cuts imposed in your colleague's budget tabled last week?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member for Renfrew North says it so well, but when we listen to the words, I have to tell you, and I listened to the premise of that whole question, it's utter hogwash nonsense. He just says it so well that it has this air of a great story. The reality is that from the point of view of the Ministry of the Attorney General there will be administrative cuts and we will make better use of the money that exists in the system, much better use of the money than has ever been made before.

This is the first time ever that the Ministry of the Attorney General, a ministry that spends $700 million, has ever had a plan defining what their core functions are, what it is we do and how we spend our money, and I commit to you that there will not be a reduction of services from the Ministry of the Attorney General to the people of Ontario.

Mr Conway: No wonder Roy McMurtry and Charlie Dubin are as concerned as they are. You can run, Minister, but you can't hide from the bloody cuts imposed by this Harris revolutionary budget.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question to the Minister of Environment and Energy: In less than 48 hours the first long weekend of the summer season begins. Millions of Ontarians are going to be travelling across this province and millions of Ontarians are going to be pulling up to gasoline pumps that show 61.9 cents a litre for regular unleaded in most of southern Ontario. My colleague from Kenora tells me that yesterday some of the other gasoline brands were selling for nearly 80 cents a litre in Red Lake.

Minister, my question to you on behalf of the motoring public in Ontario is, what are you going to do, as Minister of Energy, to protect the travelling public in this province from these too-high gas prices?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Since this is a matter that concerns the consumers of the province, I defer the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As you know, I have been involved in this issue for some period of time. Consumers in this province are indeed upset with the gasoline prices, and they're upset with their federal government, which hasn't done anything about it.

Mr Conway: As the long weekend approaches and as millions of people across Ontario, including thousands of good people in Carleton county, take to the roads, those consumers want to know, Minister --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Where is John Manley when we need him?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mr Conway: The consumers of Ontario, in Carleton county and elsewhere, want to know, as they face these too-high gas prices, what little Normie Sterling is doing to earn his $100,000. They want to know that. They want to know what you're doing to earn your ministerial salary of $110,000 a year. They would want me to ask you, Minister, as the consumer protection minister in this province, what are you going to do to earn your $100,000 salary to protect the consuming public of Ontario from this kind of price fixing and this kind of price gouging?

Hon Mr Sterling: I may be small in size, but at any rate I think myself and the other members of this Legislature who are small in stature have taken their positions -- I'm looking at the former Treasurer -- and we have been as concerned about the problems as some of the larger members of this Legislature.

Notwithstanding those comments and the hyperbole this member seems to incite in every question that he asks, about four weeks ago, when I was very alarmed at the rising prices with regard to gas prices for consumers across this province, and seeing that the federal government was doing nothing, I took time to communicate with John Manley, the Minister of Industry, the minister of Canada who is responsible for ensuring that gasoline companies, oil companies, are operating within the terms of law and having a competitive atmosphere with regard to gasoline prices. I urged him to do something. I am thankful he took my advice and set up an inquiry to look into this matter.

Mr Conway: In last week's budget, the Minister of Finance went after the banks doing business in this province, to his credit. If you're not as useless and as redundant as that answer would suggest, and if you and your colleagues are serious about tackling the special interests, will you call the oil company presidents doing business in this province and tell them that the current gas prices in Ontario are too high, that they're injecting too much inflation into an economy that cannot stand it? Here are the phone numbers.

Will you commit today, before the weekend arrives in 48 hours' time, to call these oil company executives and tell them, on behalf of Ontario consumers, these prices are too high and you want some action taken to bring these prices down?

Hon Mr Sterling: I would be more than glad to call these presidents, but I'm also going to fax this up to the minister who's responsible for this, John Manley, and ensure that he calls each of these particular presidents, because I know only one of them is located in the province of Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last week you met with Ontario's top labour leaders and, as I understand, at that meeting you were discussing with them your intent for a full review of the Employment Standards Act, that this was going to take about a year and that you were planning to have full consultation during that review. You then also said that you would be tabling on Monday legislative changes to the Employment Standards Act that amounted to housekeeping and were minor in nature.

We know, of course, that when that document was tabled here on Monday it contained changes that could have far-reaching implications for both union and non-union workers in this province. Your integrity is being brought into question here. Will you today at least admit that this piece of legislation is much more than just housekeeping?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would like to remind you that I did indicate there would be a complete review of the Employment Standards Act. The changes we have introduced are changes which I would again indicate to you are minor in nature. The minimum standards as they presently exist today continue to exist with the changes we have made.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Except they don't necessarily apply.

Hon Mrs Witmer: They all apply. The same standards that applied before the introduction of the legislation apply today. It's only when your colleague starts to speak to the media that there is a distortion of some of the facts.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I would appreciate if the ministers and the people asking the questions would direct your answers and questions through the Chair.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I'm extremely disappointed, and I would think the government benches ought to be, that the best the minister can offer up is a character assassination when we're dealing with significant changes to the rights that workers have in this province and that you're planning to take away.

The changes are not minor, and it's not just the opposition and the labour movement that are saying so. In today's Globe and Mail, Professor Kumar from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, is quoted as saying the new law "will dilute working standards across the board in the province of Ontario."

How can you stand in your place and say that these are minor in nature when we know, both from experience and from professionals in the field, that these changes can have far-reaching implications? It's not just the changes that are in question here; it's your integrity. You are trying to ram another piece of legislation through by saying it's not a big deal. You did that with Bill 7. You did that with the omnibus Bill 26. I ask you again, will you admit that these are more than housekeeping? Come clean.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite -- and I notice now he's taken a line from the Liberal opposition critic -- I would just like to remind you that we are very committed to the protection of the most vulnerable workers in this province and this piece of legislation makes absolutely no change to the standards, nor does it make any change as to who is or is not covered by the legislation.

I again indicate to you that what this does is remove some of the ambiguity. It is going to ensure there is greater self-reliance in the workplace. There will be more responsibility for the employees and the employers to settle some of their own problems and it will allow the ministry to do the job which it is to do, and that is to set, educate and enforce the act.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you know that doesn't wash with the facts. The reality is that you have to find $2.5 million out of the employment standards area of your ministry to pay for your contribution to the tax cut. That's what this is all about and the workers in Ontario are being forced, through your legislation, to pay that price.

You have an opportunity today -- today you have a chance -- to keep as much integrity as you have intact by acknowledging that these are serious and far-reaching changes to the way labour is performed in this province. I ask you very directly, will you today commit to either withdraw this bill and make it part of your larger consultation -- which indeed begs the question why you are rushing into this. Why not let it be part of that broader consultation, that larger review?

Will you withdraw that bill today, or at the very least, will you commit to province-wide public hearings and stop pretending that this is only a minor matter and admit and acknowledge you're taking away rights from union and non-union workers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just want to again indicate to the member opposite that the bill introduced on Monday does not -- does not -- take away any of the standards, the minimum standards, that presently apply, nor does it do anything different as far as who the act applies to is concerned.

However, I will tell you that I have been in consultation with the labour leaders. We have been discussing the issue of hearings. I indicated to them last night when we spoke that, as we had always said we would do, we are quite prepared to take a look at public hearings and we will then determine how those public hearings will be handled.

Mr Christopherson: And they said what you offered wasn't enough. Tell the whole story.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I will tell you they were very happy with my response.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General knows that this government's tax break for the rich has led to --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Who's your question to? I can't hear you.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General. That's three times, Speaker.

The Solicitor General knows that this government's savage cuts as a result of its passion to give a tax break to the richest in this province has reduced the capacity of police services boards to maintain anything near appropriate levels of policing. In fact, the Kingston Police Services Board has had to reduce its budget to the tune of $1.2 million as a result of this government's cuts. Because of that cut the police in Kingston have been forced to implement their traffic offender program in a somewhat feckless effort to try to generate revenue.

What's going to happen is that speeders are going to be charged 55 bucks and offered a brief driving course in lieu of being appropriately charged and being required to pay the fines that would be due under the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act. This money goes directly to the police budget rather than to provincial coffers. The irony is such that the province is going to lose more than half a million dollars in revenue from that alone. As a result of these cuts, Kingston police are being forced to chase money rather than criminals.

Quite frankly, the people in Kingston and across this province being faced with similar scenarios find that absurd. This government is cutting back on its transfer payments to police services boards because of a tax cut for the rich and now we've got police services boards --

The Speaker: Would the member put his question, please. You've been two minutes so far. Put your question.

Mr Kormos: It was only a minute and a half, when you consider the interruptions.

Now we've got a scenario wherein police are being forced to expend their energies raising revenues rather than engaging in the policing that they are committed to. How can the Solicitor General justify that, in view of this government's promise to maintain funding for policing?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I think virtually every police officer across this province would agree that there are efficiencies to be achieved in the operations of police services in Ontario. Most of them are moving in these areas. I speak on a fairly regular basis with the chief in the Kingston area and he certainly is not expressing the same concerns. He realizes there are challenges out there but, as I said, most of the police services are meeting those challenges in a very effective way.

In Cornwall they're taking a look at the high cost of vehicle maintenance, officers attending minor complaints, the reduction of officers in court; in Guelph they're looking at alternative means for service delivery; Hamilton-Wentworth is developing a false alarms policy, a cost recovery initiative; in Metro they have a list as long as my arm -- provide prosecutors and scheduling clerks with officer availability dates for minor traffic and accident court dates; in Nepean they're looking at clothing allowances, excessive court time.

There's a whole range of areas where police agree with this government that savings can be achieved without impacting in a negative way in any way, shape or form on front-line policing.

Our commitment as a party and as a government is to enhance front-line policing and we are moving in that direction. We cannot accomplish everything in 10 months, given the mess we were left with on our doorstep, but we are moving quickly and we will have, as I've said in this House on a number of occasions, a much more effective and efficient police service in this province as we enter into the next century.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General then should talk to Sault Police Chief Bob McEwen, who says: "There's a danger with police forces receiving a commission on the number of charges they lay. I never want to see policing in Ontario like towns in the US where there are revenue-driven speed traps." That's exactly, you see, what's going to be happening in Kingston.

The Solicitor General better pay heed to what the Metro Toronto Police Services Board says in its report dated May 6, 1996. The Metro Toronto Police Services Board is concerned that pressure may be placed on police personnel to spend more of their time on services that provide limited revenue than focusing on core police duties.

The Solicitor General talks a big game when it comes to supporting police, but the fact is that he and his government haven't delivered. They've betrayed the police and the citizenry of this province. How can the Solicitor General justify what at the end of the day are clear cuts in police budgeting, clear reductions in police person-power? How can he justify that in view of the promises he and his leader made during the course of their election campaign?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think the member is talking to a very small number of police officers. I'm certainly not getting that feedback and colleagues on the government side of the House are not getting that kind of feedback from senior officers in policing or from rank-and-file officers.

Certainly there are concerns with respect to how we deal with the challenges, and that is one of the reasons, perhaps the most significant reason, behind our efforts in terms of the summit that's coming up in two to three weeks' time. We have to look at the way police are structured in this province; we have to look at their roles and responsibilities.

We all realize that this sort of thing has not been done. The previous three governments declined to get involved in a significant review. This has not been undertaken in the past quarter of a century, a significant, in-depth, intensive review of policing structure, roles, responsibilities, financing, in the province of Ontario. We're going to address these and, as I said, I feel very confident about the future for police officers in this province in terms of keeping our commitment as a party and as a government towards enhancing public safety.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that police officers across this province, whether they're in Niagara region, whether they're in Sault Ste Marie, whether they're in Kingston, whether they're here in Metro Toronto, don't share this Solicitor General's confidence. Police officers across Ontario are frightened for their welfare and for the welfare of honest citizenry. This government's agenda is a blank cheque for scofflaws and criminals, and it victimizes law-abiding citizens and police officers.

This Solicitor General and his government's policies of defunding policing are going to put police officers and the public at risk. Will this Solicitor General accept responsibility for the police officers who are going to be injured and maimed as a result of underpolicing and for the citizens of this province who are going to be victimized because this government refuses to adequately fund front-line policing?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think it's not a surprise to anyone that this member has a lot of gall. He certainly has a lot of gall to suggest what's going to happen with respect to police officers and public commitments. We simply have to look at the relationship that existed between the NDP government and police officers in this province. There has never been such a dismal relationship.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You made the promise.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Runciman: We are indeed keeping the promise we made during the election campaign and commitments we made as an opposition party. We have significantly revamped the parole board. We've closed loopholes in the way prisoners were treated in terms of early release.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The members for Grey-Owen Sound, Etobicoke West and Welland-Thorold, come to order, please. It's awful. Solicitor General, wrap up your answer.

Hon Mr Runciman: We just announced a commitment of $2.1 million to expand the DNA lab to assist police across this province in solving crimes much more easily and quickly. We have moved on another promise, strict discipline, to deal with young offenders in a much more effective manner than has been the case in the past. We've just enhanced crime prevention initiatives in communities across this province by $2.24 million. Finally, we're taking a look at policing, its structure, the financing, the roles and responsibilities and governance -- the first significant, comprehensive review in a quarter of a century.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Timiskaming.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to continue this line of questioning with the Solicitor General, because two days ago I asked the Solicitor General about his cash-and-carry cops. It really makes this question necessary. It's because of his cuts in police funding that the cops have to be into merchandising.

Your police review report that you quoted just now says, "Escalating costs of police services, compounded with the decreasing financial support by government, are forcing many police services to seek alternative sources to secure funding." I continue, "Without adequate financial support, many police services may be forced to cut key law enforcement and crime prevention programs." This is the minister's own report that admits that this government has cut police funding. His budget of last week also shows us that he has cut police funding.

In its campaign, this government said that it would guarantee the funding of policing and that it also would reinvest into policing any savings it found. Does this guarantee mean that if the police can't hustle enough merchandise, you will put the money back, or is this just another broken campaign promise?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated in an earlier answer that this paper was prepared with the involvement of various stakeholders in the police community right across this province. This is not a product solely of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the policing services division; this has the input of a wide range of people across the province. They approached this on the basis that although some of these suggestions may not be appropriate in the long run, they certainly merited discussion. That's what this paper was intended to do: provoke discussion. It is a discussion paper.

We did not want to have any sacred cows with respect to any particular issue being ruled out in terms of discussion. To suggest that anything that's mentioned in there is etched in stone is not the case.

I've suggested that some of the ideas this member and others have put forward in terms of the kinds of advertising that might be initiated are simply not in the cards, unlike the federal government, which allowed the RCMP to sign a deal with Disney.

Mr Ramsay: This report has your seal on it and has your ministry name on it, so it's a government of Ontario document. It admits that there's been a shortfall of government funding in policing.

Your paper also states that there's a greater role to be played by the private security industry in this province "in areas such as personal security, property protection and the investigation of specific types of crime." I know this government wants to return Ontario to the so-called good old days, but does this mean the return of maybe the Pinkerton police squad that used to beat up on workers in this province? Or is this also going to mean a continuation of what we're seeing now, that only the fat cats in this province are going to get the criminal investigations they want?

You've put policing in this province on the edge of a crisis. When are you going to live up to the promise you made in the campaign last year?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think this is more political rhetoric designed for a by-election campaign that's taking place in York South at the moment rather than valid concern with respect to policing in this province.

I recall when that member's party was in power and a couple of Metro police officers --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I'm trying to address this through you -- a couple of members of the police service complained about what they construed to be a revolving door court system where they were spending thousands of dollars and hours on trying to get drug dealers into the court system and then they were out on the street the next day. Do you know what the response of the Liberal government of the day was? They threatened those police officers that, if they once again criticized what was happening out there on the streets, they would face action under the Police Services Act. That's the kind of support the police had under a Liberal government.

The member gets up and suggests that all of a sudden they're concerned. Well, I don't buy it and I don't think the people of York South are going to buy it, or the people of the province of Ontario.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I would like to ask the minister if she could tell this House what the difference is between cars in British Columbia and cars in Ontario.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm sure there are a number of different answers to my colleague's question. A different place might be one of the responses.

Ms Churley: I'm referring to a quotation from the minister at a conference where she tried to explain that a mandatory vehicle emissions program is not necessary in Ontario because the longevity of a car's life is different in British Columbia than in Ontario.

As you know, the summer is coming and with summer comes a deadly brown haze of pollution, commonly known as smog, which literally kills people. It causes very serious health problems. The Lung Association, Pollution Probe and other health and environmental groups across Ontario have called on you and your government to take action.

You have recently hinted that mandatory vehicle testing is not needed in Ontario and is not consistent with the philosophy of the Conservative government. Why don't you stand up to your Premier and tell him that mandatory vehicle testing is absolutely necessary to protect human health in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: First, to correct misinformation, what I was saying was that the life of vehicles in British Columbia is different from that in Ontario, based on the climate, first of all.

Secondly, we're very aware that Ontario has a serious smog problem and we are concerned about it. I have mentioned in the House on numerous occasions that we are cooperating with our federal counterpart with regard to new fuel formulations and low-emission vehicles. We have extended the pilot program for the voluntary air program and we are continuing to work to determine the best way to deal with a very large issue in the province of Ontario, mandatory vehicle testing being one of those ideas that we are seriously exploring.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, after 10 years of Liberal and NDP governments the economy was trashed, and we know that the people elected this government to cut taxes and to reduce spending --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I can't hear the member.

Mr Shea: -- so that we can encourage jobs and growth and investment.

I was astonished this week to hear that the potential next leader of the Liberal Party, a potential candidate in York South, Gerard Kennedy, was in fact musing aloud and rewriting the red book and suggesting that he would support the raising of taxes and increasing the deficit so we could spend more on welfare.

You would think that if they were going to parachute a candidate into York South, they would at least make sure he understood the difficulties that York South has faced in the past. For example, it's lost in the last 10 years 29% of its manufacturing base and 15% of its employment base and so forth.

The Speaker: Order. Put your question, please.

Mr Shea: My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Minister, if the government has finally taken the steps to encourage jobs and growth and investment in Ontario, as we said we would do, what would be the impact if we took Gerard Kennedy's advice and raised taxes and the deficit?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): We have seen what policies of previous administrations, raising taxation levels some 65 times in the past decade alone, 11 personal income tax increases as well, have done to the Ontario economy.

When we assumed office in June of last year, the deficit for that fiscal year just past would have been, on an accrual basis, $11.2 billion. We were spending almost $9 billion a year in interest payments alone. The province of Ontario was spending $1 million more an hour than it took in in revenue. Clearly that is unsustainable over any length of time.

If we had continued with the tax-and-spend policies of the previous two administrations, if we had continued with those policies, by the year 2000 we would have been spending about $20 billion a year in interest payments alone. It doesn't take any genius to figure out that spending $20 billion in interest payments out of total program spending of $42 billion would do exactly the opposite to what Mr Kennedy wants to do. It would create more people on social assistance, but we wouldn't have the money to pay them. We wouldn't have the money to pay for health care, classroom education, community safety and other things that the people of Ontario value the most.

Mr Shea: I take it from the answer of the finance minister that the old adage is indeed true. There are two certainties in life if you are to vote for the Liberal in York South: death and taxes. Those are two things that you can count on.

In spite of his public musings and the rewriting of the red book, I ask the finance minister one more time, if we were to do as that Liberal candidate in York South were to suggest, to raise taxes and to increase the deficit, would Ontario be able to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will know that in June of last year there were fewer people working in the province of Ontario than there were in 1989. There had not been one single new net job created in the province of Ontario in the preceding six years, and the working men and women of this province who pay taxes were taking home less money in real terms than they were in 1985.

We firmly believe that allowing and enabling five million hardworking, taxpaying Ontarians to spend more of their money as they see fit will spend it far more effectively and far more wisely, creating hundreds of thousands more jobs in the province of Ontario, than any government could ever dream of doing.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to ask a question to the Treasurer that I would have thought the member for High Park-Swansea would have asked instead of one bashing the poor people of this province. My question is about video lottery terminals being introduced in this province, something I would have thought would have concerned the member for High Park-Swansea.

Those who are most familiar with the issue of gambling, and particularly video gambling, say the following: It is "one of the most addictive forms of gambling -- addictive because it is fast, addictive because it provides instant gratification, addictive because it is paced for the modern way of thinking of younger people, of computerized gambling instead of dealing cards or throwing dice."

In Nova Scotia, they have withdrawn 2,500 of these machines. In Alberta, they are pulling back. They are limiting them now to 6,000 machines, which is 6,000 too many, but at least they are pulling them back.

Minister, why would you embark upon such a slippery and unwise slope when so many are so uneasy about the introduction of video gambling machines and are beginning to pull back from this initiative? Is the damage done to the most vulnerable people in our society really worth the easy money to fill provincial coffers?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The honourable member will know that there are, by OPP estimates, anywhere between 15,000 and 20,000 illegal video lottery terminals operating in the province of Ontario today. I might add that they have been there for several years now without previous administrations taking any initiatives whatsoever to crack down on their operation.

We are introducing video lottery terminals in a very controlled and carefully monitored setting. They will be monitored by the Ontario Lottery Corp and by the Gaming Control Commission of the province of Ontario. They will be introduced, as the member well knows, only into racetracks and permanent charity event sites in the province of Ontario until such time as those two bodies are satisfied that the network can be expanded into the hospitality industry. The honourable member for St Catharines knows all of these facts.

We also made several commitments in the budgetary document that he's well aware of that when that network is expanded, there will be fewer terminals per capita than any one of the other eight jurisdictions in Canada that now have them, and he knows full well that the province of British Columbia is the only other province that does not have a video lottery terminal network in existence.

Mr Bradley: That is exactly why I would be hoping the province of Ontario would show leadership in this field and avoid this easy money for the government.

You'd be interested that Professor Garry Smith of the University of Alberta, who has done extensive studies of this kind of gambling, says he would not legalize video slots because they're the most dangerous form of gambling out there.

Wayne Yorke, a Nova Scotia psychologist who again studied this very extensively, has written that electronic gambling may be a calamity for the next generation. The video lottery terminals that are being played all over the country are, he says, "an entrapment in an illusionary world of almost virtual reality wherein everything is a game and every game may be won or lost. The game and the play have a price. Are we," as a society, "willing to pay the price?"

Minister, upon reflection, and knowing your strong views in the past on this issue, are you as a man of conscience and concern prepared to pay that very heavy price?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will also know that in the budgetary document we contained a reference to dedicating 2% of the revenue, and that number --

Mr Bradley: Conscience money. That is just conscience money.

Hon Mr Eves: No, I say with all sincerity to the member for St Catharines. I know there are several members of his party sitting in the House today who attended the Bill 8 hearings across the province of Ontario. We had the gambling and addiction foundation come before the committee. They indicated that anywhere from 1.5% to 2.5% of the populace that is subjected or has the opportunity to embark upon gaming of any kind becomes addicted, and that is exactly why we chose the number 2%.

He will also know that other associations, such as the compulsive gambling association, understand that we are at least taking an initiative and providing funding in terms of millions of dollars to deal with this problem, which I might say again the two previous administrations did not do.

I might also indicate from talking to the member for Windsor-Riverside that I understand that two caucus colleagues of yours, your members from Windsor-Sandwich and Windsor-Walkerville, are both solidly on record as being in favour of video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today the executive director and the chair of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council appeared before the government agencies committee to talk about the future of their district health council, and by implication other district health councils in the province as well.

The appointments process to health councils was discussed at length and the chair of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council expressed some very grave concerns about the way you are undermining the appointments process in this province. I have some quotes from Mr Ferguson.

One is: "There have been eight recent appointments to our council. None of these people were recruited or recommended by the council." Secondly, he says, and I hope you'll pay attention to this comment, "The neutral and objective planning and advisory role of the district health councils is at risk. The continuation of appointments in a political vein with little regard to the traditional recruitment process followed until recently by DHCs and ministers of health will mean an end to the traditional role of district health councils and convert them to nothing but political instruments of the government."

Minister, when are you going to stop subverting the appointment process that was followed by previous Tory governments, Liberal government and New Democratic government and bring some integrity back into this process?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The facts speak for themselves. Just slightly over 80% of the appointments recommended by district health councils themselves have been accepted by me as minister and those people have been appointed.

Mr Laughren: A completely ridiculous answer. Come to Sudbury where the last eight appointments didn't even go through the district health council, they came directly from you, directly from your office. That is inappropriate. They didn't even apply to the ads that were placed in the paper when vacancies arose. So don't tell me that you have a legitimate process with 80% of the appointments.

In Sudbury, your process is completely and absolutely illegitimate and you are undermining the health council that's worked extremely hard on the restructuring of hospitals in the community. You really have to wonder what's behind this.

The parliamentary assistant reviewing agencies, boards and commissions, Mr Wood, said in the committee today that if the minister rejects an adviser's recommendation, doesn't it make sense to change the people that give you those recommendations? What this is all about is your putting people on the district health council who reflect your views, your views only, and not the views of the community they're supposed to be representing. You cannot continue to do this, to volunteer people in communities. This isn't the only community.

The Association of District Health Councils said a couple of weeks ago and passed a resolution stating that at least eight district health councils were stacked with parachuted Tory appointments. So you're not just undermining the Sudbury district health council; you're undermining them all across this province. How do you expect the system to work when you put your handpicked political appointees on these health councils?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): And you didn't do that? Oh boy, give me a break.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon Mr Wilson: According to the law of this province, district health councils are advisory boards to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health has full prerogative to appoint people directly to health councils.

Secondly, I will make public the process that the NDP had, where they had 15 categories, including the colour of your skin, your sexual orientation, your profession, and a full pile of other quotas. Your process was immoral, wrong, wrong, wrong, and we're not following that process.

Mr Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Are you going to allow the Minister of Health to accuse us of having an immoral process of appointments? I would remind you, Mr Speaker, that is completely out of order and unparliamentary --

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, just if I could finish my point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. I was going to get up, but I really wish the minister would reconsider and withdraw what he had said. Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: No, Mr Speaker. The briefing notes, when I first came in, had the individual's name and below each of them you had to check off a number of -- with respect to the comment of immorality --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm referring to the word "immoral." Would you withdraw the word "immoral"?

Hon Mr Wilson: I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker, but it is my opinion of your process.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Attorney General --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I just can't believe what I'm seeing today. It's unbelievable. All sides of the House have a responsibility to try and maintain order, and I'm asking that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has the floor.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Cochrane South made disparaging remarks about this caucus with respect to white sheets and hoods. I want it withdrawn.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Grimmett: My question is for the Attorney General. Spring has finally come to my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. The grass is turning green and the ice is out of the lakes. This weekend thousands of recreational boaters will be returning to the lakes and rivers in my riding. The issue of recreational boating safety will be at the forefront in the minds of many people in my riding.

In recent years, all levels of government have worked with local groups and local individuals to try to improve boating safety. I'm encouraged to find that the federal government currently has legislation before it which is meant to improve the ticketing system for boating offences. I wonder, Minister, with the holiday weekend approaching, can you update the people of Muskoka-Georgian Bay on how this ticketing system is coming along and when it will be up and running?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Prosecutions under the Canada Shipping Act are handled by the federal government and they look after boat offences. The federal enabling legislation to permit this to be done by a ticketing scheme rather than by full-scale prosecutions is being worked on by the federal government and I'm told by the federal Attorney General, Mr Rock, that they hope to have in place by the end of June the proclamation of the bill and the regulations pertaining to it.

Thereafter, the province of Ontario will be in a position to do its own companion regulations so that we can become involved as prosecutors for this system and we will then be able to bring our ticketing scheme into line with theirs.

I hope that if they have their work done by the end of June and the bill proclaimed and the regulations available, we will then be able to get our scheme up and running by August 1. It can't be done any faster. We are asking the federal government to move as quickly as they can and they've indicated they will be making those changes and putting us in a position to do the same.

Mr Grimmett: What will this new ticketing system do to improve the safety on our waterways?

Hon Mr Harnick: Right now, if there is an offence laid pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, hours and hours of prosecution time are taken which take police officers out of front-line duties to be involved in preparations of these prosecutions. By going into this ticketing scheme that the federal government is setting up, it means that a ticket can be given, a fine can be paid and police officers don't have to be taken off the waterways. One of the reasons we want this scheme to go as quickly as we possibly can is to get police officers on our waterways to enforce the boating safety regulations to make the boating season the safest boating season we've ever had.

Fortunately, the federal government is cooperating. They're working very hard, and I hope they will have their work done. We are now doing the work that we have to do in advance. It's already under way, and I look forward to the ticketing scheme that the federal government is going to provide us with.

NEGRO CREEK ROAD

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Madam Minister, you are aware of the Underground Railroad and the significant role it has played in the rich history of this great country. One such area is Holland township where many blacks had settled, raised families and contributed to the economic wellbeing of the region.

In 1851, it was recorded in historical documents that the name Negro Creek Road was established in that vicinity. It has recently come to my attention that this road has been renamed Moogie Road. Could you, Minister, please bring me up to date on why the name change came about?

There are concerns by the Ontario Historical Society, Oro-Medonte history committee, the Ontario Black History Society, just to name a few. Could you assure me that the black historical heritage of Negro Creek Road and other such landmarks is protected for future generations and that the changes are not done to further any private economic ventures or individuals with ulterior motives?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I indeed concur with what the honourable member for Scarborough North has said with respect to the tremendous contribution to this province of the black community and most certainly I concur absolutely with what he has suggested about its contribution to our heritage.

My understanding of that particular change is that it was by the municipal council of the area. My further understanding is that that particular issue is a matter that is presently before the Ontario Human Rights Commission and, given that that is an arm's-length agency of my ministry, I'm not in a position to comment on it.

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions about the Dellcrest Children's Centre in Parkdale and I have another one signed by a number of people and addressed to us as Legislative Assembly members. It reads:

"Whereas the Dellcrest Children's Centre is planning to open a 10-bed open custody residence for troubled children and youth at 182 Dowling Avenue; and

"Whereas the residence is an inappropriate site for the rehabilitation of troubled children because it is within walking distance to illicit drugs and prostitution activities; a large number of unsupervised and supervised rooming-houses that are homes to ex-psychiatric patients, parolees and our society's most vulnerable ostracized members; and a number of licensed establishments that have been charged with various liquor infractions; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Dellcrest Children's Centre have decided not to hold open discussions with our community prior to the purchase of this house for the purpose of an open custody residence; and

"Whereas the decision to relocate also expresses a total lack of regard towards our community's consistent and well-documented wishes for the Ontario government to stop the creation or relocation of additional social service programs or offices in an area that is already oversaturated with health and social services for disadvantaged, troubled and disenfranchised people;

"We, the undersigned local residents and business owners, urge the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to suspend plans to relocate the open custody residence for troubled children and youth until a full review of the Dellcrest Children's Centre's decision can be conducted, and explore, with us, alternative locations which are more appropriate."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"I, Jamie Treschak, of Centennial Secondary School, have written this petition so that all who share the same view as I do can express their support.

"I feel that the recent cuts to our teaching staff are too large. Nine teachers have lost their jobs because they have less than five years' seniority. That's not right. These teachers run clubs, stage plays, coach teams and are responsible for many other extracurricular activities. Eliminating these teachers means eliminating these important activities. These are not only teachers to us; they are also our friends. Teachers teach students, not just subjects.

"Many teachers have enlightened the lives of all of the students they have taught. They have been laid off, along with others. They weren't fired because of their inability to do the job, but because they had lowest seniority and because of the cuts.

"Many other students across this board and other boards have not only lost some of our best teachers, but also some of our best friends and some of our most important extracurricular activities. This is the heart of our school. These schools now have larger classes, more failures and less time left for students.

"In closing, please save these teachers. Teaching methods are like computers: Every so often, they should be upgraded, and teachers are important to our education."

That's signed by a whole number of people: Jamie Treschak, Nicky Powell, Jennifer Gaboury, Julia Timms, Jenn Potten and literally hundreds of others.

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I have a petition here from the riding of Bruce. Although a little untimely, I received it in the mail today and have been asked to read it into Hansard.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of the province are still rising up about the intention of the Attorney General to close the family support regional offices. I have a petition.

"We, being residents and taxpayers of Ontario, hereby wish to notify you that we oppose the centralization of the family support plan, and in particular the closure of the Thunder Bay branch of the family support plan, for the following reasons:

"Whereas the regional offices are necessary for the timely enforcement of support orders agreements;

"Whereas the Thunder Bay regional office currently has 3,639 active files and a compliance rate of 67%;

"Whereas the Thunder Bay branch region covers from White River to the Ontario-Manitoba border;

"Whereas seasonal employment and variable support provisions are common to the northwest;

"Whereas it is proposed that such cases will not be assigned to a particular case worker any more;

"We therefore hereby respectfully request that you give consideration to our concerns and reject any proposal for the closure of the Thunder Bay branch family support office."

I am proud to sign it. We have hundreds of signatures here.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition regarding the potential closure of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton. It's a petition to the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council, which now, by the way, will have to make the final decision before it goes to the minister.

"Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth Health Action Task Force, as part of their report, has recommended the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton; and

"Whereas it is recognized the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care in our community should not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to protect the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that maintaining the presence of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton is a vital component of our health care system;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council ensure the continuance of St Joseph's Hospital at its present site."

I continue to support these petitions.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse, and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government previously becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1000A, regarding workers' compensation.

"To the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors; the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%; the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits; legislated limits on entitlement, including repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims; reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements.

"Workers' compensation is not a handout; it is a legal obligation that the employers of this province have to workers in Ontario.

"We therefore demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at the WCB and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

I support this petition with my signature also.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I affix my signature to this.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document; and

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system; and

"Whereas the government has consulted with special-interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario; and

"Whereas all renters will suffer, seniors and others on fixed incomes will suffer particular hardship if rent controls are abolished; and

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

I affix my signature also.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals;....

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services has a definite impact on the statistics of children and youth in crisis; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and placed the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham" and in Kent.

This is signed by a number of people from Chatham, Dresden, Wallaceburg and Paincourt. I affix my signature to it.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas since March of 1996 gasoline prices have increased on an average a dramatic 10 cents a litre, which is over 45 cents a gallon;

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods;

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister Norm Sterling, while in opposition, expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price-fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I affix my signature to this as I agree with its contents.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "Petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7, and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I affix my signature.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirits sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wine and thereby contributes immensely to the grape-growing and wine-producing industry;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn over the sale of liquor and spirits to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

I affix my signature to this petition.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have yet another petition that concerns the Transition House in Chatham and in Kent county. I believe that there have been approximately 700 signatures to date from people concerned about the cuts to Transition House, and I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 10th report.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I know you've been waiting anxiously for this.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr54,

An Act respecting the city of Toronto

Bill Pr55,

An Act respecting the city of Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 47,

An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue the debate on Bill 47. I think all members of the House know what the bill is, but maybe some aren't familiar with it. It's the bill essentially to enact the budget measures that were laid out by the Minister of Finance a week ago.

It's no secret that our caucus has some fundamental problems with the direction of the government. This bill starts the government down a road that, in our opinion, leads into a really very significant economic swamp for Ontario.

I will say this: I have no doubt that this year's budget, the 1996-97 budget, and the deficit targets will be met. It is a budget in which the government has set its objectives in an area where it will, without question, hit the numbers. The problem for Ontario really begins in the second and third years, and this budget starts us down that road.

It's important that our caucus go on record as spelling out our major concerns with the direction. The way the place works, as you know, is that the government does what it wants to do. We raise the concerns; we attempt to change the government's direction. But they're on a mission. The Common Sense Revolution is under way, the government is going to do it, and we have no doubt about that. Here are the problems with it.

Firstly, the tax cut: I would say that we were somewhat surprised in the budget that the tax cut was actually not implemented as quickly as the government had planned to do it. From our perspective that makes more fiscal sense, but we were surprised. I think most people in Ontario will recall that during the election campaign -- probably about a week and a half before election day -- the now Chair of Management Board, Mr Johnson, and the famous Dr Mark Mullins, who is the government's House economist, had a meeting, a press conference, and spelled out the plans for the tax cut.

What they said there was, "Note the revenue decline in the first year, 1996-97" -- this budget year -- "as the first half of our tax cuts take effect." Then later on in the documents they spelled out -- this is called the "Direct Fiscal Impact of the Common Sense Revolution" -- that the first half of the tax cut was going to kick in effective April 1. The revenue loss was going to be $2.2 billion.

Now we find in the bill that the tax cut is not going to come in quite that quickly, and the reason we were surprised is because I think most of the government members have said: "This tax cut is our big job-creating engine. This is going to be" -- I'm paraphrasing one of the members -- "the biggest job-creation engine in the history of the province." So we were mildly surprised that this great job-creating engine has been put on the side track for a while. Part of the cut will come in July 1, and then it will get up to 15% on January 1.

Frankly, I think that makes some fiscal sense, but I was very surprised because, as I say, I think the government had said this was going to be the big engine to create jobs, and sure enough we find in the budget very, very disappointing job numbers.

As a matter of fact, we see that in 1996, the first full year of the Common Sense Revolution, we actually find about 25,000 more people out of work in Ontario than there were in 1995. As a matter of fact, by 1998 there will still be more people out of work than there were in 1995.

In talking to finance officials, they say, "The reason is that when you've got the economic growth that we're predicting, job growth can be no greater than we're predicting," and so we find, after three years, that the government's own projections show there'll be fewer than 300,000 jobs created in the province of Ontario when just less than a year ago this government got elected by saying, "Our plan will create 145,000 jobs a year, 725,000 jobs in our five years." Three of those five years are recorded here, the last two years aren't recorded here, but showing job creation well less than 100,000 a year.

That's the first disappointment in the budget, that what had been promised to people on social assistance -- they were told, "Listen, we're going to cut you back, but we're going to see all these jobs created." For people on social assistance, there are actually going to be more people out of work in 1996 than there were in 1995 and in fact more people out of work in 1998 than there were in 1995. That's the first disappointment in this budget bill.

The second thing I would say is that for us in the opposition, we are signalling that in the 1996-97 budget, the one that was just presented, the bar has been set so low on the deficit target that you will exceed that. I don't think there is any economist out there who doesn't believe that, but I also don't think there is any economist or any fiscal person who doesn't believe you are starting this province down the road to a significant fiscal problem, for these reasons.

Firstly, the tax cut, which has been delayed, as I say -- and you see in the detail of the budget that the tax cut for this fiscal year will cost about $1.1 billion, but when it's fully implemented, when the full 30% is there, it's over $5 billion. What does that mean? It means over 10% of the revenue of the province is gone. It means that the deficit that we see right now, we have to find another roughly $5 billion of cuts to deal with it. It means that

whereas this government ran in opposition on a platform of saying, "We are going to have to cut expenditures by approximately $6 billion, but we're not going to touch classroom education, we're not going to touch law enforcement, we're not going to touch health care," we now find that the cuts are far deeper than this government ran on. As a matter of fact, by their own admission, the cuts are at least a third bigger than the campaign promise. Why? It is to fund the tax cut.

I think the people in Ontario are beginning to realize the fundamental unfairness in that, where you are asking people to make incredible sacrifices to fight the deficit -- as a matter of fact, I think most people in Ontario are prepared to make very significant sacrifices to fight the deficit. So you'll find that municipalities now have about half of the support from the province that they had before this government was elected. Municipalities are saying, "All right, we're prepared to do our share to fight the deficit." What's happening, I might add, is an incredible number of brand-new user fees.

In fact, as you will recall, Madam Speaker, an awful lot of the debate around what was called Bill 26, the omnibus bill, was around municipalities saying, "We're going to need the right to impose a whole bunch of new user fees." Sure enough, the province cut support to municipalities in half and we find that, lo and behold, all of these new user fees are being imposed. But municipalities are prepared to do their bit to deal with the debt and deficit.

Support for people on social assistance has been cut by 20%, and I think every one of us has had individuals and families in to see us asking for help on, "How can we cope with that kind of cutback?" I say: "Well, the reason you're having to deal with that is the province says they have this huge deficit and debt problem that has to be fought, and it is a significant problem. So you used to get $1,000 a month for your family. You now are going to get $800 a month and you're going to have to deal with that." But then they find when the budget comes out that someone in this province making $150,000 is going to get a $5,000-a-year tax break.

I have real difficulty in explaining to people that the debt and deficit is such a big problem that we all have to fight it, but magically this province, this government, can afford an incredible tax break. As a matter of fact, if you look at provincial governments that have dealt with their fiscal problems, without exception they have first got their budget balanced before they started offering tax breaks. In fact, the Premier of Alberta's recommendation to this government is: "Don't do the tax cut.

Get your fiscal house in order first, then look at the tax cut." This government is fond of using New Jersey or some of the US states -- I think it's a very different situation and a very different social climate, and I frankly don't want Ontario to be New Jersey. But the States have essentially balanced budgets by law, and do not have debt essentially by law. Very different circumstances.

So the first thing I would say about this budget bill is, it is starting us down the road to the 30% tax cut that I think is a fiscal nightmare. Now, I will say to the government members, I know you're going to do this. I know the 30% tax cut will be done. It is a core belief of the true believers of the Common Sense Revolution, not to put more money into people's pockets, but because the 30% tax cut will dry up the source of government revenue and force more and more cutbacks. So if there is one thing this government will do, it is the 30% tax cut.

But I just assure you that we are starting ourselves down the road to a very significant fiscal problem and the cuts that we've seen so far are going to have to be much deeper and much broader and much more severe.

As a matter of fact, I think one way to illustrate that is to look at the government's own plans on deficit reduction. You can see that the deficit reduction this year, the fiscal year we're just starting into, is about $900 million. Then it has to go to $1.6 billion, then another $1.8 billion, then another $2.2 billion, and then another $2.6 billion. So the deficit reduction each year gets bigger and bigger. That's the first point.

The second point is, the tax cut gets bigger and bigger and bigger. The lost revenue gets larger and larger. Some may say: "Well, that's great. People are going to have this great tax break." But it is a tax break going to the best-off in our province, over half of it to families making more than $90,000 a year, and every penny of it borrowed money, because as the government points out in its own document here, this government is going to add $22 billion to the debt of this province, and I will say over that --

[Failure of sound system.]

There are some interesting things in the budget that are reflected in this bill. The government shows here that the debt of the province this fiscal year is going to go up $4 billion. How could that be if the deficit is going up $8 billion? It's a cute little trick that no company would ever get away with. You could never report your debt this way in any public company.

But the government conveniently went out and pre-borrowed about an extra $4.5 billion, ran the cash up, had cash on hand coming into the year, and is simply going to use that cash up and then show -- I frankly think it's an absolutely phoney -- deficit number and debt number. It's here on this page, where we are going to spend $8.2 billion more than we bring in in 1996-97 and the debt is going up $4 billion. How could that be? Because the government went out before the last year-end and borrowed a whole bunch of extra money.

I think you are assuming the public are fools. The public will see through this, will see that over the next four years you have chosen to take the debt of the province up $22 billion. You'll try and report some other strange number, because you came into this fiscal year with an extraordinary amount of cash on hand.

One thing you were able to do was to blame the NDP for some of this, because you went out and borrowed it and said, "Well, that was the debt that the NDP left us." But, by your own admission here, the province came into this fiscal year with $11 billion in cash on hand, absolutely unheard of -- it's on page 58 -- and you're going to show a lower increase in the debt by using up those liquid reserves, that cash on hand.

Why do I say all this? Because I think those on the back bench probably need to say to the Minister of Finance, "Let's make sure that we do one thing, and that is, we don't try to fool ourselves or the public."

One of the reasons why, in my opinion, this year's budget will be a slam dunk to hit is that you were able to move a bunch of expenses out of the 1996-97 fiscal year back two years, back three years, and some of them back into last year. It's good politics. Any new president that takes over a company tries to do the same thing, and any new government tries to do the same thing, I guess.

But I'm just saying to the members, because you will be going to the people in an election in 1999, probably the year 2000, just when these things are all beginning to hit, the full impact of the tax cut you've delayed somewhat, so it's going to hit later. The 1996-97 budget is, in some respects, artificially put together, because you've moved quite a few expenses out of this fiscal year.

I would also say, actually, that the economy has performed much better in 1995 than most people thought. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to everyone when the final GDP numbers were out and we see that the economy in 1995 grew at about 3%. So you have had two good years of growth: 5.5% in 1994 and 3% in 1995.

For the province, we are beginning to sow the seeds of our own recurring fiscal problem with this tax bill that lays the groundwork for the 30% tax cut, that promises 725,000 jobs in five years, and we find now that job number is disappearing. That commitment is virtually gone. By your own numbers, we see fewer than 300,000 jobs created in the first three years, and I think it's fair to say we have yet to begin to feel the impact of the layoffs in the public sector.

I think we all know May is happy month when, for this government, there will be no bad news. There's a by-election coming up. The people in York South will hear no bad news out of the government. All layoffs for the public sector have been put on hold. The roughly 10,000 public sector jobs that are going to disappear are not going to be announced, I wouldn't think, until three or four days after the by-election is over. The education community has been begging the ministry to let them know what their finances are going to be for the future, but that's been delayed.

May, as I say, has been designed to be happy month. Why? Primarily to try and bolster the government's chances in a by-election, and in my opinion to be less than forthcoming about the impact of the finances of the province.

What we see in this budget bill is the beginning of the 30% tax cut. I mention also that we were a bit surprised to see a delay in the employer health tax relief for business. I think the Common Sense Revolution said that in year one there would be the elimination of the employer health tax on payrolls of $400,000. That was delayed until January 1997 and then phased in over three years.

We have a debate that only time will tell. In our party we have major reservations about the direction you're heading. We think it's taking Ontario down a road that will prove to end up with incredible winners, incredible losers and a divided Ontario. I think it will not be that long before Ontario begins to recognize that the price that is being paid by the winners to punish the losers is not worth it.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I've watched the member for Scarborough-Agincourt perform over the last number of years. He's always been a fine finance critic for the Liberal Party, and it's interesting to know that he's been put now in a very difficult position of fighting tax cuts. It's a rather remarkable position to be put in. In effect, the thesis of his presentation today and the presentation he's made in this House before is simply to say that tax cuts aren't appropriate.

The people of Ontario have come to the conclusion that we've had enough taxes. We've reminded the member for Scarborough-Agincourt constantly that over the last 10 years there have been 65 tax increases, some from his party and some from the New Democratic government. The people of Ontario don't want any more taxes. We can't be any more clear.

During the last election we promised we would cut taxes, and we've done that. We promised a 30% tax cut rate. That's what the people wanted and that's what we're going to give them; you know we're going to give them that. We promised restructuring. We submitted, and the people of Ontario believed us, that there was too much government existing in the province of Ontario, that there were too many government officials getting in our face, that there was too much red tape. It was too difficult to do business in Ontario.

Albeit some of that isn't in the government -- there's a Red-Tape Review Commission that's working to reduce red tape -- certainly the philosophy of tax cuts, restructuring, getting rid of red tape has been promised and we're gong to honour that commitment.

These are promises. Essentially the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is telling us: "Don't honour your promises. Don't honour your commitments." We're doing exactly what we said we were going to do; there's nothing new about this.

Normally, when you hear "budget" you wonder what's going to be in the budget. There were no surprises. Everything we said we were going to do is in there: getting rid of the employer health tax, the tax on jobs. I can only say that we're doing exactly what we promised with respect to this budget.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Your time is up. Further questions or comments.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I want to compliment our finance critic on his fine job of bringing out a capsule form of what this budget means and in an understandable way.

The 30% tax cut promoted by the government is its big job creation program. I think our member puts it quite matter of factly that if that is the case, why are they phasing the tax cut in so slowly and jeopardizing the ability of those who are looking for jobs that very opportunity?

Adults are looking for jobs in my riding and indeed probably in ridings all across Ontario. Those persons who will be laid off by this government are going to be seeking employment and hoping and indeed praying that this government will deliver on its job creation plan, the 30% tax cut.

The youth are looking for jobs this summer. I have many coming to my office or calling or making comments as I meet them personally, "I can't find a summer job." Of course they're looking for a job in order to pay for the tuition increases that are coming through, caused by cuts in this government's frenzy to bring about its planned tax cut. Tuition fees for people I meet who have two and three children in universities are going to be very, very burdensome.

So we're hoping that the job creation plans of this government will succeed, although we find that its numbers simply are not going to create 725,000 jobs here in Ontario. I feel very badly for the people who are seeking employment and have all their hopes with this government.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Has he got the insurance bill ready?

Mr Sampson: We're just about there with the insurance bill, as a matter of fact, but we'll speak to the budget since that's the topic to be discussed today.

I would like to speak to my friend from Scarborough in regard to the comments he makes with respect to job creation. I know he always wants to refer, certainly when it's to his advantage anyway, to the Ontario budget papers, although he tells me when we're talking about this being an attachment to the budget it is not a piece of the budget, but now he always wants to refer to this as actually a piece of the budget. He tells us that there is in fact effectively no change in the unemployment rate. I would say to my friend that he needs to move up his focus on this particular page a couple of lines to look at the category talking about labour force and employment.

What he fails to recognize is that the plan we've laid out in this particular budget will actually encourage more people to get back into the workforce. That's why the employment levels are going up. That's why the number of job opportunities are going up.

I say to my friend from Scarborough -- he tells us that is bad news. I don't think it's bad news that we're encouraging more people to get involved in the job market in the province of Ontario. It's a hope of prosperity they have not had over the last 10 years that was taken away by the two previous administrations, and that frankly this province deserves to finally get. I suggest to the member that when he takes a look at page 39 and other sections of this document, he might want to refer to the job creation category, and indeed our challenge to create 725,000 new jobs will be met.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Strange, but our finance critic, some three we