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

November 30, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L061A - Mon 30 Nov 1998 / Lun 30 Nov 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

HURRICANE RELIEF

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA

IMPERIAL OIL-ESSO REFINERY

EDUCATION FUNDING

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEFERRED VOTES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD POVERTY

LANDS FOR LIFE

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

LANDS FOR LIFE

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD

WASTE DISPOSAL

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

WINE INDUSTRY

STATUS OF LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

LAND USE PLANNING

FIREARMS CONTROL

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LAND USE PLANNING

ABORTION

ELECTION CALL

ADOPTION

PALLIATIVE CARE

CHILD CARE CENTRES

ROAD SAFETY

SCHOOL SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION / ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "We want to breathe clean air." That's the rallying cry of the Sudbury Committee for Clean Air. The co-founders of this committee, Marie France Daoudi and Primo Steffan, want the government to act, and they want the government to act immediately. They and the rest of the citizens of the regional municipality of Sudbury who signed this petition are tired of the quality of air that they're breathing, and they want that to change. They want the industry and the ministry to come together and establish a proper set of criteria for SO 2 emissions in the regional municipality of Sudbury.

For too long there has been an acceptance on the part of this ministry of unfair amounts of tolerance with regard to sulphur dioxide emissions from Inco and Falconbridge. That must change now.

This committee and the residents who signed the petition understand that the cuts to the Ministry of the Environment have negatively affected the regional municipality residents, and they want that changed immediately. They also want strict government guidelines. They want those in place immediately. The funny thing is, they have industry co-operation. What they need is a Minister of the Environment who will act to protect the quality of Sudbury air.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Last Thursday I was honoured to attend a hastily called meeting sponsored by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee in London, Ontario. My colleagues Dwight Duncan from the Liberal Party and Bob Wood from the Tory party were with me to hear the disgust, disappointment and distrust expressed by the disabled community in London towards this government, and the betrayal they felt at the introduction of Bill 83, which incidentally they refuse to call an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I'd like to read into the record a letter sent on November 24 to Premier Harris from David Lepofsky on behalf of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. I'll read one paragraph of that.

"We cannot accept your bill as in any way fulfilling your election promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for people with disabilities. Your bill will do nothing to redress the barriers we face. It does not even speak to the vast majority of barriers that we face, namely, those outside the Ontario government. Of those that it does address, namely, those within the Ontario government, it leaves their removal and prevention to the sole discretion of each ministry.

It is unenforceable, provides no remedies, and is, with respect, a hurtful insult to the one-and-a-half million Ontarians who now have a disability. It fails to comply with any of the 11 principles which the Ontario Legislature unanimously adopted for this bill on October 29, 1998."

HURRICANE RELIEF

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the men and women of CFB Trenton. Since mid-October these constituents of mine have been working tirelessly to coordinate and deliver Canada's aid to the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America.

During the initial phase of the operation there were five C-130 flights per day. These flights deployed the DART teams, who immediately began the process of setting up water purification systems. Tests revealed local tap water to contain 10 times the fecal content that would close an Ontario beach. In all, more than 50 flights left my riding of Quinte during the first 10 days of the relief effort.

The base has now moved into the sustainment phase of the relief operation. One Airbus leaves the base every day containing food and medical supplies.

At its peak, 1,000 people were involved in the air lifts, with many more in support roles. This continues to be an enormous operation, with the two air squadrons on the base dedicated to this mission 24 hours per day.

I want to thank the members of squadrons 429, 436, 437, 424 and 426 for the excellent job they have done to deliver hurricane aid. I would also like to congratulate the chief government whip for the fine work he has done to coordinate Ontario's relief effort.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today we had a very sad announcement, that the VON has cancelled yet another area of home nursing, in Lanark. This is the third area in Ontario that has made the decision to stop delivering nurses' services in those regions.

What is so sad about it is that if we look at the Common Sense Revolution, nowhere in those flimsy pages did it say that the VON would be forced out of nursing services because of the Conservative Mike Harris government, but that is what's happening out there in the field. If we ask patients who are waiting for that blue car to arrive up the driveway to take care of their patient needs, they don't care who sends the nurse there, they just know that's their VON nurse.

What we know this government has done is put in a competitive bidding process that is slanted in favour of private companies, and these companies are taking the business away from the VON, the VON that for over 100 years has delivered this service. Unfortunately, Lanark is but the third. How many more are going to fall because of this government's policies that favour private business?

All we can say is that we hope, before it's too late, the Conservatives will hear from people who say, "We want VON in the nursing business," and not slant policies against the VON.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I want to take a few moments here to speak about why I've chosen to become a New Democrat and why I will be supporting the NDP platform in the upcoming provincial election. Last week, there were unfortunately some wild and inappropriate comments about my decision to join Howard Hampton and the NDP caucus and I think the record should be set straight.

You will remember that last year the major issue in my by-election in Ottawa West was health care. People in Ottawa West were upset with the Harris agenda to close hospitals, particularly closing the Grace and Riverside hospitals, downsizing the Ottawa Civic, the Elisabeth Bruyère and the Montfort. I asked, going door to door, if the Harris cuts to health care, education and social services were worth the price of the Harris income tax scheme, and people said no by an overwhelming majority.

It is a fact that the Harris income tax scheme is costing the Ontario treasury $5 billion a year, is the reason why we're in a deficit today and why hospitals and schools are being closed by the Harris government.

Howard Hampton and the NDP have a plan to solve the crisis in health care and education that Mike Harris has created. They have listened to the public and have developed well-thought-out policies to meet the needs of Ontarians. We will finance it, in a balanced budget context, through rolling back for those individuals with taxable incomes of $80,000 or more the Harris income tax break. This will affect only the top 6% of income earners in Ontario, people with taxable incomes of $80,000 or more, and will provide the money that we need, $1.5 billion, to meet health care and education needs in our community. It's a sensible plan and I'm pleased to support it.

IMPERIAL OIL-ESSO REFINERY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): This year, our local Imperial Oil-Esso refinery celebrated 20 years of operation at Nanticoke. My wife and I had the opportunity to attend their family open house and tour the facility this September.

Built by Texaco in 1978 and purchased by Imperial Oil in 1989, the refinery is a major employer in Norfolk: 240 full-time jobs and 60 regular maintenance contract workers as well. The refinery is located on over 1,500 acres of land and can convert 112,000 barrels of crude oil a day into a range of petroleum products, things like motor oil, aviation fuel and asphalt. This means that six billion litres of crude oil are refined annually. Products are distributed throughout Ontario and the northern United States by pipeline, truck, boat and rail.

During the 1990s, more than $100 million has been invested in sulphur removal and recovery units, an electric power generation facility, asphalt production facilities and a new hydrofiner unit to produce low-sulphur diesel fuel.

A commitment to safety has been made at Imperial Oil, celebrating six months of operation without recording a single employee lost-time injury throughout the whole corporation. Credit for much of this achievement is given to employees' attitudes towards their own and their co-workers' safety.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, a black day for education in Ontario. Bill 160 was rammed through this Legislature despite the protests of tens of thousands of teachers, parents and students right across Ontario. It was rammed through for one reason only: because the Mike Harris government needed to take control of education funding so that they could make the cuts they needed to pay for their tax cut. One year later, we have seen only too clearly that the Mike Harris cuts are hurting kids in the classroom and are disastrous for publicly funded education.

The Harris government will say they backed off the $700 million in further cuts that they intended to make - not because they care about education but because the public clearly would not tolerate any more cuts, and the public made that apparent last November.

But what the Mike Harris government doesn't say is that their so-called stable funding has to pay for the cost of educating 85,000 more students than were in the education system one year ago. The Harris government doesn't say that, but they know it. That's why they stripped maintenance funding and put some 600 schools across the province at risk of closure. They didn't care what happened to the students in those schools. They actually wanted the schools closed by September 1 of this year.

Once again, only province-wide protests stopped the immediacy of this disaster. Over and over again, only protests have slowed this government's destruction, slowed it but not stopped it. It is time to turn the protests into effective action to replace a government that doesn't care about education.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): As has already been noted, tomorrow marks the anniversary of the passage of Bill 160. I just want to remind members of the government that what they unleashed, what they thought they were doing when they passed Bill 160, was to take complete control of the education agenda and drive those decisions board by board.

What they have found instead is that school board by school board and school by school, parents have understood what the Harris agenda with regard to education is all about. It's about having less money in each school for the teachers to be available to do more with that less money, and it has led to the possible closure of hundreds of schools across the province and, in my own west-end community, of some 22 schools originally on the list threatened with closure.

What I want to bring to the government members' attention particularly is that tomorrow, parents who have not given up the fight - because even though the immediate threat of closure for some schools has disappeared, they know that the threat is there, and they know that just as easily, if the Mike Harris government is re-elected, the funding formula can again be changed and all those schools could be back on the danger list. They want to lobby MPPs of all parties to remind them of the value of education and the importance of putting money back into the system.

I want to say to the government members particularly that I hope they have the courage tomorrow to make themselves available here, or throughout the week, those members who will be here and not in their ridings, to hear directly from these parents why our schools need to continue to function to provide the quality of education -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member's time has expired.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to inform the House of the official opening of the Telecommunications Learning Institute on November 4, 1998. Located in Etobicoke-Rexdale, a working group composed of members from the sectors of industry, government and academia, and led by Humber College, was assembled to address the lack of available training for the telecommunications/convergence sector, affecting some 350,000 workers in this most vital Canadian industry.

The demand for this training is overwhelming. As technologies continue to evolve, the demand for training will continue to increase. A world-class facility, TLI's main goal is to populate the sector with people whose training enables them to fulfill the demand of the workplace.

TLI has developed learning solutions for companies and individuals who work in them. It offers a highly effective, technologically based, needs-assessment tool which will help clients to identify critical training requirements and to respond with specific action plans.

TLI's vision is "to leverage Canada's acknowledged leadership in telecommunications and be globally recognized as the pre-eminent telecommunications learning resource."

Not only does TLI constantly monitor the market to identify emerging trends and training needs, but it offers telecommunications professionals sector-wide certification and accreditation.

I am confident that TLI will have a very successful future.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 48,

An Act to Improve Court Services for Families by Facilitating Expansion of the Family Court and to make other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act / Projet de loi 48, Loi visant à améliorer les services fournis aux familles par les tribunaux en facilitant l'expansion de la Cour de la famille et apportant d'autres modifications à la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on November 30 and on December 1, 2 and 3, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Ms Churley and Ms Lankin exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 25,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the minister responsible for children's issues. Yesterday the Golden task force produced some very disturbing information insofar as Ontario children are concerned. Anne Golden tells us that after you cut welfare, there was a 60% increase in the number of applications for subsidized housing in Toronto. Today, of 100,000 people waiting for subsidized housing in Toronto, 31,000 are children.

That's 31,000 kids whose parents are spending way more than they can afford on rent and, consequently, spending way less than they should on food, on clothing and on other items that are essential for the healthy development of children.

Why is it that you can find $47 million for political advertising but you can't help these 31,000 children growing up in poverty right here in Toronto?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): This question is being referred to the minister responsible for social housing, the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We agree with the honourable members that any time a family or a parent, a mother with her children, find themselves in a homeless circumstance, that is indeed a tragedy. That is why we have taken many of the steps we have taken. For example, we are giving women who are on welfare the supports that will allow them to get off welfare and into paid jobs. We're very pleased to report that over 138,000 fewer children are having to depend on welfare in this province. That's certainly good news for those families and those children.

I'd like to also point out that we have made significant reinvestments to help women who are fleeing abusive situations, to try to make sure that they get the priority they need, that they get the money that is owed them from the deadbeat parent so that they don't have to rely on housing or welfare.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, your Premier said the tax cut was going to help Ontario's poor. Your economic policies were going to help our children growing up at risk. Anne Golden tells us that homelessness in Toronto has increased a staggering 123% on your watch among families with children. Your policies are condemning more of our kids to more poverty. More of them are going to school hungry, more of them are having problems at school, more of them are going to drop out of school and more of them are going to end up on social assistance again, condemning them to a lifetime of poverty and desperation.

Why don't you admit now that your policies, your economic policies in particular, have failed Ontario's children? You are making their personal circumstances worse.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that the honourable member is concerned about this issue, as we all are, but to make rash judgments and statements based on those statistics is inaccurate because, as he knows, many thousands of individuals who are on that waiting list are already in subsidized housing waiting to transfer to another kind of subsidized housing. I really think it's unfair to use it in that fashion.

Secondly, as the honourable member well knows, there have been significant increases in those waiting lists under previous governments' administration. The point here is, what is the best strategy for getting people off the welfare rolls and out of the need for supportive housing? Our employment programs are indeed helping sole-support parents to do that. Our programs make sure that women who are owed money from fathers who are not paying, for example, get priority in the courts, priority in housing, and indeed get more money in their hands so they don't need to rely on welfare for their children.

Mr McGuinty: I'm talking about Ontario children. On your watch, there has been a 123% increase in the number of families who are homeless and looking for subsidized housing. That has happened on your watch. That information comes from Anne Golden, a reputable, highly reliable authority on matters of this type.

You cannot slough this off. Don't talk to me about people in general; I'm talking about Ontario children who are worse off today as a result of your economic policies. I'd hope that the minister responsible for children would look into this and speak to this issue. Some 31,000 Ontario children are growing up in poverty in Toronto, here, today, now. Your policies have caused this. What are you going to do about this? Why is it that you can find $47 million for political advertising but you can't find any money for these 31,000 children who are in need today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member is refusing to acknowledge the success of many of the reforms this government has instituted. For example, as I said, there are fewer children, 138,000 fewer children, on welfare today. Perhaps he likes the record of his previous government when the number of children and people on welfare went up, even in good economic times.

More parents are in the workforce. We know that children are not well off on welfare, we know they don't do well, their families don't do well on welfare. They do better when they're into those jobs. That is the goal. Not only that, but when a parent can make the transition into that job, there is support through the national child benefit for that parent, there is support through the child care working supplement from this government. That means more money in the hands of that parent, mum or dad with kids, which helps them do better.

LANDS FOR LIFE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Your Lands for Life exercise has become the subject of much discussion during the past few days. You will understand that what you are attempting to do there is something that is massive and highly ambitious. You're talking about something that is going to have profound implications for the economy, the northern Ontario economy in particular. It's going to affect the right not only of this generation but of generations yet to come to enjoy lands in their natural state.

Virtually everybody who has had an opportunity to look at this is asking for more time. There's an artificial deadline of today: 30 days to comment on this exercise and the recommendations produced. People are asking for an extension.

Given the scope and the breadth and the depth of this undertaking, Minister, do you not agree that this deadline ought to be extended to make sure we have all the input necessary to get it right?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question today on Lands for Life. I think it's the first time we've heard a question on this process from his party.

As the member might know, this has been a very extensive public consultation process. In fact, for over 16 months we have had round table meetings across Ontario. They've had some 95 public meetings, some 15,000 people have attended Lands for Life sessions over the course of their considerations, and 770 people made presentations over that course of time. I believe the member opposite will recognize this as the largest, broadest public consultation on the use of public lands in the history of Ontario.

I was pleased to receive the consolidated report of the round table chairs and to make that report public. We are now going to examine the comments that we heard over the last month and make some determinations about what the future of that process will be.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, we're talking about an exercise here that's going to affect 46 million hectares of Ontario's public lands. That's more than half of Ontario's land base. You say that you are satisfied with the 16-month process. When BC undertook their process, they took four years. The last time we did something here in this province similar to this undertaking, we took 10 years. You tell us that 16 months is satisfactory; I'm telling you it's not nearly sufficient.

There is an artificial deadline that expires today. You established that. You said 30 days were adequate for the general public to comment on these recommendations. Thousands and thousands of Ontarians are coming to learn of this exercise just recently. They want an opportunity to provide their input.

Interjection: Where have you been? Everybody knows about this.

Mr McGuinty: What have you got to lose now, Minister? What have you got to lose by extending the deadline to allow more ordinary Ontarians an opportunity to give their input?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In answer to the member opposite, I think if the Leader of the Opposition were better informed about the kind of opinions that have been voiced to the round tables and had a chance to look at the recommendations of the round tables on public land use, he would know that there have been voices calling for an extended consultation even beyond the two extensions we've allowed for this process so that we'd have more public input. He would know there are also voices calling for certainty so that this process can in fact end in good policy for the protection of those public lands. I think the balance between those two opinions is where we seek to be.

I can tell the member opposite this: We'll be looking at the submissions that have been made over the last month that result from the consolidated reports of the round tables, that come from the 16 months of public consultation, that come from the hundreds of presentations that have been made to our round table chairs and the 15,000 people who have attended those meetings, and we will give those public opinions that come in over this month very weighty consideration.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you know that virtually every participant in the process is calling for more time to respond, whether we're talking about environmentalists, northerners, native leaders, the Environmental Commissioner, tourist outfitters and the forest industry itself.

One of the members opposite says: "Where have you been? Everybody knows about this." I know that we've been spending a lot of money on advertising in Ontario but I haven't seen anything on our television that tells us about this undertaking and what it's going to mean to future generations.

What have you got to fear? Why are you so afraid to extend the deadline to give ordinary Ontarians a greater opportunity to provide their say on what should happen to one half of the province? It's going to affect northern Ontario's economy and it's going to affect our collective right to preserve our natural lands for generations yet to come. Again, what have you got to lose by extending the deadline to ensure ordinary Ontarians have an opportunity to have their say?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell the honourable member this: The Lands for Life process involved a lot of advertising by the Lands for Life process itself, by the round tables that let people know what was going on, where they were having public meetings, some 95 public meetings.

They also have widely distributed their considerations and some of the detailed information that they considered this public land use process from, some of the details provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources to those round tables. We have put the consolidated report on our Web site, where thousands of people can access this report and make comments on it, and we have received thousands of comments from people across Ontario on that report.

Unlike the member opposite, I am not going to prejudge public opinion, I am not going to prejudge the response we have to these round table reports. I will look at the responses and I can tell you that we'll give them great consideration, great weight, and we will design the future of this process.

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. For the second time in less than a week your government has received damning criticism about its record on women and violence. Today, women from shelters across this province came to Queen's Park to mark the end of Wife Assault Prevention Month. They released a report that tells a story that you, Minister, your Premier and your government should be deeply ashamed of.

More women and children are asking for shelter services today than before your government started its vicious cuts, but shelters cannot meet that demand because you've cut the heart out of the programs and services that help women and children find their way out of abusive situations. Shelters are having to say to desperate women, "We don't know how we can help you," and it's on your head, Minister. How many more women have to die? I'm asking you, will you commit today to give back the money you took away from emergency shelters and second-stage housing?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Everyone in this Legislative Assembly understands that violence against women is a serious crime and it will not be tolerated in Ontario. I will also say to the member who asks this question that here in Ontario, when I first became the minister, we asked what the recommendations of the community should be and we acted on those recommendations by producing a framework to stop the violence against women.

The shelter movement told us that one of their priorities, and a very important priority to them, was stable funding, which in fact they received. In the meantime, yes, they did have a reduction of some 5%, but you should know that on their base that would be approximately, on average, about half a staff person, maybe one staff person. We hope that with the stable funding they can go ahead and plan.

Violence against women is a crime. It won't be tolerated. We are proud of our record in the new services we have provided across nine ministries in helping to fight this violence against women.

Ms Churley: Minister, I hope you don't call cutting the services at shelters for women and children who have suffered violence "stable funding." The fact is that you have cut funding for shelters and second-stage housing across this province. You have made devastating cuts, and you won't accept that.

If you cared, women wouldn't be returning to their abusers because they have no place to go. If you cared, you wouldn't be spending more money selling your government propaganda than you spend on all 98 shelters. A single woman fleeing domestic violence can expect to get a maximum of $520 per month on social assistance, which is what your Andersen consultants got paid for one hour of work. This is shameful, Minister. Meanwhile, your pals down on Bay Street making $200,000 a year are getting back $583 a month from your tax scheme.

Minister, when are you going to start standing up for women? How many more women and children have to suffer?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think that question would be appropriately referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the honourable member's concern about this issue, but I would like to correct her. A woman with children gets more than that amount on social assistance here in Ontario and, frankly, we have some of the most generous social assistance benefits in the country, as we should have, and I think most Ontarians support that.

The goal of our reforms is to make sure we are preventing that violence, that we are giving women the tools they need to fight back, to get the money they need, to get people in jail, if that's what it takes to stop that abuse. They've got more money through the legal aid plan; they've got more priority in the courts. We've increased the prosecution success rate for people who are abusing their children and their spouses.

There are a number of things this government is doing to try to help those women, to prevent those issues, to give them more tools and to get them linked up with the economic supports they need so they can be independent and self-sufficient and not have to depend on the social assistance system. They certainly don't want to be there.

Ms Churley: Minister, you know less about what your government is doing to women who are victims of violence than the minister responsible for women's issues. The United Way says three to four women are murdered by their intimate partners each month in this province. Women are fleeing violence and then finding that there's nowhere for them to go, no way for them to survive. They can't find a safe place because there isn't room for them in the shelters. When they get to a shelter, they are there for months and even years because they can't find adequate housing.

Minister, I want to know what kind of choice you think they have. They have to choose between feeding their kids or paying rent. The tool you've given them is a hammer to hit them over the head. They have no choice at all. Your government is punishing women for leaving their abusers. Their punishment is hunger, poverty and homelessness. Speak up for women and children and force your Premier and cabinet to provide affordable housing again in this province for these women and children.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the alarming statistics has been for quite some time the number of women who return to an abusive relationship. I understand the Stats Canada study that was done under the NDP government had indicated it could be as high as three quarters of those individuals were going back. That's why I think, as she acknowledges, we have to have improved and better supports and services for those women, so they do have choices.

We have more subsidized housing units in this province than Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia combined. Women who are fleeing abusive relationships get the priority for going into those housing units, as they should. We've also increased the ability for those women to take steps in the courts, through legal aid and other supports, to make sure that if it's restraining orders they need, or other things, they get the support for that.

The other point is that they are getting more money -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: - from deadbeat parents. There are many things we have done to try to assist these women. We remain committed to continuing to do that and continuing to improve those services, because it is a very important -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, third party.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, Anne Golden said 31,000 children in Toronto alone are waiting for subsidized housing. Those children are in danger of becoming homeless. Over 1,600 children are already homeless. You crow about keeping your promises, but one promise you didn't keep is on page 13 of the Common Sense Revolution, where you promise "a shelter subsidy program for all Ontarians who need help in affording a decent level of shelter."

Minister, you kept your promise to implement your phony tax scheme for the wealthy, you kept your promise to slam the door on affordable housing, and you kept your promise to whack the poorest people in the province with a 21% cut in social assistance. Will you keep your promise this term and fund the shelter allowance program for the 31,000 children and all other Ontarians who need it?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. The one thing I will agree with the member on is that to have a shelter subsidy for individuals would be a whole lot better than continuing with the housing boondoggle that was in place when you were in office.

Everyone will agree that to have one person homeless in a land that is as rich as Canada is a disaster, but I would also like to point out that during the NDP's reign from 1990 through 1993 the increase was 23,000, which is a higher rate than it is today for MTHA. The rate was increasing faster during your reign than it is at the present time, so don't be talking about something that's happened in the last year that has created a disaster. This is an unfortunate situation that has been with us for a long time, an unfortunate situation that we intend to work with all levels of government who have a role to play in this - the feds, the provincial and the -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Marchese: Minister, enough pettifoggery from you. We have been urging you to build housing for the last couple of years. You have been saying you don't believe in government funding for housing, and you pulled the government completely out of housing. That's what you have done. We have joined the city of Toronto, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many other social agencies who have declared homelessness a national disaster. You seem to agree with that, you stated it right now, yet you do nothing. You don't want to build housing and you don't want to keep your promise to introduce shelter allowances to help them.

Minister, if you won't build housing for the homeless, will you at least keep the promise that you have made - not that I have made but that you have made - and announce shelter allowances for all the people, children and families, who need them? Will you keep your promise?

Hon Mr Leach: I think it would be a whole lot easier for any government, regardless of political stripe, to do something about housing if we weren't carrying $9 billion worth of debt on $4 billion worth of assets. If I had that $5 billion, we could do a whole lot.

The responsibility for housing obviously rests with all three levels of government - the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal governments. I have been in touch with my federal counterpart. We are planning to get together to discuss this issue and to develop some strategies for a national housing program. I know the Liberal federal government is anxious to do that. They have proposed, as you know, to mitigate down the federal responsibilities for housing to the provincial government. We believe the level of government best able to administer social housing is the municipal government, but there isn't any doubt that all three levels of government have to be involved.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to caution the members for Fort York, Lake Nipigon and Ottawa West. Come to order, please. I want to hear the answer the minister gives. That means you don't heckle.

Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, you and your colleague ministers are fond of saying that we selectively ignore some of the facts over here, but you're not responding to some of the real facts, and those real facts have faces. Those are kids' faces.

I want you to listen carefully to just three sets of numbers, please, and think about them. While homelessness in Toronto has increased by 55%, there has been a 123% increase in the number of families with children who are homeless in this city. Since you cut welfare by more than 21%, the number of applications for subsidized housing has increased 60%. You may think that's a coincidence, and if you do, I'd say get a reality check. Perhaps the most startling is that every night in this city, among those who are sleeping in shelters, 45% now are children. That is 2,000 little toddlers and children sleeping in shelters.

Your tax cut is being borne by those kids. Why don't you do something even now, on an emergency basis, to make sure those 2,000 kids don't go to sleep every night in a shelter?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services makes a good point, that the money is on the table for the municipalities that are responsible for delivering that program, that the province of Ontario will stand there and pay 80%.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I think it was pointed out that it was Anne Golden who produced the report and the statistics we're talking about this afternoon. She very clearly stated that no one level of government should accept total responsibility for the situation we have now, and that all three levels -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Leach: As I pointed out, there are discussions going on now, beginning between the municipal governments, particularly the city of Toronto, the federal government and ourselves, to sit down and deal with the report and the situation that has been brought up by Golden and by Jack Carroll, with our own statistics.

I would like to point out that the homeless and abused spouses get first priority for any housing. They go right to the top, first in the line. I'd also like to point out that the waiting list was increasing at a faster rate while you were in power than it is at the present time.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Last week our leader, Dalton McGuinty, asked for your government's response to the report of the United Way of Greater Toronto, Freedom from Violence. This report makes it statistically clear that women who are abused are at greater risk than ever because of your government's cuts to programs and services. One specific finding is that 66% of Ontario shelters reported that women were returning to or remaining in a situation with an abusive partner because they could no longer afford to leave.

Incredibly, you said last week that although you had this damning report in your hands, you had not read it. Have you now read the report and will you now acknowledge what this report makes so clear, that your government cuts have put women in abusive situations at risk?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I have read the report. I will not accept that. I will accept the responsibility, however, for establishing with other members in this Legislative Assembly and the community of Ontario the first framework across nine ministries to stop the violence against women.

I do not accept the recommendations in this report. I will be discussing them with Anne Golden tomorrow and I look forward to that discussion.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you waited months to set up a committee to look at the recommendations from an inquest which said that women and indeed their children are at risk. You have taken no specific action to address any of the concerns that have been raised over the last year.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses is here today to back up the same concerns that were raised last week by the United Way. They also make it absolutely clear that women who are abused are at greater risk because of your government's cuts to shelters, to housing, to counselling and to legal aid.

As Eileen Morrow said, "In Ontario today, if you leave an abuser, you will be punished," yet your government's advertising budget continues to grow and to exceed, after 18 months, the entire annual budget for women's shelters in this province. Minister, let me ask you again, as my leader asked you last week, why have you determined that it is a greater priority to spend money on a political advertising campaign than it is to protect the welfare and safety of women and children?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously we continue to be very proud of the gains we've made in Ontario. There isn't a day that goes by that there isn't some program that is working with our ministry to make things better.

I will not accept this statement that we have cut programs to women and children. I will accept the fact that there is some good information in those reports. We will look at those reports, but there is a lot of information in those reports that is simply missing.

For instance, in today's report - I can't see the page, but I have looked at it - I will tell you that it talked about what the Liberal government did; it talked about what the NDP government did; it talked about the few reductions in very focused areas that were made in this area, some four small programs; it talked about the $27 million. But it does not get into the detail of expanding the victim/witness assistance programs that you started, of introducing the programs in hospitals, of starting these programs in our hospitals so we can get -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Minister, you say that your new Ontarians with Disabilities Act will require the government to review more than 600 pieces of legislation, as well as policies and programs, to ensure that people with disabilities are being treated properly. I wonder if the minister is aware of money being taken away from the children of disabled parents by your government. When the federal government implemented the national child benefit, your government deducted $50 per child from welfare benefits.

But that money is not just being deducted from welfare recipients; it's also being deducted from families who depend on the Ontario disability support program.

That national benefit was supposed to help children in low-income families and it was supposed to help parents in low-wage jobs. Many of the parents receiving disability support will never be able to work. Their children need those benefits. I'd like you to tell us what kind of teeth your new legislation will have. Will your legislation mean an end to the clawing back of the national child benefit from disabled parents and their children by the Mike Harris government?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think the honourable member's research is usually quite good and I think she probably understands that the goal of the national child benefit, the increase in money that Ottawa has given the provinces, is designed to go to families who are in low-income working situations. It's to be a top-up and an assistance to people who are in working circumstances.

Any additional monies for the provinces are being reinvested in high-priority programs to help individuals who may well be in working circumstances and to help get people off welfare into those working circumstances. For example, we're using the national child benefit monies to help put actual hard dollars into the pockets of low-income working parents to help them with their child care expenses.

Ms Lankin: This is a further betrayal of persons with disabilities, and you won't even answer the question and defend your own legislation. To the minister who stands up and defends this: This money you're clawing back from parents who are receiving disability support programs, many of them are parents who will never be able to work. That national child benefit was supposed to help low-income children. It's supposed to help bring children out of poverty.

Hon Mrs Ecker: By getting them off assistance.

Ms Lankin: You're yelling at me that you want to take people off the system. These are people with disabilities. You said you were taking them off welfare. You said this was a different program. You're applying the same rules, and you're clawing back money from disabled families and children of disabled parents. That is discriminatory. That is not what you said you were going to do. Your legislation that your other minister won't defend obviously won't solve the problem. You explain why you're discriminating against families with disabilities and their children.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, there is no change in their assistance benefit level. What they are eligible for remains what they are eligible for. We are not reducing or taking away the money that is part of their monthly income, and she knows that.

I think we should stress to the honourable member that our benefits for those who have disabilities who are on the system are 47% more generous than the other provinces. Again, Ontarians would very much support that. Perhaps she's prepared to say that because someone with a disability is living on income support, somehow they're not going to be capable of employment. Certainly that's not what we heard from people with disabilities. Their program had a 50% failure rate getting people into employment. People with disabilities said that was unacceptable.

That's why we developed the new Ontario disability support program, with its employment supports, so that those individuals would have the best crack they could have at the employment market, to work the way they want to work.

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I understand that the minister was in Ajax-Pickering last week for the launch of Ajax-Pickering as an official safe community. I think it would be helpful if the minister were to explain to this House the role of the Safe Communities Foundation and how it's helping communities in our province.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for York-Mackenzie for the question. The Safe Communities Foundation is an incentive solution in health and safety that I'm hoping will soon be establishing roots in all Ontario communities.

Last week, the Ajax-Pickering launch of Safe Communities was held. It was the first in Durham region and the first in the GTA, and I hope other members in the GTA will encourage their local municipalities and small business people to get engaged in this important health and safety program, which is successful where it has been initiated in Ontario.

Under the program, firms gain access to expert health and safety consulting teams and new training programs and resources. The program has been honoured. On November 17, the Safe Communities Foundation received the Peter F. Drucker Award for Canadian non-profit innovation, one of only three winners in Canada.

The Safe Communities Foundation was founded by Paul Kells in 1996. His 19-year-old son was killed in an industrial accident.

Mr Klees: I'm sure all members of the House and everyone in Ontario appreciates the work of the foundation. I wonder if you could explain to us how the Safe Communities incentive program is benefiting companies in the province.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board has an incentive program with respect to rebates for small businesses that participate in the Safe Communities solution. Many are eligible for rebates: 56 Brockville-area companies have recently received cheques totalling $113,000; in Waterloo, 48 companies received cheques totalling $350,000. This is for improving their health and safety records, reducing lost-time injuries and promoting safety in their communities. In Peterborough, 43 companies received cheques totalling $200,000. The Safe Communities incentive solution is working.

The Safe Communities concept is spreading. The Safe Communities Foundation is saving lives. This government supports Safe Communities.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the issue of property taxes. He will know we're dealing now with the seventh of his bills in the last 14 or 15 months.

The people who know this area best, in my opinion, are the municipal civil servants, the Clerks and Treasurers. What they said was that this bill is poorly designed and ill-conceived. They've offered substantially better and more manageable and less costly solutions, but you refuse to even talk to them. You won't even respond to them. So I said to them: "Don't worry, we're having committee hearings on this. Come on down and help improve the bill." But now I see, Minister, you're refusing to even hear from them.

Can I ask a simple question? Why in the world would you refuse to give our senior municipal civil servants who know this area, dare I say, far better than your bureaucrats an opportunity to come here and substantially improve your flawed bill?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Nothing could be further from the truth. Representatives of AMO were in my office this morning talking to officials from the Ministry of Finance about the very problem you're talking about. You'd better update your information.

Mr Phillips: I've got all my information right here. This afternoon you're moving a proposal that will refuse to allow anybody to come to our committee. You're gagging them. We want to hear from the public and you're gagging them. In a matter of minutes we're going to be dealing with this motion that will refuse to allow any of the public to come and present their views. That's your motion. That's the one we're going to be debating this afternoon.

Are you withdrawing that motion, Minister, and are you now finally agreeing that you've made another mistake and we will be allowed to hear from the public when we're dealing with your seventh in a long, unorderly process of tax bills? Will you withdraw that motion and allow us to hear from the public on this?

Hon Mr Eves: I could go through the list, as I did one day last week, of tax increases when your government was in power. However, this bill that you want us to withdraw limits property tax increases to business taxpayers in Ontario to 10% in 1998, 5% in 1999 and 5% in 2000. I know you find that hard to believe, coming from a government that had tax increases of 50%, 60% and 73%. If you want to vote against limiting increases to businesses, you'll have the opportunity to do so.

LANDS FOR LIFE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Today you shut the door on any further public input into the recommendations from the Lands for Life process. It was clear from the beginning that you weren't really interested in hearing from the public anyway, because you only allowed 30 days for comment on some 242 recommendations. This is probably why the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, on November 20, asked you to extend the deadline for the consultation for Lands for Life by at least another two weeks, if not another month.

Minister, you have completely ignored that request. You have given it the back of your hand. Can you explain to this House why you refuse to extend the public consultation on Lands for Life when you have been specifically asked to do so by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member opposite for the question and this opportunity to clarify the record, because factually I believe you're incorrect.

I twice extended the public consultations on the Lands for Life process. On two occasions, when asked by the round table chairs for an extension so they could have more deliberations and more public input into this very important issue, I said yes. If the member checks, she'll realize that the Lands for Life process was scheduled to end last spring. In fact, we have extended it and we have extended it a further 30 days for responses from the public to the reports of those round tables.

Ms Martel: The question specifically was, why have you ignored the recommendation by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario to extend the 30-day deadline for input on the Lands for Life recommendations? You can choose to ignore that, Minister, as you've chosen to ignore the Environmental Commissioner, but the fact remains that from the beginning there has never been enough time for the round tables to do their work or for the public to have their say. The round table members themselves never even saw this report before it was released publicly.

The chairs drafted it and signed it off without the endorsement of the rest of the round table members. The round table members also made it clear that the public had not seen any of the draft recommendations submitted to you, despite a commitment made to do so. Finally, the round table chairs made it clear in this report that they hadn't had enough time to even do their work to complete this report properly.

The question is again, Minister, why are you refusing to accede to a request by the Environmental Commissioner to extend the deadline for public consultation on the Lands for Life recommendations?

Hon Mr Snobelen: This is again a chance to provide some better information to the member opposite, who clearly is misinformed on this issue. I think if the member opposite were to do some more research on this, she might found out that in fact we have been working to extend the time period for public consultation.

She also might find out that the draft recommendations submitted by the round tables are publicly available. The draft recommendations are publicly available and the consolidated report is publicly available on our Web site.

As to the 30 days for public comment on the consolidated report, let me say again what I said earlier. The Leader of the Opposition stood up earlier today and suggested that we hadn't advertised the consolidated report. In fact, we advertised in 72 newspapers about the consolidated report. We've made it available on our Web site.

I have said before, last week, that we will give this public consultation period some weight and some consideration, we'll listen to what people have to say and we'll make a response to it.

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Interjections.

Mr Parker: If the opposition would just calm down a bit, I might get this question on the record.

Minister, as one or two of the members opposite will be aware, second reading debate began just last week on the Greater Toronto Services Board legislation. As a member from within the greater Toronto area, I certainly know that there's a great deal of interest in making progress on this very important issue. I'm also very aware that the need for better coordination of services in the GTA has been discussed for many years by many governments with absolutely no action until the introduction of the bill recently by this government. Could you please provide to the members of this House an overview of what this legislation is intended to accomplish if it's passed?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for York East for that very excellent question. I think all members of this House will recognize that there is a tremendous need to coordinate the activities that currently take place within the greater Toronto area. With the formation of the new city of Toronto, which is working very well, and with the services that are delivered from Oshawa in the east to Burlington in the west, there is a need to ensure that the delivery of services such as transportation, GO Transit in particular, strategies for waste disposal, strategies for economic development, all have to be coordinated across the entire GTA area.

The Greater Toronto Services Board is intended to do that and I'm quite confident that it will do that. It will be made up of representatives, one from each member in the greater Toronto area, all working together for the first time in the history of the greater Toronto area, to ensure that services are coordinated.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can we get some order, please. Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Parker: Minister, I think we are all aware that the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board is indeed a monumental undertaking. We know that the GTA is an area of immense diversity. There are a wide range of stakeholders and interests across the greater Toronto area which need to be taken into consideration in the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board. Can you please advise us about the process of study and consultation that your ministry undertook in developing the legislation for a Greater Toronto Services Board?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, I thank the member for York East for that question. I think most members in the House would recognize that there has probably been more study done on this particulate issue than there has been on most other subjects. It began prior to our government, when the previous government engaged Anne Golden to look at the greater Toronto area. We completed that report when we took office. We got her recommendations and had those recommendations again massaged and reviewed by Milt Farrow, who went out and developed more detailed recommendations.

After doing that and then consulting extensively with every municipality in the greater Toronto area, we developed draft legislation which we tabled last spring. We gave the communities affected the opportunity to have all spring and all summer to review that legislation.

We are now in the process of second reading. When finished second reading, we will be going to committee for some amendments, I am sure, and then hopefully back here for implementation.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. To follow up on a question last week with regard to the testing in the areas around landfill sites in Ontario, on Friday Greenpeace brought forward some further alarming evidence as to what may be happening around dump sites right across this province. They have asked for extensive testing as well. As we know, we are talking about cancer-causing pollutants, and if this problem is occurring in the Toronto area, we have no reason to believe this may not be occurring right across the province.

Minister, you suggested that municipalities should undertake the testing and that they should be the ones who can give you the information. Let me suggest to you that most municipalities in this province do not have the technology or the resources to undertake the type of extensive air quality testing around dumps and landfill sites to be able to come forward with the evidence that you're looking for.

This is a serious problem, and it is a problem right across Ontario. You, Minister, are responsible for the well-being of the environment in this province, and in my view are responsible for ensuring that proper testing is happening. Will you undertake today to commit the province of Ontario to undertake extensive testing of air quality around all landfill sites in the province?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As you know, we are very concerned about air quality problems in this province, not only around landfill sites but all across Ontario. That's why we are implementing a number of significant programs in this province for the first time. The Drive Clean program is perhaps the greatest and most extensive one that we are doing.

With regard to air quality around the landfill sites, perhaps if the member would check Hansard with regard to his question last week, I said to him at that time that because of the concern that had been raised last week, although there is no clear evidence that has been presented to me or my ministry of a problem, I had contacted the mayors of the various municipalities around this greater Toronto area, and if they felt they needed some help with their air quality monitoring, I had offered it to them.

Mr Agostino : Minister, let me ask you about another one of your brainwaves. About two months ago I asked you in the House about the practice of dumping blood down the sewers. You refused to rule that out at that point. You have now received a formal request from the funeral homes and hospitals across Ontario, asking you to formally approve the dumping of blood down the sewer system in this province. As you know, it is now hazardous waste, to be treated as such, and therefore it has to be processed before it can be dumped.

Very clearly, you cannot approve this request. There is no 100% method that will guarantee the safety of blood down the sewer. We are talking about blood from dead bodies here, Minister. We are talking about people who are ill, we're talking about contaminants, we're talking about illnesses. Very clearly, you have a responsibility today to stand up and tell the people of this province -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, I just want to be clear with you. Supplementaries are supplementary to the original question.

Mr Agostino: It's dumping.

The Speaker: It's dumping, but it's got nothing to do with the original dumping. As far as I am concerned, you can continue. I will caution you: It has to relate to the first question in some way, besides dumping, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, continue. You have 10 seconds to put your question.

Mr Agostino: Minister, let me ask you the question very clearly: Will you today stand up in the House and make it clear that you will not allow and formalize the dumping of blood down the sewers from funeral homes and hospitals across Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: Some time ago we put out a draft waste regulation for consultation purposes. This particular consultation took place over the last four or five months, and after reviewing the comments with regard to that waste regulation put forward only as a proposal, I have decided not to move forward with it at this time.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Health, I direct my question to the acting Premier. I want to talk about the so-called expansion of new MRI machines, magnetic resonance imaging machines, across the province. This is something your government trumpeted in budgets, that your Minister of Health talks about all the time as one of the great improvements you've made.

You should be aware these machines cost $2.5 million to buy and another $1 million per year to operate, yet your government has given hospitals only $150,000 a year towards the operation of these machines, and there is no focused capital program. Most of the hospitals have to purchase these machines themselves.

Minister, half the hospitals in this province are already operating on deficits, and many others are barely managing to get a balanced bottom line. Would you explain to us how you expect any of these hospitals to take up your government's offer?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): If the honourable member doesn't think there's need for more MRI machines in the province of Ontario, she should say so. This government has a policy of virtually tripling the number, from 12 to 35, which is more than the entire rest of the country combined. If she has a problem with that, I would say to her, why didn't you do that when you were there, if you were so concerned about these people?

Mrs Boyd: We certainly did believe that we ought to expand the number of MRIs, and our party had been very clear that this is one of the few ways in which long-term medical health costs can be saved. In 1995, our government announced a full new capital program which would fund the purchase of MRIs and full funding for their operation. As soon as you came into government, you cancelled that. You said your goal was to raise the number to 35. Of the 18 so-called new MRIs, 12 were already in operation, and only six other hospitals have been able to take you up on your offer.

The hospitals are strapped for cash. They can't afford the cost of operating the machines, and they know better than to spend their capital costs on these machines when they can't operate them. Minister, will you agree in your budget to provide $1 million in annual operating costs for each MRI in this province, as the OHA has recommended?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the honourable member talks about the amount of money we're spending on health care. This year we're spending $19 billion on health care; you spent $17.4 billion in your best year. You thought it was sufficient for the people of Ontario that you profess to be concerned about to have 12 MRI machines in the entire province of Ontario and send patients to the United States of America for treatment.

We think we should have three times as many machines as you thought were sufficient, so where do you - you were there for five years; you did nothing. You did do a few things, though: You cut $60 million from psychiatric hospital funding when you were there and you closed the 181 mental health beds in your very own community while you sat as a member of cabinet. That's your record on health care.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last Thursday you were in Niagara bringing good news to the Ontario winemakers. You told the local representatives about your plan to introduce legislation that would strengthen the local wine industry and help pave the way to improve access to the European markets. Minister, would you inform the people of my riding how your VQA legislation will improve the state of Ontario's wineries?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for Lincoln for the question. As you know, last Thursday we introduced some legislation to bring in the VQA appellation here in Ontario. This will of course bring a standard of quality which will be attached to premium wines in the province.

Why are we doing this? In April 1999, the European Union will bring in some rules which will require mandatory quality certification. This legislation, if passed, will provide the tool for our Ontario wine industry to have access to European markets. It will also give an assurance to people in Ontario that they have a fine and great quality of wine.

I will just quote Len Pennachetti, who is the VQA chair. He said, "The legislation of VQA standards by the Ontario government is one of the most important developments in the evolution of the provincial wine industry to date."

STATUS OF LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to read the decision with respect to the point of order the member for Fort William brought forward on Thursday, November 24.

On Thursday, November 24, the member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod, raised a point of order with respect to the Education Quality Improvement Act. She referred to

section 137 of the standing orders which sets out the duties of legislative counsel. She sought advice on whether or not, under this standing order, legislative counsel had a role to play in light of our recent court decisions.

Let me begin by saying that the act to which the member refers has already been passed in this House. It has received royal assent. It is the law. It is therefore beyond any authority of the Speaker.

With respect to the role of legislative counsel under standing order 137(c), any report that they make to the executive council would be made while a bill is still before the House or earlier. Whether or not that was done in this case is not something that I would want or have knowledge of.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This 130-page, 1,001-signature petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas SO 2 emissions from mining and smelting operations remain a serious threat to the health, environment and property of Sudbury citizens;

"Whereas there continues to be ongoing intolerable peaks in levels of SO 2 emissions from mining and smelting operations;

"Whereas the threat of fugitive emissions remains constant to the Sudbury region;

"Whereas existing government regulations and thresholds for SO 2 emissions may be in need of immediate reassessment;

"Whereas the elimination of 26 regional Ministry of Environment jobs by the Harris government has resulted in lowering monitoring effectiveness;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government aid the citizens of this community in having these emissions monitored closely and reduced significantly."

I proudly sign this Sudbury Committee for Clean Air petition as I am in full agreement.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I am tabling today 1,860 names on a petition to protect Ontario's wilderness. It reads:

"To Premier Harris and the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas crown land belongs to all residents of Ontario; and

"Whereas over 80% of Ontarians support the protection of the remaining wilderness areas in this province; and

"Whereas many in the forestry industry have called for increased logging in parks and protected areas; and

"Whereas over 90% of the trees cut in Ontario are harvested by the unsustainable method of clear-cutting; and

"Whereas employment in the forestry industry has steadily declined due to increased mechanization; and

"Whereas tourism is the world's fastest-growing industry and ecotourism is the fastest-growing sector of tourism; and

"Whereas the land use planning exercise called Lands for Life is dominated by industrial interests; and

"Whereas the Lands for Life structure has purposely excluded Ontarians living outside the planning area; and

"Whereas most Ontarians are unaware that this process is underway; and

"Whereas decisions made now around tenure will be almost impossible to change by future governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the Parliament of Ontario to immediately scrap the Lands for Life initiative and undertake a truly inclusive land use planning process that incorporates the views of all Ontarians, who are the owners of this crown land, and commit the province to protecting significant areas of wilderness both for today and into the future.

I'll affix my signature to this petition as I agree with it.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those provisions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking and the ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas Bill C-68,

chapter 39,

section 8.3 of the federal bill allows 12-year-olds to possess firearms in accordance with licensing provisions and;

"Whereas the Ontario government has simply passed a regulation requiring such applicants to complete the Ontario hunter education program; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals" -

This goes on, but I support the intent, and I'm going to add my name to the signatures.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the assembly of Ontario, and it concerns education. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario, including one of the most community-oriented schools, Hughes public school; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto, and indeed many other communities across Ontario, are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"We demand that Mike Harris and his government stop closing local schools, especially those that are closely associated with the communities, such as Hughes public school."

I affix my signature.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas crown land belongs to all the residents of Ontario; and

"Whereas over 80% of Ontarians support the protection of the remaining wilderness areas in the province; and

"Whereas many in the forestry industry have called for increased logging in parks and protected areas; and

"Whereas over 90% of the trees cut in Ontario are harvested by the unsustainable method of clear-cutting; and

"Whereas employment in the forestry industry has suddenly declined due to increased mechanization; and

"Whereas tourism is the world's fastest-growing industry and ecotourism the fastest-growing sector of tourism; and

"Whereas the land use planning exercise called Lands for Life is dominated by industrial interests; and

"Whereas the Lands for Life structure has purposely excluded Ontarians living outside the planning area; and

"Whereas most Ontarians are now unaware that this process is underway where decisions made now around tenure will be almost impossible to change by future governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the Parliament of Ontario to immediately scrap the Lands for Life initiative and undertake a truly inclusive land use planning process that incorporates the views of all Ontarians who are owners of this crown land and commit the province to protecting significant areas of wilderness for both today and into the future."

I proudly affix my signature to this.

ABORTION

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a signed petition from 450 constituents from my riding of Sarnia and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very happy to add my signature to this petition.

ELECTION CALL

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

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions, we, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed, morally, ethically and financially."

I affix my name to this.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have petitions here signed by folks in Ottawa and surrounding areas, including Manotick, in support of Bill 39, the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act. I will simply summarize the petition here.

The petitioners are supporting the proposed legislation to allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other information, including medical; and acknowledge other open adoptions.

I affix my signature to it.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and

"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately, and

"Further

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and

"Further

be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I wholeheartedly agree with this petition and I affix my signature.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition regarding red light cameras.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway;" - and I paid my bill, Mr Speaker - "and

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

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

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

I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was sent to me by Joe Hueglin of Niagara region, signed by himself and 30 others.

"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and

"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and

"Whereas a private member's bill has been drafted entitled

An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and create positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students, 1998; and

"Whereas this bill will:

"Require all boards in Ontario to design and implement school safety programs, school codes of conduct, and anti-vandalism policies;

"Provide for effective early intervention strategies by requiring boards to design and implement anti-bullying policies and by providing boards with the ability to direct psychological assessments of students that they believe are at risk;

"Provide a provincial violence and weapons-free schools policy and allow boards the ability to exclude violent students from regular classroom settings;

"Give police the tools they need by creating a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property and backing it up with real consequences;

"Direct all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for suspended and excluded students;

"Require parents to be liable for any damage done to school property by their children; and

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability;

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

"To pass into law the Safe Schools Act as quickly as possible."

I have affixed my signature to this worthwhile petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a petition signed by many, many residents of Downsview.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools; and

"Whereas the riding of Downsview needs its schools, such as Ancaster Public School, Calico Public School, Downsview Public School, Elia Middle School, Highview Public School and Pierre Laporte Middle School, which are both academic and vital community institutions;

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

"We demand that Mike Harris stop gutting communities and stop closing our schools."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I'm pleased to affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION / ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes, when Bill 79 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted;

That the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Monday, December 7, 1998, from 9 am to 12 pm and following routine proceedings until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That at 4:30 pm on Monday, December 7, 1998, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

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

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, after which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote for third reading of the bill may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

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

I will be sharing the time with the member for Nepean, the member for York-Mackenzie and the member for Kitchener. Right now, I'd like to pass the floor to the member for Nepean.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this motion to try to deliver on the commitment to 10%, 5% and 5%, which is exceptionally important for small businesses.

The issue of property tax reform is a tough issue. There is a reason why no government wanted to take on this issue. The easy thing is always to put something aside for later. Why delay what you can put off until tomorrow if you can put it off indefinitely? That's been the policy of successive governments in Ontario for many, many years. At some point you have to confront the difficult and tough issues as they present themselves. Certainly that's been the hallmark of this government's. We've tried to make some real changes to government, and no more so than in the way, overall, taxes are collected for the public sector.

Rather than bring in an omnibus property tax bill, this government chose wisely to break it up into pieces. Rather than bring in assessment, we brought in the fair share assessment, which is important.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Oh, give us a break. This was all a plan, like closing hospitals. I love it.

Mr Baird: I know there are some members opposite who would have preferred a big omnibus tax bill, but that's an approach we rejected. They can want us to sit back and watch while small business is whacked by municipal governments, but we said, "No way." We wisely took this issue and cut it up into a few bite-size pieces. We put property assessment into one piece of legislation. We dealt with education taxation issues in another. We set up the Ontario Property Assessment Corp in another bill and we brought forward some tools for municipalities in this bill before us today.

That is something I believe is important to do, to allow for full and proper debate of all these important political issues.

Mrs Boyd: That's why this is a time allocation bill.

Mr Baird: Time allocation bills: Of course this government spends more time in first reading, second reading and third reading than did the Liberal government and the NDP government. We spend more time on second reading, the debate in principle. The NDP spent a significant amount of time less than we did. Indeed we supported the NDP when they brought in time allocation when we were in opposition, so no one can accuse us of taking the wrong stand. The Liberals are against anything. I'll give the NDP some credit. They are prepared to stand up and be counted on tough issues. We look forward in this debate to our friends in the Liberal Party doing the same thing.

I want to make reference on one issue to a Liberal who has broken the ranks to come out in support. He's made some general comments. I want to quote this member. The Minister of Labour will be interested in this: "Veteran Liberal Dennis Mills, MP for the downtown Toronto riding of Broadview-Greenwood, said he won't rush out to help his provincial cousins because he likes some of Mr Harris's policies."

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Hear, hear.

Mr Baird: The member for High Park-Swansea says, "Hear, hear."

Mrs Boyd: I always said there's nothing to choose between the two of you.

Mr Baird: I say to the member for London Centre, they can choose the real thing or a pale imitation. I'm going to read the quote from Dennis Mills, a crusader for tax reform with the federal Liberals.

Mr Shea: A thoughtful MP.

Mr Baird: "A thoughtful MP," the member for High Park-Swansea says. I'm going to read it: "I am a passionate believer in comprehensive tax reform. Some of my tax ideas are not inconsistent with the Harris thought process on tax reform."

I've got to compliment Dennis Mills, a crusader for tax reform, who has come forward and said he likes the general direction of comprehensive tax reform.

Mr Shea: A strong supporter of Paul Martin.

Mr Baird: Indeed, a strong supporter of Finance Minister Paul Martin, as the member opposite said.

We know what the overall thinking in terms of the government's comprehensive tax reform is from some leading Liberal thinkers in finance and taxation, and a very well-respected person in not just the city of Toronto but indeed the province of Ontario.

We looked at the issues in property taxation. We gave municipalities the tools to ensure that small business was protected as we move into this reform process. Why would we do that? Because small business is the economic engine of the Ontario economy. In Ontario, if you want to create jobs, you've got to bring small business to the table. For many years Ontario was the economic engine of Canada. We were a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity. But when the socialists were elected we became known as being a mismanaged debtor, over-governed, over-regulated and overtaxed.

Then the NDP followed the Liberals, for another five years of socialist rule, and we dug ourselves deeper into the hole of -

Mrs Boyd: Did you call the Liberals socialists?

Mr Baird: The Liberal socialists and the real socialists, the New Democratic Party.

If you look at the Ontario economy, the real troubles in our economy happened between 1985 and 1990. Despite the popular conception that Bob Rae and the NDP government ratcheted up government spending, it was the Peterson Liberals who were responsible for that.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): They were the main culprits.

Mr Baird: "The main culprits," the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay says.

What did the Peterson Liberals do? In five years the Peterson Liberals took spending from $26 billion to some $52 billion. Indeed, we have not seen a 100% increase in the expenditures of the government of Ontario. The government of Ontario's budget certainly hasn't gone up by upwards of 20% a year like it did in those years, and no, we have not cut health care. We saw the real financial mismanagement presented by the Liberal government, so it's interesting to see some of the Liberal complaints on this bill. But I digress.

We stepped in to help small business, because if you want to create jobs, you've got to bring small business to the table. I know this is the case right across the province, whether it's in High Park in Toronto or in Bells Corners in Nepean or in the greater Toronto area or up north. You bring small business to the table and you try to work hard to get the environment right for small business and allow them to create jobs. These small business people are the real job creators.

They're the entrepreneurs who put it all on the line, sometimes mortgaging their own homes to be able to open up shop and get the whole family involved and start off maybe creating a job or two, and a few years later they're able to create four or five, and the next thing you know the enterprise is employing 10 or 15 people. That is good news for the Ontario economy.

Some municipalities chose to use the tools the provincial government provided them. I think of the city of Toronto, which chose them. I think of the county of Wellington, so ably represented by my colleague Ted Arnott. Wellington county made a very honest and noble attempt to try to use some of the tools in the bill to help small business in their area. I know that in my home community of Ottawa-Carleton to some extent they used the tools and certainly made a sincere effort in that regard. But alas, that was not the case everywhere.

We were faced with a fundamental choice: Were we going to sit by and watch small business get whacked, or were we going to step in and intervene? The consensus among my colleagues was that we had to step in and intervene to help small business, because the economy is not finished creating jobs. We have work to do. As long as there is one person out there looking for a job, we want to do everything we can to help that person, and the job is not yet done. We need to see more economic growth in Ontario and to follow examples like Toronto, Wellington and Ottawa-Carleton's lead.

But where is the economy going today? I think we've seen some positive economic news. We look at interest rates declining again. Effective just two weeks ago, Canadian chartered banks lowered their prime rate from 7% to 6.75%. Ontario exports were up in September. Ontario auto sales were up in September. Ontario housing starts jumped 11.3% in October. Ontario MLS home resales rose 3.8% in September.

When I look at my own constituency in my own part of the province, we see good economic news. We see substantial numbers of new homes in Longfields and Davidson Heights and in neighbouring communities like Stittsville, Kanata and Orleans, where more homes are being built and more families are moving in. In the city of Toronto we see that new home sales were up in October. The member for High Park-Swansea will know about that.

The Canadian economy is expanding. The real GDP rose at a revised 1.3% annual rate in the second quarter of 1998, following a 3.1% gain recorded in the previous quarter. Consumer and business spending rose strongly, and that is good news.

Small business is doing well, but big enterprises are doing well as well. Big banks in Fort York, the riding of Mr Marchese, who is here today, are doing very well and in the great riding of Trinity-Spadina. That's good news.

But what the member for Fort York and others have to realize is that there is not an 80-floor bank tower in Nepean. We need small business to help create jobs. We can't count on the big banks to create jobs in my community; we count on small business. That's why we're stepping in to help small business people, whether they be in Bells Corners or Barrhaven. Whether they're in Manotick, Greely, Osgoode, Richmond or Stittsville, we're stepping in to ensure that small business is helped, because we know that small business is the economic engine of Canada.

Ontario had strong economic domestic demand in 1998. In Ontario, domestic spending remains strong, with final domestic spending rising 1.4% in the second quarter.

A strong economy is forecast. Private sector economists are optimistic that the Ontario economy will remain strong. The average private sector estimate for Ontario real GDP growth is 4% for 1998. The forecast range for 1999 growth is a solid 2.2% to 3%. That's positive, and we'll look forward with great anticipation. We want to continue to work to ensure the figures.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Because of the climate you guys produced.

Mr Baird: The member opposite talks about the climate. You want to get the climate right. Rather than subsidies to big business, rather than throwing money at everyone, we want to get the climate right, particularly for small business, dealing with the motion before us today.

The Toronto CMA has the strongest economy in Canada. It is expected to continue to lead other Canadian cities through the year 2002, according to the Conference Board of Canada.

When we look at where we have seen economic growth in Ontario, what region, what part of the province, it's not Toronto, it's eastern Ontario leading the way in economic growth in 1998, all over eastern Ontario. That's good news. Whether it be in Kingston, Cornwall, Ottawa or Renfrew, we've seen very solid economic growth, and that is indeed good news.

We certainly reject the notion that the provincial economy can't do anything for the economy. Some people in opposition say it's all the Americans, it's all the value of the dollar. But we believe you've got to help the economy, get the fundamentals right, and often that involves getting government out of the way, taking the shackles off the entrepreneurs and the small business people to let them realize their dreams.

Ontario employment was up in October. In October, Ontario employment rose 32,600, following a jump of 63,000 in September. We saw 63,000 new jobs in September and 32,000 new jobs in October, a very impressive rate. But again, we've got more work to do, because as long as there's one person looking for a job, that's one person too many and we've got work to do.

Good news: Youth unemployment was down in October. It fell by 9,000, following three straight monthly job gains. The youth unemployment rate is on the way down.

The Ontario help wanted index was up in October, rising 0.7%.

The good news is that 17,000 welfare dependants were able to break the cycle of dependency and join the 340,000 people who have stopped relying on welfare since June 1995. That's very good news.

Ontario department store sales were up 8.4% in 1998. Ontario retail sales were up in August. Ontario auto sales were up in 1998.

I know particularly in eastern Ontario, and I'd like to share this, we do very well in the federal public sector, being located in Ottawa, but the high technology sector, another big sector of our economy, is booming. But what we need in eastern Ontario is tourism, because tourism is a real job creator. They've had an excellent year this year. I know the member for Niagara Falls has worked very hard on tourism and tourism issues because it's a big job creator for small business people in his community.

We in our caucus get pretty much a weekly priority of the importance of tourism. Whether it's the new casino that the member for Niagara Falls fought so hard for, to try to encourage more benefits over, the new visitors are just streaming across the border with their money. The member for Fort York is right: It's good news, people coming from all over the United States and coming from Asia and Europe, coming to Niagara Falls to spend their money. Thank goodness that they have a casino and the member for Niagara Falls was successful.

The residential building permits were up by 2.6% in September. The business investment plans increased for 1998. Statistics Canada's latest investment intention survey - not the provincial government, but Statistics Canada, the federal agency - shows that Ontario business investment in plant and equipment is slated to increase by 3% in 1998, stronger than the previous 2.5% estimate released last February. That indeed is good news.

I could go on and on: non-residential building permits up in 1998, and you certainly see that in my constituency with the large expansion in Nortel, more than 4,000 new jobs; JDS Fitel, a big expansion going on in Nepean. I look at the new retail establishments, whether it's the Verona warehouse, whether it's a good number of the hospitality restaurants opening up at the corner of Merivale and West Hunt Club. The economy is indeed doing well.

But again, we mustn't be complacent because there are some corners where there is not enough hope and we must rededicate ourselves to working harder to getting those results up even more than they are today. The bill that this motion would send to committee for another day of discussions and debate would cap it at 10, 5 and 5 to ensure that small business is protected.

I know the honourable member for Fort York, M. Marchese, will wonder, why embark on tax reform? Because taxes were too high. They were way too high. The member for Fort York shares our view because he was part of a government that did cut taxes once - the commercial concentration tax. The commercial concentration tax was a Liberal tax, a whack on Toronto, and it was a tax that was so bad -

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): You talk about bad.

Mr Baird: "You talk about bad," the member for Lambton said -

Mr Marchese: And we got rid of it.

Mr Baird: - and this tax was so bad Rosario Marchese led the charge to get rid of it. You've got to compliment our socialist friends. It was a tax so bad even they could see how bad it was. When the New Democrats cut Liberal taxes, you know they were bad. The good news is that they got rid of that.

But both opposition parties allowed the huge commercial-industrial taxes that didn't just hurt Ottawa, and particularly Hamilton-Wentworth - the member for Wentworth East is here. He fought very hard to get commercial-industrial education taxes down in Hamilton. The city of Toronto was again whacked by $400 million in extra taxes that those hard-working businesses had to pay. You can go down the street in some parts of this region and see stores on one side of the road but not on the other because the tax burden was so high.

This government is stepping in to cut commercial-industrial education taxes in communities, whether it's Ottawa-Carleton, whether it's Hamilton-Wentworth, whether it's the city of Toronto, to ensure that people can benefit.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What about the tire tax?

Mr Baird: The New Democrats also got rid of another Liberal tax, the tire tax. A Liberal tax that was rolling along until the NDP stopped the tax. So the NDP certainly is a very junior partner as a tax fighter.

The $400 million in extra taxes just in Toronto and more than $500 million-odd around the province, previous governments sat by as those education taxes went up and up and up on property owners and this government stepped in to ensure that those taxes did not continue to rise, stepped in to ensure that it would be able to deliver some tax relief for small business, and that's something that is exceptionally important.

If we look in my own community of Ottawa-Carleton, small business is where you see the jobs created - not in Carleton. We haven't been traditionally as good over the last 25 years, particularly in Nepean. We haven't been as good at attracting large businesses to Ottawa-Carleton, but we've been very good at growing small business in Ottawa-Carleton. Look at a company like Newbridge Networks. They had revenues of only $1 million just 11 years ago and they're doing exceptionally well, led by a very dedicated workforce of high-tech folks from all over the region of Ottawa-Carleton. We saw Corel, a company that was born in Ottawa, doing very well, an important priority.

Previous people sat by and watched the taxes go up that crippled this type of development -

Mr Shea: And they didn't care.

Mr Baird: - and they didn't care. It was wrong to sit by and do nothing. I wonder, who were these school trustees who were continuously increasing taxes? Who were these school trustees who sat by and watched these small businesses be whacked? I say to the member for Fort York, does he know who these school trustees were who did this to small business people, and when he finds out, could he tell us? That would be a real priority because I suspect the member for Fort York would know very well who was a party to these huge tax increases that crippled -

Mr Shea: Wasn't he a trustee?

Mr Baird: Wasn't he a trustee? The member for High Park-Swansea would know. Trustees in Ottawa-Carleton didn't make $50,000 a year, plus expenses. They certainly don't make that in Ottawa-Carleton, where I'm from. So the good news is that taxes were cut, but this is only part of an overall package about getting the economy right. The member for High Park-Swansea is a big advocate for small business people in his community. I know he shares my view.

Mr Shea: The Bloor West Village.

Mr Baird: The Bloor West Village, he says. He's a big advocate of getting the environment right for small business. That's why I know he was a big advocate, as was I and so many of our colleagues, of trying to get a 2.5% cap for his business people. He fought very hard to give municipalities the tools. In fact, the member for High Park-Swansea led the charge for a 2.5% cap in Toronto within the government caucus and was able to deliver for small business people in his community.

It would be important that I acknowledge that and put that on the record, because he led the charge for that and was able to deliver real results for his community. But where were the Liberals on this issue? The Liberals were nowhere to be seen. They were in hiding when the 2.5% cap came out.

What else have we done to try to help small business? We've announced the intention and then are following through to cut the small business corporate tax by 50% over the next eight years. In fact, that has already begun this year, as you know, Speaker, because there are a lot of good small business people, hard-working folks, in Stratford and St Mary's who are benefiting from that. Over the next eight years the corporate tax for small business will be cut in half, designed to make it as easy as possible for small business to create jobs.

Another important tax cut for small business people was the elimination of the employer health tax. The members opposite will know that's not being phased in over eight years. That's done: a 100% reduction in the employer health tax for small business with a payroll of under $400,000, and that is indeed good news.

We talked to the good folks at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and they gave us a very detailed accounting of how they polled their members. The worst job-killer is, of course, payroll taxes. We listened to Judith Andrew and to Catherine Swift and they report that to us and show us the results from not just our particular ridings but right across the province and indeed the country. That's why the employer health tax elimination for small business people is exceptionally important. I know that has made it a lot easier.

I was talking to a small business person on Greenbank Road in my constituency and that's been a big help to him. He has been able to hire one and a half more people in his small business. That may not sound like an awful lot, but if you have every fourth or every fifth small business person being able to do that right across the province, it all adds up. We've seen more than 400,000 net new jobs: 425,000, 450,000 net new jobs. We've seen 80% of those come from small business, so we know that small business is creating the jobs, and indeed that is good news.

While we're thrilled to see the good reports coming out of the auto manufacturers, Nortel and JDS Fitel, we are pleased to see the exceptionally strong numbers come out of small business. That's something that's very important.

If this motion is passed, we can get this bill to committee and have more debate and then come back to the House for third reading and more debate, have an opportunity for clause-by-clause when we can consider and debate amendments to the legislation. Indeed, the government has said they're prepared to move forward on amendments from multiresidential ratepayers. We had some very good meetings with municipalities around the province.

We've certainly listened to mayors like Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, who is fighting hard for his constituents, as is the deputy mayor of Ottawa, Allan Higdon. I met over this weekend with the mayor of Nepean to discuss the issues affecting this bill, as well as this weekend with the mayor of Gloucester to listen to his concerns and to look at what room is available to ensure that the federal government meets its obligations.

All we're asking the federal government to do is to pay their fair share, just to do the same thing they do across the river in Quebec: pay the equivalent of the BOT - not an unreasonable argument. It would be wrong for them to try to pad their $10-billion surplus with even more money than they've already budgeted to spend today, and we're confident they'll stand up and do the right thing.

All of this work to create an environment for job creation, whether it's in Bells Corners or Barrhaven or Manordale or Stittsville or Windsor or the north or Toronto, would be a lot easier if the federal government would step in and cut back the employment insurance account, because for too many the take-home pay of working families is less than it was in 1989. That is something of exceptional concern to us.

In fact the average Ontario worker is being ripped off to the tune of $195 a year, and Canadian workers as a whole are losing $3.5 billion. We just want the federal government, the federal Minister of Finance, to give the money back. You're taxing on the backs of hard-working families and small business people to pay for the employment insurance fund. The officials within the fund are saying that it's oversubscribed and that there's more than enough money there to deal with a severe recession, so give the money back. The hard-working families in Ontario worked hard and paid that money.

Just imagine if every worker in Ontario had an extra $200 this month to spend on their Christmas shopping and holiday shopping. What a benefit that would be to retail owners, whether they be at the Bayshore mall or in downtown Kitchener-Waterloo or in any store or small business across the province.

I think the federal government should do that right now, this month, to help boost consumer confidence and consumer spending this holiday season. That would be good news. In the words of a letter written to the Prime Minister, "It is time for the federal government to join with provincial governments of all political stripes and complement provincial efforts to improve the take-home pay of working families by reducing EI premiums."

The member for Fort York is here, and I know he and his party were prepared to stand up and fight for workers. Too bad the Liberal Party wasn't.

I'm pleased to be able to turn over the balance of my time to my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie, Frank Klees. Why is Frank going to have the opportunity to speak, followed by the member for Kitchener? Because Frank Klees, the member for York-Mackenzie, worked exceptionally hard on this issue.

He brought the concerns of small business people in York region directly to the table when we were debating them, not just directly to the minister but he led the charge in our caucus for these efforts, and he so eloquently told the stories of small business people in his constituency, whether it was the story of Michael Evans from Home Hardware in his constituency of the story of Jim McAlpine from McAlpine Ford, about the huge tax increases they were facing. He came to the table and he argued for them, he fought for them, and the member for York-Mackenzie delivered. I want to hear the member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'd like to thank my colleague for introducing me in such an eloquent way and for leading well and very effectively into my comments.

In a very real sense this has been the summer of discontent in this province. I was intimately involved for many hours over the course of the last number of months as the tax bills began to reach the front doors of businesses and residences in York region. I started to get telephone calls from business owners as well as residential property owners, multiple residential property owners,