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

May 12, 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

L011a - Tue 12 May 1998 / Mar 12 Mai 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

EVENTS IN KAPUSKASING

NURSING WEEK

EDUCATION FUNDING

CRIME STOPPERS

TOURISM IN NORTHUMBERLAND

NURSING WEEK

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

NIAGARA FALLS CANUCKS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

POLICE PURSUITS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

POLICE PURSUITS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

DAIRY FARMERS

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

PROPERTY TAXATION

HIGHWAY SIGNS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

EDUCATION REFORM

ABORTION

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

ABORTION

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1998 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Today I will be introducing a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve Safety at Highway Intersections by providing for the installation and use of Red Light Cameras. This bill allows municipalities to install red light cameras at intersections and to collect fines from convictions of red light runners. Furthermore, it directs municipalities to use the funds collected for the purpose of maintaining the red light cameras and improving traffic safety.

The Minister of Transportation says he is increasing the fine to $210 as his way of stopping the growing epidemic of red light runners. What the minister failed to tell us is, who is going to be there to issue the ticket? Who is going to catch the driver running through the red light? For instance, in Toronto alone there are 1,800 intersections. Who is going to catch the runners?

Red light camera technology, as provided for in my bill, has been proven to save lives and cut down on accidents. In Australia there was a 35% decrease in collisions. In New York City and San Francisco, red light violations fell by 30%.

Increasing fines, as the Minister of Transportation says he will do, is only a small part of the solution. What he has to do is use proven technology. It's time to put safety first and to act on this crucial public safety issue. Listen to the police chiefs and the mayors and the people of this province who want to have some action on red light running, and the over 80% of motorists who support red light cameras. It's time for the minister to protect public safety.

EVENTS IN KAPUSKASING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The place to be this weekend is in my riding of Cochrane North, and in particular Kapuskasing, where there are two special events taking place.

The first is the second annual Festival de Théâtre Communautaire Franco-ontarien. This event will bring over 130 actors from across Ontario to Kapuskasing. Community theatre has always played an important role in the preservation of Franco-Ontarian culture in communities throughout Ontario. The stage will be alive in Kapuskasing largely as the result of the hard work and dedication of many volunteers. In particular, Francine Garon deserves special recognition for her contribution. For all those listening out there, the number to call is le Centre de Loisirs in Kapuskasing, 705-335-8461.

The second special event is the fifth Jeux franco-ontariens, which will be taking place this weekend at the école secondaire Cité des Jeunes in Kapuskasing. Young Franco-Ontarians from throughout Ontario will be converging on Kapuskasing to participate in sporting events and games.

Join us in celebrating the vitality and richness of our Franco-Ontarian heritage this weekend. Come to Cochrane North. Hear all about the two Franco-Ontarian events taking place. I'm sure everybody is going to look forward to the beautiful weather we have up in northern Ontario at this time of year.

NURSING WEEK

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It gives me great pleasure to recognize this week as Nursing Week in Ontario. Today, May 12, is observed internationally as International Nursing Day and coincides with the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing.

During this week, Ontario's 110,000 registered nurses and 30,000 registered practical nurses will be engaged in numerous activities designed to raise the level of awareness among Ontario's citizens of the role of the nursing profession in assisting people to attain and maintain health.

As Paula Jordain, president of specialty care at Cedarvale Lodge in my riding of Durham-York stated:

"With the move to community services, it is not only important to recognize the role nurses play in the community but to let them know how much we admire and respect their ability to adapt to the dramatic changes taking place in health services, always putting the patient first and foremost."

Nurses provide services to people in public health units, in nursing homes, long-term-care and chronic care agencies, in hospitals and in their own homes. This year, for the first time, nurse practitioners will be registering with the College of Nurses under the Expanded Nursing Services for Patients Act that was proclaimed in February of this year.

I hope that all members of this House will take the time not only this week but throughout the year to recognize that nursing is key to quality health care and that nurses are a valuable resource to the people of Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My statement is for the Minister of Education. Parents in Ottawa-Carleton are discovering just how flawed your education funding formula is and how it is going to close their neighbourhood schools. You know that in Ottawa-Carleton we have tremendous needs for new schools in the suburban growth areas such as Stittsville and Kanata. You know all about Holy Trinity Catholic high school in Kanata, with 30 of its 70 classrooms as portables.

Yet your funding formula will force the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board to close up to 10 of its schools in order to access the accommodation dollars your funding formula promises. Yet these are not small schools we're talking about. They are viable schools that form the heart of their community.

Why should communities with JK-to-grade-6 schools with over 250 students each be sacrificed to meet the needs of the growing communities in the suburbs? We're talking about schools such as St Anthony's in Ottawa's Centretown, Dr F.J. McDonald in Britannia, and even in Nepean's Crystal Beach area, St Thomas separate elementary school.

Similarly, the Ottawa-Carlton District School Board is faced with closing up to 20 schools, both in the downtown core and in the older suburbs, to access your formula's accommodation dollars.

CRIME STOPPERS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, you would know that this last weekend in Timmins, probably as in many other communities, Crime Stoppers had their Jailathon, a good opportunity for the people of the community to give money to the Crime Stoppers organization to help with making our communities safe.

As were many other members of the Assembly, I was asked to appear before the good judge on Saturday morning, at which point I was charged with excessive electioneering. They set the bail at $900, a fantastic amount in a community like mine, but with the good wishes and the hard work of the people who were walking through Timmins Square that day, they made bail - all but $20 worth. I had to come up with one other name. I thought, who else but Mike Harris, the Premier of the province of Ontario, to put up the extra $20 that is necessary for me to spring bail so that I can get back and represent the people of Cochrane South?

Here in the assembly today, I ask the Premier: Will he do the right thing and make sure that the $20 I put them down for on the form will go back to the Crime Stoppers in the community of Timmins? My question to the Premier is: Will you come up with the $20?

TOURISM IN NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Last Tuesday, members of this House listened as the Minister of Finance brought down the 1998 Ontario Budget. The Minister of Finance talked about the renewal of Ontario's economy: Job growth is soaring, investment is increasing, consumer confidence is on the rise and the deficit is falling.

In my riding of Northumberland, we are seeing evidence of this economic recovery, especially in the tourism industry. For example:

The Big Apple in Colborne, one of the premier tourist attractions in Northumberland, is expanding its seating capacity, bakery and restaurant facilities to accommodate the increased tourist flow.

The Golden Beach Resort, the largest resort on Rice Lake, is adding 265 units, which will be geared to retirees.

Ste Anne's Country Inn and Spa, located near Grafton, has seen a sharp increase in the number of people staying at the inn. So has the Cobourg Motor Inn and Convention Centre, which is presently expanding facilities to accommodate extra business.

These are just a few examples of businesses in my riding that are benefiting from a vibrant economy. Like other sectors, the tourism industry appreciates what our economic polices have done to increase consumer spending. Consumers have more money in their pockets thanks to our tax cuts. Most importantly, these companies are creating lasting full-time jobs.

I encourage all members to visit Northumberland and tour the many cultural and historical attractions you'll find there.

NURSING WEEK

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today, as part of Nursing Week, the people across Ontario celebrate the birthday and many accomplishments of Florence Nightingale, who set the benchmark for all nurses to follow. Our nurses in Ontario have mirrored the example of Florence Nightingale well and have proven, through their dedication and love, the care and concern they have for the people they serve.

The nurses of Ontario deserve to have a nurses' bill of rights implemented by the Harris government immediately. This bill of rights should enshrine that nurses have the right to provide high quality care, that they have the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues, and that they have the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system.

Our nurses deserve the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual respect, all in working conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork.

Nurses should have the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal.

Above all, nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act.

I urge the government to pass this nurses' bill of rights today, this week, to show nurses that they truly care about them.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to again ask the provincial and federal governments to stop playing politics with the hepatitis C issue. Last week I read part of a letter from my constituent Charles Duguay. Today I add my name to another victim, Teresa Caughill, from Sault Ste Marie. She says: "Please consider the thousands of people across this province and the entire country who are praying for our governments to do the right thing and make a start at correcting a horrible injustice. We did not ask for this but a little compassion goes a long way."

I also add my voice to a petition that I will be presenting in the House later today, from members of my community, on the same issue. The end of that petition goes like this: "The financial and emotional burden placed on these Canadians is unthinkable. The stigma which is associated with this disease still plagues thousands across this country. Without compensation, Canadians will continue to suffer and die through no fault of their own. This tragedy must stop!"

Today I ask Mike Harris and Minister Rock and anybody else involved with this issue to please get on with it and resolve it, and to take into consideration and invite to the table those who are directly affected, so that at the end of the day you will come up with a package that answers the need of all of those folks who have unfortunately been exposed to this very difficult circumstance so they can get on with their lives.

NIAGARA FALLS CANUCKS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'm proud to stand in the House today and inform colleagues of the success of the Niagara Falls Canucks junior B hockey club. Last week, the Niagara Falls Canucks, in a thrilling third-period comeback, defeated the Elmira Sugar Kings 5-4 to win the Sutherland Cup junior B Ontario championship.

Under the leadership of head coach Terry Masterson, whose father founded the team in 1972, and assistant coaches Duane Smith and Doug Chipman, the Sutherland Cup victory topped off a fantastic season for the Canucks. The Canucks breezed through earlier playoff rounds undefeated and then with great tenacity tangled with Chatham and Elmira to win the cup.

While the victory took a total team effort, great leadership was provided by veterans in their final year: captain and defenceman Jason Lynch, goalie Domenic Di Giorgio, centre Matt Masterson, and defenceman Jeff Bruno.

This victory continues in the great tradition of Niagara Falls junior hockey. We look forward to future successes led by returning Canucks Kevin Dallmand, Garrett Dionne and John MacLean.

Way to go, Canucks. Niagara Falls is proud of your championship victory.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 18,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution / Projet de loi 18, Loi visant à protéger les enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The purpose of this bill is to protect children under 18 who are involved in prostitution. The bill gives police officers the power, with a warrant, to apprehend a child involved in prostitution and return the child to his or her family or to place the child in a protective, safe house. The police officer may also apprehend a child without a warrant where the child's life or safety is seriously and imminently in danger.

The bill would allow a child, his or her parents, or a child protection worker to apply to the court for a restraining order against a person who has abused the child or who has encouraged the child or is likely to encourage the child to engage in prostitution.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

Mr McLean moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 19,

An Act to make Parents Responsible for the Wrongful Acts of their Children / Projet de loi 19, Loi visant à rendre les parents responsables des actes illégitimes de leurs enfants.

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

A short comment?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This bill allows a person to bring civil action against the parents of a child who deliberately took, damaged or destroyed the person's property. A parent may be held liable for up to $6,000 in damages in an action under the proposed act.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve Safety at Highway Intersections by providing for the installation and use of Red Light Cameras / Projet de loi 20, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'améliorer la sécurité aux intersections de voies publiques en prévoyant l'installation et l'utilisation de dispositifs photographiques de feu rouge.

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

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This bill would allow municipalities to install red light cameras at traffic lights and highway intersections in a municipality in order to determine whether motorists are obeying traffic light signals. The bill would allow a municipality that installs cameras to collect the fines from convictions obtained based on photographic evidence from those cameras. The fines must be used by the municipality for the purpose of installing, operating or maintaining red light cameras or for other purposes related to traffic safety.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Education. I want to go back to some of the documentation you put out at the time of the last election, specifically with respect to your commitment to post-secondary education and funding and the student debt load.

In your document called New Directions, Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, you said the following, "Tuition fees should be allowed to rise over a four-year period to 25% of the operating costs." Prior to your deregulation of fees announced earlier this week and prior to your 60% increase, tuition fees were somewhere around the 23% mark. Today in Ontario the average is 35% of operating costs. At some universities they're actually at the 50% mark of operating costs.

What I want to know is, what happened between the time you wrote this document and today? Why did you fail to meet your responsibilities to Ontario students?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm glad that the Leader of the Opposition raised that issue, because the document that is relevant, the Common Sense Revolution, made a statement with regard to university tuitions. I'll quote exactly from the Common Sense Revolution. This is the document where we made a number of promises to the people of Ontario, promises with regard to tax cuts, promises with regard to the deficit, promises with regard to the running of the province, each and every one of them which we have pursued and executed.

The promise is, "We propose to partially deregulate tuition over a two-year period, enabling schools to charge appropriately for their services." That's exactly what we've done. The reason we've done that is to improve the opportunity for our young people and the quality in our post-secondary institutions.

Mr McGuinty: Not only did you say that tuition fees shouldn't be increased beyond the 25% portion of operating costs, but let's look at what the Common Sense Revolution said. In order to facilitate that increase in fees, you said the following, "We will implement a new income-contingent loan program similar to others being introduced around the world."

Are you going to stand up now and tell me that you've kept this promise? You said you'd increase it to 25% - it's at 35% and in some cases at 50% - and you said you would minimize the impact by introducing an income-contingent loan repayment scheme. What I want to ask you now is, where is your income-contingent loan repayment scheme that is designed to help students?

Hon David Johnson: If it says we're going to do it in the Common Sense Revolution, we will do it.

I might add that we have been attempting to work with the federal government, which is a Liberal federal government -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon David Johnson: - we haven't had much cooperation from the federal government in this matter.

In addition, we have put out an RFP to the banking institution, and we have yet to receive any cooperation from the bank. Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the federal government and notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the banking institution, it says in the Common Sense Revolution that we're going to implement an income-contingent loan repayment program and we will do it.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting when we go back to some of the words used by this party before they became the government, and I think it's important to consider these. They were talking about the OSAP program of the day and they said it doesn't even come close to meeting the goal of helping every needy student. I want to quote the following, because I think it's important. This is what this party said:

"The result is a tragic loss of opportunity for young Ontarians, particularly those from lower-income families. As they lose their chance for higher education, they lose many of their choices for career, lifestyle and personal goals. Ultimately, society also loses as young people fall short of their potential and their dreams."

Fine words uttered in those days. What have you done since then? You have increased tuition fees by a minimum of 60%; in some cases they're going up to 100%, in cases of deregulation. You have not provided any new student assistance. What happened? Normally people are converted on the road to Damascus; you lost your soul on the road to Damascus. What happened to your interest in students?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite knows full well we have not increased tuition fees. Tuition fees went up when the Liberals were in power. They went up by 35%, and what did we get for the 35% increase in tuition fees?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Look, we're going to wait it out, because I can't hear the minister in his response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: What did we get for the 35% increase when the Liberals were in power? Nothing. What do we get in terms of the degree today that tuition goes up? For the first time, we have required that our institutions prepare a quality program to show that the quality of the program will increase.

When the Liberals were in the power, the maximum grant, direct assistance to students, was just barely over $200 million. Today it's in excess of that by over $300 million. We have more than doubled the direct assistance to students - over $530 million. On top of that, the participation rate in our universities and colleges is higher today than it was during the term of the NDP or during the term of the Liberals.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, but I can say in passing to the Minister of Education that those words are cold comfort to the students and parents who are going to lose their dream as a result of your chucking them out of university.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let me be clear to the members on the government side. I don't tell you how to answer the questions. I'm not going to tell them how to ask them.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): He was making a statement.

The Speaker: Member for Dufferin-Peel, I don't want to hear from you any more.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of the Environment: Today a very important report was released by the Ontario Medical Association. I'm sure you're familiar with the contents of that report. In essence, Ontario's doctors are telling us that our air in this province is making us sick. They're telling us that our air is even killing us: 1,800 people in this province are dying each year from polluted air, and even more are filling our hospitals and emergency rooms with heart problems and respiratory problems. In the words of Dr John Gray, president of the OMA, "Air pollution is a public health crisis."

Now, you and I both know that summer is coming and air quality is at its worst during the summer, and we both know that there is a means by which we can clean up the air, at least to some extent; it's efficient, it's effective and it doesn't cost too much. It's automobile emissions testing. Will you now assure us that your program will be up and running for this summer?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I want to assure all members of the Legislature that this government is committed to protecting our air quality in this province. Last year we announced that we were going to implement a vehicle emissions testing program. We did this, after previous governments rejected the idea as being too much of an intrusion into people's lives. This government has taken a very courageous stand with regard to bringing forward perhaps the most comprehensive vehicle emissions program in all of North America. We intend to implement that in a reasonable, competent fashion, and we will do so as soon as it's practicable to do so.

Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you about the courage of this minister when it comes to the protection of our environment. He cut his budget in half. He let go one third of his staff. That's the kind of courage displayed by this minister in the face of environmental difficulties.

Ontario's doctors are telling us that our air is making our people sick. You have the responsibility, and nobody else more so than you over there, to address that issue. You can. Get that vehicle emissions testing program up and running in time for this summer. You haven't listened to the environmentalists. You haven't listened to the people on this side of the House. I want to know if you're going to Ontario's doctors. Will you get your program up and running for this summer?

Hon Mr Sterling: This ministry has done more to deal with air quality in this province than has been done in the last 10 years. We have lowered the gasoline volatility regulation 271, which requires gasoline refiners and blenders to reduce the smog-causing fumes from summer-grade gasoline. This will eliminate 18,000 tonnes of gasoline emissions. Previous governments neglected to do this. We have an aggressive plan for environmental standards focusing on air. This is the first time in more than 20 years that these 70 standards will be dealt with and updated.

We have introduced a new interim air quality standard for particulates, the first time a particulates standard has been introduced in this province ever. We have upgraded the provincial air quality monitoring network, making it among the most modern and best-equipped in North America. We are committed to improving the quality of air in the province and we are doing it.

Mr McGuinty: We shouldn't lose sight of the important facts in this, Minister. Number one, you cut half your budget and you laid off one third of your staff; they're the people who inspect, monitor and prosecute our air polluters. The second important fact is that air quality in Ontario is getting worse on your watch. There is no doubt about that.

I want to come back to a very, very simple question: the vehicle emissions testing program. Our air quality is going to get dramatically worse during the summer days. Will we have your vehicle emissions testing program up and running before the summer begins?

Hon Mr Sterling: When I announced the vehicle emissions testing program last August I did indicate that there would be some voluntary testing this summer. I indicated that the program would be in place hopefully in the late part of the fall. I'm still living to those deadlines.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday morning another innocent person lost his life during a police chase on a residential street here in Toronto. This gentleman was 73 years old. He was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk because he was afraid of the traffic. He was taking his daily ride to the park to walk his dogs.

Anyone who heard the story has to wonder what was so important that the police would carry out a chase like this in a residential area. We know the policy is that if an officer is in pursuit, it's supposed to be closely monitored by a road sergeant, so I think it's fair to wonder why the police wouldn't have called off the pursuit when it was clearly a residential area and therefore when lives would be in danger. The answer we get is that police were chasing four teenagers, 14- and 15-year-olds who were suspected of shoplifting.

Minister, our concern is the link between this activity and the attitude and tone that your government has set in this area. I want to ask you, is it your policy to support and encourage this kind of over-the-top action in order to catch four teenage shoplifters?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): It would be inappropriate to comment on any specific case, because this matter, as you know, is being investigated by the SIU. I can say that generally speaking there is a police pursuit directive issued by the Ministry of the Solicitor General that is available to the police services in Ontario. It lists various criteria that the police services are to consider and police officers are to consider when engaged in pursuit.

We acknowledge that this is a difficult balance that police officers are faced with in emergency situations, the balance between public safety and their obligation to apprehend persons who are fleeing after committing, or possibly committing, a criminal offence. This is a difficult subject that our police officers face, acknowledging that this is Police Week and acknowledging the challenges our police officers face on the streets of Ontario.

Mr Silipo: We understand that the SIU is investigating this particular instance and we will leave the investigation to deal with that. What I want to raise with you again, Minister, and I ask you to focus your comments on this, if you would, is the broader issue. That has to do with the attitude and the policies that your government is setting, which we believe are shifting that balance.

What you're doing through your so-called crime control commissioners, for example, is you're cracking down on things like shoplifting, squeegee kids, panhandling because you believe that's what is going to lead to serious crimes. What you're doing with your policies and with your directives and with your actions is that you're pushing our police officers to go after, as happened yesterday, kids who are getting away from a potential shoplifting situation in a van and putting in danger, as happened in this case, the lives of innocent people. At the end of the day these are relatively minor crimes.

We are all in favour of doing what has to be done to deal with crime, but don't you believe that your actions are shifting the balance completely inappropriately and forcing our police officers to take these -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The directive to which I refer was created by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1989. It's been with us for some years and deals with factors which police officers need to take into consideration during police chases. We support the policing community in this province. In the budget, the Minister of Finance announced funding for an additional 1,000 uniformed front-line police officers in Ontario.

We are funding the anti-biker gang squad, which I announced yesterday in London, and 115 cadets so that we can get more Ontario Provincial Police officers, uniformed officers, on the front line in Ontario. All this is for the security of our communities, the security of our families in Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, I hope you didn't do that on purpose. I hope you didn't purposely miss the point here.

There's a 73-year-old man from my community who is dead. He was a grandfather, he was a father, he was a husband, he was a neighbour. Your crime control commission talks about your get-tough-on-kids policy of broken windows, like it's all about broken windows, but don't talk to his family and friends about broken windows today. It's the balance, it's the tone, it's the way in which you're pushing police to go after kids in relatively non-serious situations that could lead to what happened yesterday. There's a very timely column in the Toronto Star today written by Jim Coyle. It's incredible, actually. He says:

"But sadly, if crime has been exaggerated, so too has the commission. The crime control commission is just three obscure Conservative backbenchers, whose perverse task it is not to control crime but to incite fear of it.

"For this is a government fuelled by fear and loathing."

Minister, maybe it's time for you to rethink that balance. Maybe it's time for you to think about the consequences of your government's inflammatory rhetoric. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Toronto. It's always a concern when persons lose their lives or are seriously injured in the course of what was apparently a police pursuit. I understand the honourable member's concern.

The guidelines are there. Public safety is the paramount consideration. The criteria to be taken into account in a very difficult situation by police officers are listed in the policy directive. The Toronto police service also has its own directive to its officers.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Attorney General. It has been 16 months now since all members in this Legislature unanimously passed Bill 82, the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, and it's been a whole year since you proclaimed this bill. Since then, you have failed to do anything about half of the new enforcement tools that you promised to implement to crack down on defaulting parents. Can you explain to women and children right across this province why you failed to keep your promise?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As you're aware, we have brought in tools to deal with collections within family support that have never existed and that were in fact opposed by the previous government.

We have now reported 73,000 defaulting payors to credit bureaus. There have been 1,500 notices regarding driver's licence suspensions and 350 licences have been suspended. We are doing a number of things by way of court actions to enforce orders to pay. We have other issues that will be proclaimed shortly dealing with joint bank accounts and partnership accounts which will again provide much greater access to forcing people who are self-employed to pay.

We are implementing each and every one of those items and we're collecting more money than the previous government was ever able to collect.

Ms Martel: It's been 16 months since everyone in this room agreed to pass this bill, and you have failed to implement half of the measures you promised to take.

Let me raise a case with you with respect to joint bank accounts. Let me tell you the story of Micheline Labelle, who is a recipient with two teenage children. The payor in this case owes arrears of $5,122.66 because you have failed to take any action on payors who shelter income and assets with third parties. The Family Responsibility Office cannot garnish a joint bank account.

You promised to close this loophole 16 months ago and you have failed to take any action in this regard. Can you explain to Micheline and her children and thousands of other families like hers why you've done nothing in this regard?

Hon Mr Harnick: The issue the member refers to is an issue that should have been implemented five, six, seven or eight years ago. Quite frankly -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just 16 months would be fine.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harnick: The measures that were set out in Bill 82 were measures that were rejected out of hand by the previous government. When we took over and recreated the Family Responsibility Office we had to deal with 90,000 backlogged items, which we have now dealt with. We're distributing more money today, and answering the phone calls that come in today, that was never able to be done in the past. We are methodically implementing all the items in Bill 82 that will permit us better enforcement tools. We will very shortly be dealing with those issues. I invite the member to provide me with the details so that we can take a look and see if we can help her constituent.

Ms Martel: Minister, you must be the only person in this place who believes that "very shortly" means 16 months. It's been 16 whole months since this Legislature passed a bill to give you the power to put into place the new enforcement tools, and in that 16 months you have only managed to implement half of the new enforcement tools that everyone in this place agreed with.

Let me give you another detail about the case of Micheline Labelle. Sixteen months ago you promised you would give the Ontario Lottery Corp the authority to deduct support arrears from payors winning $1,000 or more in a lottery. You should know that in her case the payor has recently won several millions of dollars in a major lottery. Because you have failed to take any action on lottery winning, the Family Responsibility Office cannot get the $5,000 in arrears that is owed to Micheline that the payor just won.

Minister, you've had 16 months to do something, to put these enforcement tools into effect. You haven't done so because you're incompetent. How do you justify your lack of action on these important measures?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have rebuilt the Family Responsibility Office so that in this past month we've collected $41.8 million. This is a 33.5% increase from April 1995 when they were the government. We have been implementing the enforcement tools that never existed in the Family Responsibility Office before we passed Bill 82.

The previous government - the third party - laughed about these enforcement tools. They laughed about the idea of accessing lottery winnings. They laughed at licence suspensions.

Today we are collecting more money faster than has ever been collected before.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Shame on you. Get your act together.

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, come to order, please.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General and I wish to return to the issue of high-speed police chases.

Clyde Barnaby was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk yesterday morning because, being a 73-year-old senior citizen, he was afraid to ride his bike on the street. He thought he would be safer on the sidewalk. But yesterday, as we all know, he was tragically killed as a direct result of a police high-speed chase.

Minister, I know you've only been on the job for a few weeks, and I'm sure you are upset about this, as I am, but this is not the first time a citizen in Ontario has lost his or her life due to a high-speed police chase. We know that police forces in other jurisdictions have developed the technology to provide the alternatives to high-speed police chases in residential neighbourhoods. Would you tell us today what the ministry has done for the last three years to prevent these tragedies from happening?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): There have been a number of steps taken by the ministry, particularly with respect to intensive training in all aspects of the provincial pursuit directive at the Ontario Police College. The pursuit directive was also reviewed in 1994 and some content changes made at that time. In addition, the ministry recently provided funding for the acquisition of tire deflation devices to assist in police pursuits in order to enhance public safety. Those are some of the steps the ministry has taken with respect to the issue you've raised.

Mr Ramsay: We all understand that it's the duty of our police officers in Ontario to enforce the law, and we know also that they are very tightly regulated as to when they can commence and continue a high-speed pursuit. But there are other tools - you've mentioned a few of them but there are many more - that we should be equipping our police forces right across this province with. We need to give them those tools so they can carry out their duty with their safety and the safety of the public in mind.

With all the alternative measures that are available today for police to capture offenders, some would say we should be reviewing the necessity of high-speed police chases in residential neighbourhoods at all.

Minister, would you give us your commitment today that you will not only review the high-speed chase guidelines in Ontario, but that you will immediately allocate the funding for advanced technology in order to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again?

Hon Mr Flaherty: In response to the member for Timiskaming, as I indicated in my first response, the ministry has provided the funding for the acquisition of tire deflation devices, which may be of some assistance in the situations you raise in your question. Public safety is the paramount consideration, and if the member has some suggestions that might be of some use as this adequacy standard is reviewed, then I'd certainly be pleased to consider them.

The member should know that the guideline is under review as part of the review of adequacy standards generally by the Ministry of the Solicitor General dealing with police services. The public safety aspect, of course, is the first consideration always.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the finance minister. In the budget speech you claimed, "We are responding by providing children's aid societies with an additional $170 million over the next three years." It is our understanding, after having checked with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that the new money going to children's aid societies' base budgets consists of $20 million this year, an additional $40 million next year and an additional $30 million the following year, so that at the end of three years there is in fact $90 million in new base budget funding.

What the minister has done in his speech is add up cumulative totals in each year to have an inflated number of $170 million.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm for us today that the $170 million he claimed to be providing to children's aid societies in last week's budget is really only $90 million in new base funding?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I have said all along that the total amount of dollars is $170 million. The member is quite correct that it's $20 million this year. It is $60 million next year and it is $90 million added to the base budget in the third year out. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies quite understands that. I talked to them about it shortly after the budget, as a matter of fact. Mary McConville was quite appreciative.

Ms Lankin: What they understand is that according to your numbers the increased base budget funding is $90 million, not the $170 million that you trumpeted, not the $170 million that the media and the public and everyone else understood you to be saying, like in so many other areas.

Minister, I have a very important question about that $90 million -

Hon Mr Eves: No, nobody said the base budget was $170 million. You are making this up.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Finance, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, it would be helpful if the honourable member did not make things up.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, I'm not debating with you.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I have a very serious question about that $90 million in new base funding. Yesterday the Minister of Community and Social Services said, "One of the challenges, of course, is that the old funding formula, which has existed for many years and under previous governments, has this sort of emergency funding at the end of the year," and she goes on to say that this makes it difficult for calculations.

One of the things we agree with your government about is the need for increased base funding. But we also believe there is a need for exceptional circumstances emergency money at the end of the year to deal with incredible fluctuations in caseloads due to a number of circumstances. We can get into the details of why that happens.

But what I really need to know, Minister, is, will you guarantee that that ECR or contingency fund available to the children's aid societies will not be rolled into that $90 million in base funding and that this contingency fund will continue to exist? Because, without that, your announcement is a sham.

Hon Mr Eves: The Minister of Community and Social Services will deal with those matters as any other minister in the government deals with their particular budget for their particular ministry. But I want to address the comment that the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine made at the beginning of her remarks, and that is, nobody ever left the impression or intended to leave the impression - indeed the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies knew full well if she did not - that the increase to the base budget was $170 million.

The budget document says quite clearly $170 million over three years. That is what I said in my budget speech. You should clean out your ears. The executive director of the -

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Finance, that is unparliamentary.

Hon Mr Eves: "Ears" is unparliamentary?

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, I'm not having a debate with you. That's unparliamentary. It certainly doesn't bring order to -

Hon Mr Eves: I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Eves: You should listen to what is being said very carefully, that is, that the base budget would be increased by $90 million a year.

Ms Lankin: Is the emergency funding left in or not? Pretty simple.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: The executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies knows that, understands that and is quite happy with it; apparently you're not.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): My question is for the Attorney General. He is aware of the widespread public dissatisfaction with the Young Offenders Act in its current form and the people's strong desire for a change for the better now.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I want to be able to hear the member for London South, and I'm finding it very difficult.

Mr Bob Wood: We hear that the federal government will announce discussions about YOA changes today, but that there will be no specifics. Surely the time for talk is ended and the time for action is now. Is the Attorney General prepared to ask the federal government to produce a draft YOA bill now?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We have been pressing the federal government for almost three years now to deal with the Young Offenders Act because every person in Ontario knows that the Young Offenders Act is a joke. The Young Offenders Act has not worked properly, it has not kept communities safe, and we have asked the federal government repeatedly to create

an act that redefines young offenders so that youths 16 and older can be prosecuted as adults.

We've advised that if the maximum age is not changed, then to legislate the mandatory transfer to adult court of 16- and 17-year-olds. We've asked for the provision for the prosecution of youths under the age of 12 for serious violent offences. We've asked to restrict access to free legal counsel to ensure that parents who meet provincial legal aid eligibility requirements pay for the representation of a young person. We've asked for youths to be transferred to adult court to have the same parole eligibility requirements as adult offenders.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harnick: We have been asking the federal government to deal with this issue for three years. We hope that -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bob Wood: I'm pleased to see that the minister takes this seriously. I think there are some in the opposition who don't think the public is concerned about this, and they are. What date would the minister see as an appropriate and reasonable goal for these YOA changes to be effective?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have been pressing the federal government to make meaningful changes to the act. It's very important that these changes be made. We have consistently taken the position that the Young Offenders Act does not work and we have asked the federal government to deal with creating

an act that will listen to the representations that have been made by people all over this country.

We've appeared before parliamentary committees. We've written a 15-point proposal to the Minister of Justice. We hope that she's going to listen. We hope that the Liberal Party of Ontario will get on the bandwagon and support these changes because they're long overdue. They know, as does the third party, that the Young Offenders Act has not worked. It's a failed experiment. It's looked upon as a joke by the people of Ontario who cannot feel safe in their communities as long as this act exists.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. It's becoming clear that the community school is going to be one of the casualties of your funding formula for education. School boards are anguished over what schools they're going to have to close because you're not providing enough money to heat and to light and to clean their schools.

In Niagara they're looking at the closure of as many as 35 schools. Toronto is facing the closure of as many as 120 of its schools. In Hamilton-Wentworth your colleague Tony Skarica wants the board to close schools in inner-city Hamilton so kids in Waterdown won't have to be bused out of their community, and that's what you've done. You've put the welfare of students in one community up against the welfare of students in another community. The Hamilton-Wentworth board would have to close 12 schools in inner-city Hamilton just to build one school in Waterdown to get the kids out of the portables.

Minister, don't try to tell us that this is a local board decision. Will you acknowledge that you are forcing a massive shutdown of schools and that you'll be loading kids on buses and shipping them out of communities right across this province?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not closing any schools. The province of Ontario -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Come to order.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Alan Eagleson is acting up at boot camp and you Tories are not doing anything about it. What are you going to do about Alan Eagleson? I want these Tory miscreants dealt with in jail. Alan Eagleson is thumbing his nose at you in jail and he is your past party president.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure if the question was from the member for Renfrew North or the member for Fort William now, but I'll answer all of them.

The reality is that we have a basic difference of opinion with the opposition. We think more money should go into the classroom. That's exactly where the moneys are headed. We think school boards should be efficient and effective. We have allowed school boards more than enough money to look after their schools, more than enough money to accommodate the students' needs, and then we think that the money should be focused on the classroom, focused towards the teachers, the textbooks, the supplies going into the classroom, for a better education for our young people.

What is happening in Ottawa-Carleton is that they're looking at having to close 20 schools. What makes it even worse is that they have to close them, according to your rules, by September 1. That's when you cut off the funding for the heat and the light and the cleaning of what you now call surplus space. The problem is, there are students in those spaces and there are parents who want their children to stay in their neighbourhood school and who are going to be very upset when you insist that their kids are going to have to be bused somewhere else so you can save money on what you call your non-classroom expenditures.

Minister, the Carleton board says they can't close these schools overnight. Every other board is saying the same thing. Will you suspend your totally unrealistic deadlines and provide enough money to keep these schools open for at least a year so reasonable plans for kids can be made?

Hon David Johnson: I've had the opportunity to talk to many, many representatives of schools - staff, trustees, other representatives - and I can say that in terms of the amount of time that schools will have to come to grips with various solutions, we're looking at that and I'm going to be more than cooperative in terms of assisting them to make the kinds of decisions they need to make.

I wonder if the member for Fort William remembers a gentleman by the name of John Sweeney. John Sweeney was the former cabinet minister who worked with the member for Fort William. John Sweeney was hired by the NDP to do a study of our school system, and John Sweeney, colleague of the member for Fort William, came to the conclusion that indeed we needed to spend more money in the classroom. Too much money was being spent on administration and non-classroom activities.

I agree with John Sweeney. I agree with the former minister from the Liberal Party: We need to put more money into the classroom, more money towards teachers, more money towards our students.

Ma question est celle-ci : Est-ce que vous êtes capable de nous garantir aujourd'hui qu'avec votre amendement, les francophones auront exactement les mêmes droits qui leur sont présentement accordés ?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Yes.

M. Bisson : Monsieur le procureur, je suis en désaccord avec vous. J'ai ici une opinion légale du conseil législatif, et je vais vous la lire. Je la lis tel qu'elle était écrite :

"Failure to provide a bilingual prosecutor in accordance with an agreement might not invalidate a proceeding in every case, but it would invalidate a proceeding if the failure resulted in prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair hearing.

C'est clair. L'opinion qu'on m'a donnée dit que vous n'êtes pas en train de garantir les droits des francophones tels qu'ils existent présentement. Êtes-vous préparé à accepter notre amendement qu'on a mis déjà ou à écrire un amendement du gouvernement qui protégerait clairement les droits des francophones ?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly the proposal that we have made is a proposal that both AFMO and AJEFO have worked on developing with us. They are quite satisfied that it provides the protection they need to be assured that the existing level of services will be guaranteed when municipalities take over the prosecution of provincial offences.

The other aspect is that if one takes a look at the memorandum of understanding that would be referenced in the act, certainly we've enumerated all of those issues of due process, and provision in the French language is specifically one of those issues of due process, therefore guaranteeing the existing level of service.

DAIRY FARMERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture. Recently, I spoke with various farm operators in my riding of Simcoe East. In the group were several fellow dairy farmers. I learned that they have lost 3% of their milk quota due to imported dairy byproducts coming in from the United States. Are you aware of how the importation of butter oil-sugar blends into Ontario is hurting the milk quota of our dairy farmers?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I recognize the importance of the butter oil-sugar blends, that it is of great interest to our dairy producers and indeed to our ice cream manufacturers.

The federal government, through the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, has established a process, and all the issues are expected to be addressed. I am pleased to see that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario have agreed to participate in that process. It is of great importance to the dairy industry. I've had the opportunity of discussing this with my federal colleague and I appreciate the fact that he now has a committee at the CITT looking into it.

Mr McLean: This product, containing 49% butter oil and 51% sugar, is used in the manufacture of ice cream in Ontario. It is obviously a butter substitute, as the Dairy Farmers of Canada have been arguing, and should be required to pay the proper import tariff. If allowed to continue, the dairy farmers I spoke with estimate an additional loss of milk quota. You know how serious this could be for Ontario's respected dairy industry.

Minister, what measures has your ministry taken to support our dairy farmers in reclassifying this important butter byproduct?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has made a submission to the CITT and has asked to examine all the options very closely. I am pleased that the Dairy Farmers of Canada are also participating in this committee to air all the possible solutions. I certainly encourage the tribunal to continue to consider all the options and take into account the needs of everyone involved, including the dairy farmers, the processors and certainly the consumers. We're looking for a resolution that takes into consideration the interests of the entire industry, and this committee will have its findings published at the beginning of July.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. You're aware that your door is shut to hundreds of new Canadian immigrants with professional degrees ready to make a contribution to Ontario, but the only jobs they can find are as taxi drivers, cleaners and pizza delivery people.

Your Premier made a commitment and a promise in 1995 to take strict action to deal with access to professions and trades. To this day, we see your actions in terms of equal opportunity. What are they? You destroyed employment equity legislation. You cut the Cabinet Round Table on Anti-Racism, then you killed the Employment Equity Commission and then you cancelled the Ontario Advisory Council on Disability Issues.

Minister, I have in my hand recommendations by an organization called Skills for Change, which outline what you could do so that the doors of opportunity will not be shut to those who have professional qualifications. Will you accept these recommendations from Skills for Change?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, I want to say that this government believes strongly in the contributions that immigrants can make to our society. I'm glad you asked the question, because I believe we as a society have not gone far enough yet to accommodate people who come here seeking to use the skills they used and developed in other countries.

That said, we are working, and I am pushing up our attempts to work even faster so we can make sure that citizens who have been trained elsewhere in the world have their skills recognized here. Right now, the system, according to the report that came out, has not been adequate, and we are studying that. York University and the University of Toronto have had it set up within the system to judge various skills -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Ms Bassett: - and we are looking to upgrade that system. We are also looking at an independent organization that could judge the qualifications of various -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Ruprecht: I find this answer really very inadequate. You are saying, if I hear you correctly, that you are studying this. Look, your Premier made a commitment and a promise in 1995, and you know the Minister of Finance's mantra when he read the budget speech: "A promise made, a promise kept."

We know that the Premier clearly made the commitment in 1995 and said, "We're going to act on this very swiftly." You are today telling me, three years later, that you are still studying this matter while your door is being hammered on by hundreds of people trying to get into the system. You say you are studying it.

You have to realize, obviously, that this is not good enough. The immigrants made a commitment to you a year ago that they were going to give you recommendations.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Ruprecht: The recommendations are right here, and they say that there's a lack of appropriate licensing and language tests. Let's act on it. There's a lack of training -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Ms Bassett: We do keep our promises. The ministry commissioned a study by Price Waterhouse; in fact, the final report was just submitted April 6, 1998. It concludes that the existing services do not have credibility and wide acceptance among employers. Now that we have taken the first step to determine what the services had to offer and where they fell short, we are now looking at in-house assessments conducted by regulatory bodies and educational institutions and we are seeing what they have to offer. As I said before, they do not use a standard and consistent methodology. Now that we have the results from the report, we are starting to act on it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week you tabled Bill 16, which tries to fix the disastrous mess you've made of the whole property tax reassessment scheme. Your first try at this brought thousands of small businesses in Toronto to the brink of bankruptcy, and now, as I said, you're trying to fix this problem through Bill 16.

But we see one problem your bill creates: In capping business tax increases at 2.5%, you've moved the cost of the download of your services on to homeowners. Because, as we understand it from the legislation, the cap applies to all increases, not just to those caused by the assessment, you will be making homeowners pay the cost of the download all by themselves. Some owners, we know, are going to be getting increases as high as 100%.

Minister, you have finally taken the steps to protect businesses and landlords from exorbitant increases. Why would you not take the same steps with respect to protecting homeowners?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): If the honourable member is talking about the city of Toronto, which I presume he is, he will certainly be knowledgeable of the fact that the city of Toronto has come out with a no-increase budget for this year with respect to taxpayers in the city of Toronto. They've also said that they don't see any reason why they'll have to raise taxes for the next three years, and neither do we.

Mr Silipo: The issue is not so much the budget of the city; the issue is the tax assessment and the reassessment and the changes within that. This is where the problem is, which you created. We all support the tax relief for small businesses. We in fact were among the ones who were telling you to do more than what you've done, so we're not arguing with you on that.

But the reality is that your changes are leaving homeowners out in the cold. Because businesses will get a 2.5% cap not only on assessment-based increases but on other increases as well, it leaves the municipalities no room but to shift on to homeowners the cost of the download. That's going to apply here in Toronto and it's going to apply in other municipalities. In community after community, whether it's in Sarnia, in Windsor, in Sudbury, in Niagara, Bruce county, Kitchener, and we could go on, we're going to see municipality after municipality having to choose to protect their businesses through capping, and if they choose to do that, then homeowners will not get the protection.

Minister, will you agree to amendments in the legislation that will ensure the same protection for homeowners that you're prepared to give to businesses?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the honourable member said it's the assessment base increase that he's worried about. Then he talks about the Who Does What exercise in the

preamble to both his first and second question. If you're talking about the Who Does What exercise, the city of Toronto has said they will not increase taxes this year or for the next three years. The overwhelming majority of municipalities in Ontario are already on a market value/fair value assessment base system: some 1992, some 1988, some 1984, but the overwhelming majority, about 90% of Ontario municipalities, are already there.

We recognized that there is a problem with respect to municipalities that haven't had a reassessment for a long time, like the city of Toronto since 1940, and therefore we introduced the 2.5% cap, especially for small business owners and small business people in the municipal option. Those municipalities that don't choose that option, and the overwhelming majority will be those, obviously have dealt with this in the past.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I'd like to first just thank you for putting $820 million in the budget for our Ontario highways.

Over the last year I've seen new directional signs for tourism operators and businesses erected on highways -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): There's a question left here. I ask the members to stop their conversations.

Member for Durham East, your question was to?

Mr O'Toole: The Minister of Transportation.

The Speaker: Go ahead, please.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On our highways, like the 401 and Highway 12 through my riding, I've noticed the new tourism signs, and they are well received. All the constituents of mine, like Ocala Wines and Cullen Gardens, have really responded well. However, since they started this program, I've also had owners of food, fuel and accommodation businesses approach me wondering what you're going to do to allow them to be included in this signage in Ontario.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for Durham East for his question, and indeed I was very pleased to be present at the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association conference on May 3 when the Premier of Ontario announced the implementation of the logo signage system for the province. After a wait of perhaps 20 years, they finally got what they were asking for and what the public is demanding. The logo signage system will replace generic icons used to indicate accommodations, food and fuel outlets with signs showing the corporate logo.

We recognize as a government that accommodation, food and fuel employers are providing an important service to the travelling public, and motorists need to be aware of these services. As well, these employers are providing jobs, opportunities and growth to our province. Consequently, we are pleased to announce this program. In the words of Rod Seiling, president of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, "Logo signage is a win-win initiative as it provides an essential service to the travelling public by giving them information on services they have long said is important." We are pleased to announce that accommodation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to give notification under standing order 37(

a) of an unsatisfactory answer to my question earlier.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the appropriate papers.

PETITIONS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

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

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove up to 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory powers over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

I've signed the petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from residents in Grey and Bruce area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the diabetes education services at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora, Ontario is an essential component of health care, we, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Health of Ontario as follows:

"For permanent funding for the diabetes education services at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital."

I certainly have attached my name to that petition as well.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): In the interest of brevity and allowing other members to present petitions, the petition that I wish to submit on behalf of over 100 of my constituents is identical to that just submitted by the member for Carleton East. On their behalf, I present this for consideration in the House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): If you like, you don't have to read the petition. You can summarize it if you want to make it shorter as well.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislature signed by hundreds of people, and it says as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I have affixed by signature to this document.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This petition concerns the hepatitis C compensation debate that's going on.

"I, the undersigned, am in support of a compensation package jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments for all victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood tragedy. Further, the compensating committee should have as part of its members a fair representation of hepatitis C victims.

In Canada, today, Saskatchewan is the only province to offer medical assistance to hepatitis C patients. This disease can remain dormant for approximately 20 years, but can become chronic, requiring costly medical assistance, potentially leading to loss of employment and causing severe emotional stress.

The financial and emotional burden placed on these Canadians is unthinkable! The stigma which is associated with this disease still plagues thousands across this country. Without compensation, Canadians will continue to suffer and die through no fault of their own. This tragedy must stop!"

There are about 50 petitions, all the same, signed by people of my community of Sault Ste Marie, and I affix my signature to them as well.

ABORTION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a number of petitions from members of my parish of St Leonard's in Brampton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my signature to that.

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of St Catharines residents. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Linhaven Home for the Aged has provided excellent service to seniors in St Catharines for many years; and

"Whereas the staff and volunteers at Linhaven have endeavoured to enhance the quality of life of residents of the home through their kind and compassionate care; and

"Whereas cuts in funding to Linhaven will result in a reduction of staff and resources available to meet the needs of seniors who reside in the home; and

"Whereas the discharging of acute care patients from active treatment hospitals results in medical staff at homes for the aged being required to provide more extensive and intensive care to patients who are discharged from hospitals; and

"Whereas Linhaven and other homes for the aged have among the residents more individuals afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and other medical conditions which require an appropriate complement of staff and necessary equipment to meet their medical needs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario increase funding to Linhaven Home for the Aged in St Catharines so that the medical requirements of Linhaven residents may be properly addressed and seniors may live in dignity in our community."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed and forwarded to me by members of CEP Local 32 in Smooth Rock Falls. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I continue to support these workers and their petitions.

ABORTION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I submit to the House signatures on a petition requesting that public tax funds not be used for abortions in Ontario hospitals.

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; 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 hereby affix my signature to this.

INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have another petition that deals with the health care cuts that are currently going on. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas a report has been submitted by the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommending the closure of the Institute of Psychotherapy, established over 30 years ago" in Kingston, Ontario, "an 18-bed cost-effective hospital which provides voluntary treatment to patients with resistant depression disorders to learn to cope with their problems" at a cost of $130 per day of "provincial funding, an average of 25% of the cost of other psychiatric treatment centres; and

"Whereas the Institute of Psychotherapy supplies efficient and effective short-term care to residents of Kingston and the surrounding area, it also provides their service to patients from Ottawa, Cornwall" and other communities. This hospital also provides anonymity to health care professionals who would/could otherwise face receiving treatment at their place of employment with colleagues or, the worst scenario, not seek the lifesaving treatment they require;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the September 1998 closure of the Institute of Psychotherapy...and that they review the cost-efficient and effective short-term care provided to patients who would not/could not seek treatment for this life-threatening illness. As a result of their work, this hospital provides a much-needed service to the community and an inexpensive operation to the province of Ontario as a whole."

I have put my signature on the petition as well, as I'm in full agreement.

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 1,261 signatures from the town of Caledon addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature not to grant an aggregate licence to James Dick Construction Ltd that would allow mining of the Rockford property at Olde Base Line and Winston Churchill Boulevard in the town of Caledon for the following reasons:

"Current monitoring technology is unable to guarantee the water table would not be compromised; haul routes would force gravel trucks to travel the same routes as 29 school buses; the unique character of our community would change dramatically; and aggregate extraction would jeopardize the day tourist traffic currently visiting to the town of Caledon."

I have signed this petition.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Frances Lankin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Cochrane South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Attorney General concerning Bill 108. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1998 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): A budget debate is always a very interesting one. I would like to do something today at the outset which relates to another matter that I raised on Thursday, in which I apparently misstated a situation. I want to correct the record. It doesn't happen too often in this House, but I thought I would just correct the record.

I stated in my statement on tourism last Thursday that the chair of the Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce, Mrs Elaine Viner, "slammed her fist on the desk when Attorney General Harnick visited yesterday." That is apparently not so. She slammed her fist on the desk before he came in. Knowing Mrs Viner the way I do, I know she would never do that while a minister of the crown is present. I just wanted to correct that error.

On the other hand, it does show how important tourism dollars are in our various communities, and that was the main purpose of the statement then, as it is now. I would once again urge the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to make most of the tourist money available to the individual communities, whether it's through the chambers of commerce, the visitors and convention bureaus or whatever it may be, because I think those organisations know best how to spend that money.

The real concern was that the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism said that before he would allocate any of these funds, he was going to take a Yours to Discover Ontario tour within a week or so. I would say that probably the minister has seen Ontario from top to bottom in his various capacities over the last three years. It is very important to get that money out as quickly as possible. Tourist promotion should happen now. It shouldn't happen some time in July or August when people have already made their holiday plans. If you're going to do it, do it now. That's the first point I want to make.

The $262,000 that has been brought into the system for tourist promotion of course is very helpful in eastern Ontario, but you've got to remember that was ice storm money and the federal government contributed substantially to that fund as well.

The other issue I want to raise is this piece of propaganda that has gone to every household in Ontario. I know that last week we were under the impression it only went to certain people, but it looks now as if it went to every household in the province. I know the Speaker has ruled on this and the Integrity Commissioner is currently looking at it.

Just in case there's any misunderstanding that the people of Ontario may have out there as to whether or not this is sort of like a government householder, people should understand that all of us have within our budgets the possibility of sending householders to people within our own ridings. People may get confused. They may think, "Does the government now send out householders?" This is just blatant political propaganda and the people of Ontario should know that taxpayers' dollars are used to distribute this Reform government's information and self-congratulatory comments on what's happening in Ontario.

I don't think it's a fair way to handle the situation at all. If the government feels it needs propaganda in order to talk about its policies or whatever it wants to do, let it use its own party funding that it has available to it. We all know they're raising millions of dollars from their fund-raisers. Use some of that money. I don't think government money should be used for this kind of propaganda.

If you want to send out a brochure that strictly sets out the facts of a particular program that you've initiated, that's one thing, but when you make all sorts of editorial comments about how wonderful some of the programs are that you've introduced, then that becomes just blatant political propaganda and it's totally unacceptable to use government money to send that to each person in Ontario. As my friend from St Catharines indicated, look what the Ottawa Citizen said in its editorial yesterday:

"Take the slick pamphlet pictured at the left," which is this pamphlet right here. "It's full of puffery about how great tax cuts are, how much we'll love the rural jobs strategy (for which, read `small-town slush fund'), and how things in general are just swell with the Tories in charge.

"It went to almost every household in the province, almost 4 million of them, and cost $750,000," and yes, the Ontario taxpayer paid for it."

It's not appropriate. You can laugh about it, but it is simply not appropriate to use government money to send out this kind of propaganda. Of course we know that David Lindsay, the former principal secretary in the Premier's office, is now the head of this organization, which I guess is to promote the Ontario government in some fashion. Anyway, it's totally inappropriate and I hope the people of Ontario will take issue with the government on that.

I see that time is moving on. As you all know, under the rules nowadays the opposition has been muffled and muzzled, because we cannot speak as long as we want to on such an intricate document as the budget. We've been limited to 20 minutes for personal debate on an issue like this, which is totally shocking. But there is one other thing I want to draw your attention to. It happened last week and was truly an extraordinary event for about 2,000 Ontarians who live in island communities.

You may recall that I and others have been saying in this House for the last two years, ever since this government brought in the notion that the island communities should look after their own ferry fee funding, that there is no way those local smaller municipalities have the financial wherewithal to fund the ferry systems that operate back and forth to these islands. As a matter of fact, the money that's realized in property taxes on the islands is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000 to $400,000, and to fund these ferry systems you need about $2 million, so they would have to raise taxes four- or five- or sixfold.

The Minister of Transportation, both the present minister and the former minister, have been stonewalling this. They've been saying: "We're cutting you off as of December 31. As of then you are no longer part of Ontario. We are no longer going to pay for your ferry system." December 31 came along and they said, "Well, okay, we're going to do it on March 31." In the meantime, these people have been living in great anxiety and great fear because their livelihood, their whole way of life, is at stake. We're talking about people whose ancestors have lived and worked and farmed on these islands for something like seven or eight generations.

Lo and behold, what happened last Thursday on CBC Ottawa, on the noonhour show? The Minister of Finance was interviewed by a reporter, questioned by somebody who phoned in from the island, and the minister said, "I believe the province should take over the responsibility for the ferry service because municipalities do not have the wherewithal to handle the cost." That is what Ernie Eves said last Thursday on the noonhour show.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What's wrong with that?

Mr Gerretsen: What's wrong with that? That's what I'd like to know, because Ernie Eves is right: They no not have the financial capacity to pay for these services. All I would suggest, once again, is that the Minister of Finance, who I always thought had an awful lot of power within cabinet, to get together with the Minister of Transportation and straighten this matter out so we can bring some sense of certainty to the people who live in these island communities and not say to 2,000 people in this province, "I'm sorry, we can no longer afford you." I agree with the Minister of Finance on that.

The local municipalities do not have the financial wherewithal to afford it, so I hope he wins his battle with the Minister of Transportation.

Now let's take a look at the budget. The first thing I always look at is what has happened to the public debt in this province. This is probably one of the greatest inconsistencies in the present government's position. They like to give the image that they are a business party and that they want to run the province in a businesslike fashion. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a government that wants to run the province in a businesslike fashion can possibly give people tax cuts when you're still running a deficit every year. The annual deficit, you see, gets added to the public debt on an annual basis.

What has happened in the province of Ontario between 1995 and currently? The public debt of this province has increased from $89 billion to $105 billion, an increase of $16 billion per year. Let's just take a look at what the interest is on the public debt. What's the interest on the public debt? Amazing. It has gone up from $7.8 billion paid in 1995 to a projected $9.2 billion that will be paid in the current year, an increase of $1.4 billion just in the interest payments.

What's fascinating about this and what I think the people of Ontario should really reflect upon is that we pay more on the interest on the public debt than we do for social services in this province. It's $9.2 billion that's projected to be paid on the interest on the public debt and the community and social services budget is $7.8 billion. I find it totally incongruous that a party that prides itself on doing things in a businesslike fashion could possibly do that sort of thing.

The other thing that is very interesting to note is that they always like to blame the federal government. That's another good one. I want to address this. Some of my colleagues said, "Don't talk about it," but I want to talk about it. It is true that the transfer payments from the federal government have been reduced by about $2 billion over the last four to five years.

But it's a little reminiscent of that famous television debate that took place between Brian Mulroney and John Turner - you may recall; I think it was in 1984 - when there were certain patronage appointments, which I won't get into right now, and Mr Mulroney said: "But, sir, you had a choice. You could have done something about it." It's exactly the same thing here.

You've got to remember that transfer payments are no longer in particular envelopes. We no longer have an envelope for health care or an envelope for social services. The provinces now can do whatever they want with those transfer payments. What did this government do? They're complaining about the fact there's $2 billion less, but what did they do? They gave a tax cut anyway. They had a choice either to give the money away in a tax cut or they could have said, "We're getting less from the federal government; therefore, we cannot afford a tax cut because we really care about good, quality health care and quality education services."

Premier, finance minister, you had a choice. Let's not hear any more about the fact that the feds reduced the transfer payments. They're also totally unconditional. You can do with that money what you want. You had a choice. You did not want to use that money for health care and social services. You decided to give that money back to the people of Ontario by way of a tax cut. It's very interesting that the amount of the tax cut is equal to the amount of the transfer payment from the feds to the province.

Let's just go on. The other thing that I find very interesting -

Interjections.

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

Mr Gerretsen: I must congratulate the members for being so wide awake and listening to this speech. It obviously hit a bit of a nerve or a sore point with them, because they seem to be very agitated about these things. Both the government members and the members of the third party are agitated about it.

The other thing that I always find very interesting is how the government -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Could I ask the House to come to order, please. I would ask the member for Kingston and The Islands to not provoke the other members of the House and speak directly to the Chair.

Mr Gerretsen: I always like to speak directly to the Chair. I never try to provoke the members in the House, other than through good, stimulating debate and a good discussion of the issues that are before us.

The other thing that I find very interesting is, the government likes to pride itself on the fact that last year they projected a deficit of something like $5.6 billion and they came in at $4.2 billion. They say: "Isn't this wonderful? We're $1.4 billion better off than we thought we'd be." Of course, it's the age-old trick where the Minister of Finance always underestimates certain items, or overestimates the cost of certain items, so that at the end of the year he looks good. All finance ministers do it. They probably do it at the federal House as well. I don't doubt that for a moment.

It's very interesting that out of this $1.4 billion in which we're better off on the deficit side than what was anticipated, some $700 million is made up of two categories. One, in the category of capital, $339 million worth of capital that was included in last year's budget, was money that was never spent. That's very easy to recover; you haven't spent it. That's an easy one. The other one was $462 million where they expected to pay even more in interest costs than they actually did. That is another one. They probably expected high interest rates or something like that when they estimated the amount they would have to pay last year.

In any event, when the finance minister gets up and says, "Well, isn't it wonderful, what a wonderful job I've done," I would just ask the people of Ontario, take a good close look at the figures and you will see that really there was $700 million out of that $1.4 billion that had nothing to do with things other than just plain bookkeeping entries.

There is one other issue that I very briefly want to address - as you well know, there's always so much to say and so little time to say it, particularly, with the House rules the way they are now - it deals with the notion that this government has kept its promises. I know there's a certain public perception out there. I think the people of Ontario -

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: Perception in politics sometimes is everything, I agree. But the people of Ontario ought to be made aware of some of the promises that were made that were not kept. The best one that I can think of and that almost everybody in Ontario can relate to is health care costs.

Let's remind the people of Ontario once again that on May 3, 1995, Mr Harris said, "We will not cut one cent from health care," and that he said in that famous television debate, "No, Robert, I do not have a plan to cut hospitals."

Let's look at the reality of the situation. Right now, currently in Ontario, the health care system is in chaos in a lot of communities, driven that way by the government. In community after community, petitions are taken up not to have certain hospitals closed etc, as has been recommended by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Some $800 million has already been cut out of health care.

You've already taken out $1.4 billion since you took over health care, and the interesting thing is that the government somehow figures that their $1-billion promise last week in the budget, where in effect they're saying, "We're going to spend $1 billion in long-term-care beds" - what people seem to forget very quickly is that's over eight years. It's kind of like saying, "I'm going to take $10 from you today and I'm going to give $10 back to you, but I'm going to give that to you over the next 10 years." I don't think that's quite the same way -

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): You are stretching it again as you go.

Mr Gerretsen: It's exactly what's happening here. In effect, only $125 million per year is going to be allocated out of that more than $1 billion that you've taken out of the health care system.

Of course we could talk about user fees. "Under this plan," the Premier said, "there will be no new user fees." What happened? Just ask the senior citizens in this province and they will tell you that the user fees that have been imposed through the drug benefit plan are certainly hurting them, and they are directly contrary to the promise that the Premier made. So to the tune of some $225 million - I see my time is up, Madam Speaker. I wish I could go on, because there's so much to say about this budget and really such little time to say it in.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like everyone to have the opportunity to hear the responses, so I'm wondering if there's a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments of the member for Kingston and The Islands. I always enjoy his spirited remarks in this place. Many times, given the fact that we both have a municipal background, I find myself agreeing with him.

When he talks about the government's budget and what it's really about, I don't disagree at all with the vast majority of his analysis. However, I do want to point out that while he was speaking, he inadvertently used the word "muffled" when referring to the kinds of speeches and public comments that they're now allowed to make, all of us in opposition, because the government changed the rules of this place and severely limited our ability to offer up alternative thinking to the government of the day. He of course meant to say "muzzled" rather than "muffled," but I did think in some ways it was somewhat apropos because muffling and sliding are a part of where the Libs are on this thing.

I'm not surprised that they're really angry at you for this budget, and for many of the same reasons as us in the NDP, but for one key political reason, and that is that you really cut the legs out from under them when they played the little game of saying, "Just don't implement the last part of the tax cut," and somehow that left them on progressive territory. Now that you've moved that up, they don't have that, and the question has to be asked: Are you going to repeal that last tax cut, let alone the rest of it?

Of course there's a difference between our party and theirs on that issue, but on that last piece - they were so strong about it - it begs the very direct question: Since you opposed it before the budget, do you, the Liberal caucus, believe that last tax cut ought to be repealed? Answer that so we can see where you're going to get the money for all the money you want to spend.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I was really quite entertained by the member for Kingston and The Islands, but particularly by the member for Hamilton Centre, who just responded, saying he totally agrees with the Liberals. You know, birds of a kind flock together. I can just see the two working together in another coalition coming up.

The member for Kingston and The Islands talked about the government operating as a business. I'm really pleased that he's recognizing that and how we are developing business plans with each of the ministries. In fact, it's working very well.

He talked a lot about the tax cuts, and I'm rather pleased that he did, recognizing things like the income tax cut that will be completed by July 1. He talked about some of the payroll taxes, such as the employer health tax, which will be completed by July 1; also the provincial sales tax on building materials for farmers - that's going to be continued for another year - and made reference to the new home registry costs for new home buyers. Certainly that is stimulating home sales and construction. There are all kinds of jobs coming there, a tremendous amount of investment by farmers.

You may have noticed with the employer health tax being reduced how many jobs have been created, some 350,000 jobs since this party came into government.

I can understand why you're concerned about tax cuts, because when your party was in government from 1985 to 1990 -

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): How many tax increases?

Mr Galt: It's not the number of tax increases, but the number for tax freedom day. It moved from May 25 to June 21, the most in the history of this country, while you were in government. That tax-and-spend government that you have a reputation for - when it came to the NDP they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to put up the taxes. They just borrowed the money, so they're really the spend-and-borrow party. So tax and spend joins spend and borrow, and look what we ended up with after 10 years.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I commend my colleague from Kingston and The Islands for his speech. It is always effervescent and illuminating, to say the least.

I would like to underline his point about the new, supposedly - I don't know what this is - Jobs and the Economy. I don't know whether this is a council or whether this is a commission. It looks like a brochure, and I've seen brochures from Tory members that are less biased and less partisan than what's in this. This is something that every single household, apparently, has received in this province to the tune of $750,000. So $750,000 from taxpayers' money to do something that the Progressive Conservative Party should be doing on its own. I find that abhorrent.

We're going to dig into this. We're not leaving this issue. We're going to find out what the terms of reference are. We're going to find out who the people are who were appointed to this and what was their basis and who heads it up. You might be interested to know that the former principal secretary and the former campaign manager of the Conservative Party - five years as principal secretary of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Prior to that Mr Lindsay was director of research and communications for the PC caucus at Queen's Park.

You say to me that this ain't so. I have never seen such partisan stuff in this House from any commission. No commission would ever say this. The taxpayers of this province are paying for that. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm sure some of you are. Anybody with any ethics would stand up and bring this to the Premier's attention. This is some of the worst abuse of political power I've ever seen in this country.

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to my friend from Kingston and The Islands, who put forward his views on the budget, and he said at one point that he didn't want to hear any more about the cuts in transfer payments by the federal government because provinces, he said, and he's correct on this, have been given flexibility and leeway in how they spend the transfers. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the total amount has been cut substantially by the federal government for the province of Ontario.

But since he doesn't want to hear any more about that, I would like to follow through with the question I raised as an interjection, and then my friend from Hamilton Centre raised, and that is, what is any Liberal government, or any Liberal Party hoping to be in government, what is a Liberal government, if it is in power, going to do about this tax cut that the member for Kingston and The Islands is so concerned about?

We've said that individuals with incomes of over $80,000 should reinvest in education and health care in this province, and if we are successful in the next election, we will help those people to reinvest in health care and in education. That is how we would fund the amount, because 6% of the taxpayers in the tax scheme of the Conservative government are receiving 25% of the tax break. That's $1.5 billion that could be reinvested in health care and education, and we're prepared to make it clear that's what we would do. What would the Liberal Party do?

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much. There must be something in the air when the ultra-right-wing Reform government and the left-wing socialists join together to attack the reasonable alternative that's in the centre, that aspires to the values that the people of Ontario aspire to. Obviously both sides are getting somewhat worried about what has really happened.

Mr Wildman: You told us what you're not going to do. Tell us what you're going to do.

Mr Gerretsen: I'll tell you, member for Algoma, we are certainly not going to raise taxes. That's number one. Because we know that you are in favour of raising taxes. We are not going to raise taxes, I can tell you that much.

Mr Wildman: What are you going to do?

Mr Gerretsen: You will just have to bide your time. Our platform will be unveiled in the fullness of time. But we will not raise taxes.

We will also make sure that everyone in this province will have access to health care, will have equal access to education and that the children of this province will not be forgotten. We have decided to make children our top priority in the next election because they are our future.

I think that if there's one sense the people of Ontario have always had, it's a sense of compassion, it's a sense of working together through our problems, but not by trying to balance your budget at the same time as you give people tax cuts, the way the government has been doing. As I've always said, this government has created more havoc and chaos in this province than any other government that has preceded it.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The two members from the Liberal caucus have outlined a very nice-looking brochure, and I would ask unanimous consent to have them read it word for word. I'd like to hear what's in it.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Further debate?

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: It really worries me when you guys are applauding me. It makes me wonder exactly what am I saying here. A flashback to a bygone era and I'm in some kind of serious trouble here?

I want to continue this debate a little bit because this is interesting. One of my friends in the Liberal Party asked rhetorically: "Why are you guys doing this? Are you guys afraid of us?" My response was, "Well, yeah." Look, we read the polls the same as anybody else. I think it would be extraordinarily stupid on the part of the government and the third party not to recognize the poll numbers as they are.

Having said that, I think that very much legitimizes the question, "How are you going to pay for all the things the Liberal Party says they would do if they were granted the honour and opportunity to govern in the province of Ontario?" It's a fair question to ask. The government has set a path that has cut serious, important social programs such as health and education, and at the same time they've provided tax cuts where the very, very wealthy have benefited the most. This budget that we're dealing with today is no different.

It's a continuation of that and, as the government pointed out, they accelerate some aspects of the tax expenditures. The Liberals, on the other hand, are saying they decry what you're doing as much as we in the NDP do and that they want to spend the money to put back in but won't tell us where it's going to come from.

As my House leader has said, we believe - and it's a very different direction than the government has gone in and certainly different from where the Libs are. We have said very clearly that we would, at the very least, generate $1.5 billion per year to use to reinvest back in health care and back in education because we believe those priorities are so important that it calls on those in our society, the mere 6% of the population that earns more than $80,000 and that gets 25% of the benefits of the tax cut - we think that's reasonable. We're prepared to put that to the people of Ontario in the next election.

But I think it's fair to say that the Liberals are looking to have it both ways. They condemn the tax cut in the manner we have, they have said they're going to put money back into health and education the way we have, but they're not prepared to say where the money is going to come from. They want to stay on the supportive side of the tax cut agenda of the existing Tory government.

We think that's wrong and we think it's misleading, and we think that in modern-day politics, people are looking for clarity, they're looking for honesty and they're looking for a party to say, "Here's what we'll do and here's how we'll pay for it."

The problem, of course, is that the government has set down a course that has done so much damage to our communities that the argument that money needs to be put back into education and health care we believe will be very appealing for a whole host of reasons, the biggest of which is, go into any of our communities and ask if they believe the education system is better since Mike Harris took over, if the health care system is better since Mike Harris took over, and I can tell you the answer is no.

I believe that people are also entitled to hear, whether or not they fully want to, where that money is going to come from. That is a fair position, and then if the people decide they want to stay with the course the government has put forward, they will be re-elected. If they want a change, then they're going to look for a party that's going to identify what it's going to do and how it's going to pay for it. I think we are on the road to providing that alternative and that the smoke-and-mirrors games of the official Liberal opposition is way out of its time, way out of its league and people will reject it out of hand.

Let me move to some of the specifics of the budget itself. I want to begin by talking about the impact on my community, my home town of Hamilton. Like most other communities right now, we're wrestling with local budgets at the regional and at the city level. It's this government's agenda, your fiscal agenda, your insistence on taking that $5 billion to $6 billion a year out of our revenue stream to give your wealthy friends a huge tax cut, that has put all this pressure on our councils.

Your Minister of Municipal Affairs stood up when he announced it and said: "This is going to be revenue-neutral. Don't worry, this is just a change of responsibilities and services and nobody is going to lose. This is going to be a fair deal." The fact of the matter is that in Hamilton, at the regional level, we're looking at a $26-million shortfall from the downloading of this government on to my municipal government's area of responsibility directly. I quote from the May 6 editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, which reads in part:

"A $26-million downloading shortfall in Hamilton-Wentworth is helping to drive a 4.9% regional property tax increase this year. What difference will some of the tax reductions from Queen's Park make if they're taken away by higher municipal property taxes?"

What we have said from the beginning is that the average, middle-class working family doesn't benefit from your fiscal agenda. You can say, "We're cutting taxes here, and we've done this with the deficit, and we've done that with the budget," and try to tell people they're better off, but when they go in and pay user fees that were never there before or that have doubled or tripled in cost, when they are paying increases of over $100 a year directly attributable to your downloading scheme, and when we see hospitals on the chopping block - and in Hamilton it's still not resolved.

We still have St Peter's, Chedoke-McMaster or the Chedoke facility, the psychiatric hospital, on the block. We could still lose them all.

In terms of schools, what's happening in Hamilton? Toni Skarica, the member for Wentworth North, legitimately, and I say this quite sincerely, is pushing the issue of new schools needed in his riding because there are so many portables. That's a legitimate issue and I obviously not only support his right, but philosophically that's what one is elected to do here in large part, to reflect those needs.

But because of this government's funding formula and the way you set things up according to the way you want the world to operate, the only way Toni Skarica can say he needs more money in his part of our region, which is one of the newer, expanding areas of our region, is if inner-city schools in Hamilton, many of which I represent because they're in the downtown area, ought to be closed.

It's pretty sad when one of six MPPs in one area, one single community - we are one regional municipality - is bound so badly by this government's financial straitjacket that he publicly says, "You've got to close those schools in inner Hamilton because it's the only way my education minister and finance minister will free up the money I need to have new schools built in my riding to replace all these portables." That's the kind of price the average working middle-class family is facing as a result of what you've done with taxes.

At the same time, of course, we know this government loves to take credit for all the economic activity that's happening. The American economy, in the minds of this Mike Harris-Ernie Eves Tory government, has nothing to do with this; it's all the actions of this government. The fact that there are historically low interest rates has nothing to do with that economy; it's what Mike Harris is doing here. The exchange rate, which is a major determinant of economic activity in our nation, happens to be, at least from a trading point of view, a huge advantage to us. That doesn't come into it.

Oh no, everything that's happening is because Mike Harris is shutting down hospitals and schools and jacking up property taxes and giving a tax cut back to the wealthy. That somehow, in their mind, is creating all this economic stimulation. That's why in the ramp-up to the next election you believe that ordinary people, who have been devastated by your agenda, ought to come back to you.

No matter how much you try to push diversionary tactics like your stuff on crime, trying to make like you're the only one who cares about it and you're going to make that a big enough issue to divert attention away from what you've done to our communities - and if I might, we saw today in the House questions from my colleagues on the results of that kind of misplaced emphasis, which is what that is, when we see a senior 73 years old, an innocent senior, killed as a result of a police chase that may, it's alleged, have involved nothing more than shoplifting.

That sort of policy, and that was the point of our question today, is something your crime commissioners like. They make that argument, that if you go after these areas and hit them hard enough, you'll take care of everything else.

Boy, it's interesting, while I'm mentioning crime, what's not in this budget. Remember the emphasis that was going to be there on new Canadians, and how that leaked out a few days before and blew up big time? It didn't find itself in here, the way you were originally planning to do it.

I don't think this government is going to be able to provide those kinds of diversionary tactics this time around. They worked the last time. Remember they ran the two ads the last time? The one talked about the so-called quota laws, where they played to the concerns people had about the future of their children's opportunity for jo