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

June 18, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L207a - Wed 18 Jun 1997 / Mer 18 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAVE SHANNON

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT IN HAMILTON

SIMCOE ECONOMY

SUDBURY ECONOMY

AIR QUALITY

KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

LABOUR ISSUES

STROKE AWARENESS MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

AIR QUALITY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY / ADOPTION DU BUDGET DES DÉPENSES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAVE SHANNON

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I am proud today to stand in the House and tell all the members of the Legislature about a Canadian hero who hails from Thunder Bay.

Dave Shannon is a poet, an actor, a lawyer and a remarkable advocate for the disabled community in our country. As a result of an accident in 1981, Dave became a quadriplegic. His achievements since then have been an inspiration to thousands of people, but his latest challenge may be his most remarkable yet.

On April 1st Dave began a cross-Canada tour in his wheelchair to promote education and research for persons with disabilities. He has now arrived in Toronto and all of us in the Legislature will have an opportunity to meet with him later this afternoon.

What we will learn is that Dave believes there is no barrier that cannot be crossed, regardless of one's circumstances. He will tell us that creative thinking and appropriate support systems can combine to bring one past virtually any barrier. He will also tell us that our society, with awareness and partnerships, can continue towards justice, civility and equality for all.

But in order for Dave to reach those goals, we must do our part as well. As legislators, we must recognize that supporting Dave and the millions of people he represents requires this government to bring forward its Ontarians with Disabilities Act that it has so long promised, so that equal treatment for those with disabilities will be a reality and not a dream.

I am proud to call Dave Shannon a friend. All of us in Thunder Bay are eagerly awaiting his arrival back home on July 28th. Let's support his cause by taking some needed action right now.

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to thank the members from all parties of the regulations and private bills committee who this morning supported unanimously my bill, Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton. By virtue of their action today, that bill will now be brought to the House for consideration by all of us, and I hope it will receive the same type of all-party support here that it received at committee.

The essence of the bill is that, for the first time ever in any community in the history of Ontario, a municipality will now have the ability to provide grants and loans in community improvement areas, not just to the owners of the properties but also to the tenants. In many cases we've seen the unwillingness of some property owners to take on the responsibility of these loans, thereby denying the long-term commercial tenant an opportunity to participate in improving their property, improving the area, making the business a going concern, which benefits all of us.

We have a number of community improvement areas in Hamilton. We have some money made available by our municipal council. By virtue of this House supporting the committee recommendation to pass my bill, the city of Hamilton will again show leadership in community renewal, in community building and assisting small business, which is vital for all our cities.

SIMCOE ECONOMY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I had the privilege last Thursday of welcoming the Premier of Ontario to the town of Simcoe in my riding of Norfolk. He was there to open the expansion of the Unilever Good Humour-Breyers ice cream plant, which is known locally as the ice cream factory. This was a very important event for the town of Simcoe as the plant employs 400 people and is the largest private sector employer in town.

This opening is an example of what's happening right across Ontario. This government is building a climate of confidence in Ontario which allows the private sector to do what it does best: create jobs. By creating an investment-friendly atmosphere, places like Simcoe benefit. Simcoe is now the largest manufacturer of ice cream products in North America. The plan is working, a plan that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation to create a foundation for opportunity and prosperity, a plan whose goal is to make Ontario the best place in the world to live, work, invest and raise a family.

I wish to thank Premier Harris for his visit and also to thank the Unilever company for their expression of confidence in the town of Simcoe and the people who live there. On a more personal note, both my daughter and the Premier's son had a delicious tour of the ice cream plant. The opening also involved children from St Mary's school, which is located just around the corner.

SUDBURY ECONOMY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to inform the House today of a strong partnership between the government of Malaysia and the people of Sudbury. Last week a Malaysian delegation was in Sudbury to forge a vibrant partnership involving technology transfer with the Northern Centre for Advanced Technology from Cambrian College. This group and the Malaysian government conducted an international design competition for the design of five laboratory buildings.

I'm very happy and proud to announce that the architectural firm of Nicholls Yallowega Belanger from Sudbury and Ellis-Pastore from Sault Ste Marie are the successful candidates and have been commissioned to ensure that these buildings become reality. It is reassuring to know that countries from around the world realize the excellence found in northern Ontario. It is a lessen indeed this government can learn.

I congratulate Mr Ti, Puan Paute, Mr Choong and Mr Poh on their selection. I also congratulate Rick Yallowega and Dave Ellis for their accomplishments. Your northern roots will help you make your mark on the international architectural landscape. These labs will house testing needs which include drinking water, air samples, industrial and municipal waste and surveillance of the industrial workplace. Indeed we can learn from the Malaysian priorities.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Since taking on the environment portfolio on behalf of the NDP caucus, I've been pushing this government to do something positive about air quality. One of the first actions they made was to lift the NDP ban on waste incineration, a move that only makes our air quality worse. Then they cut funding for public transit, at the same time gutting planning legislation certain to create more urban sprawl and greater reliance on the car. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

For a while it seemed that my efforts and those of Pollution Probe, the Lung Association and others were starting to pay off. This minister seemed somewhat committed to vehicle emissions testing. But as summer approaches and the brown cloud threatens our cities yet again, we see no action -- nothing but talk and vague reassurances: "Yes, be patient. We're looking at options."

Please, Minister, you keep telling us that smog kills almost 2,000 people a year in Ontario. That is unacceptable and it is something we can do something about. Will you stop talking, get to work and bring in a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program, and will you announce that today?

KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Speaker and fellow members of the Legislature, I rise today to invite all of you to join with Canada's Korean War veterans and their families as they dedicate the Korean veterans' Wall of Remembrance in Brampton.

On July 27 this dream of Canada's Korean War veterans will finally become a reality. After working towards this event for the past 40 years, they will now see the dedication of a national memorial for all Canadians, particularly those who lost their lives in the Korean conflict.

The forgotten war, as it is known, helped secure the future of a democratic, stable and economically sound South Korea. To preserve and protect this nation and the ideas of peace and democracy, 516 Canadians gave their lives. To remember those brave men and women who gave their lives across the world for our country and an ideal, it is only fitting that we recognize their efforts with a monument to their courage and dedication.

On Sunday, July 27, at 11:30 am everyone is invited to Meadowvale Cemetery in Brampton to remember Canadian veterans, particularly those who fell in battle in the Korean conflict. All veterans, their next of kin and their families are invited to register for the Wall and may do so by phoning 1-888-381-BRAMPTON.

This Wall of Remembrance was built entirely with private donations and serves as a reminder that we cannot forget those who served our nation and that, as a community working together, we can accomplish goals we all believe in.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): People in the front lines of the Toronto Board of Education made it clear today that they will not be teaching students the new curriculum this fall -- will not because they cannot.

This curriculum has been rushed through with virtually no consultation with teachers. It has been dumped on schools at the end of June, with no time for teachers to work together to put this in place for September, let alone get any training they might need.

But even more astounding is that the government has been in such a hurry to make a political statement with its curriculum that it has not taken time to put any curriculum materials in place to back up their new guidelines.

How can teachers teach without curriculum materials? How can students learn if they have no textbooks with their new curriculum in it? How can they pass a test if their workbooks don't let them practise what they're supposed to know at the end of the year?

Once again the Mike Harris government is ramming its agenda through without taking time to get the basics right. None of this is about helping students to achieve. This is all about the backroom boys who rewrote this curriculum, who couldn't care less about how well it works, who just want to make a political statement and get on with it as fast as possible and who are doing it at the expense of students. Yes, we need good curriculum, well taught, well learned. We need a government that takes time to get it right.

LABOUR ISSUES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The Harris Tories at Queen's Park demonstrate a sustained disinterest in the continuing high, double-digit levels of unemployment across this province; in the Niagara region alone, levels of unemployment of 10.9% and almost double that for young people under the age of 25.

This government at the same time demonstrates an obsession for the very worst of the southern United States, like Arkansas and Florida, those so-called right-to-work states where minimum wages are virtually non-existent and where low-wage economies don't sustain small business or service industries and force working people into ever lower levels of poverty.

What this government doesn't dare do through the front door it's attempting to do through the back door. The failed Bill 131 is being emulated now by another Tory backbencher who, by a resolution that's to be debated on June 26 this year in this Legislature, wants to suggest that somehow the mode, the hard-won right of trade unions in the workplace to collect fees, dues, from their members, is somehow undemocratic.

This government, with its jackboot tactics in this Legislature for two years now, has increased utilization of time allocation in its stifling of debate, and now the implementation, with no consultation and no negotiation, of rule changes that will limit debate in the most serious manner shows no regard for democracy and no regard for working people. New Democrats are going to oppose that resolution, just like we opposed Bill --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

STROKE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am very proud to rise in the House today to acknowledge that June is Stroke Awareness Month.

The Ministry of Health, in accordance with our visions of providing integrated, patient-focused health care services, supports the concept of coordinated stroke care for patients in Ontario. Recognizing the enormous cost of strokes on individuals and their families, our government has undertaken several initiatives to prevent stroke and improve care for stroke care patients.

The ministry has already expanded services like CAT scans and MRI services and is developing integrated strategies for rehabilitation. In fact, 66 hospitals now have CAT scans in Ontario and we're tripling the number of MRI services in operation in the province from 12 to 35, one of which is due for the Niagara Peninsula in St Catharines by April 1998. We are also proud of federal approval of a new drug we're expecting, which if approved will improve outcomes for some types of stroke patients.

The ministry has developed a five-year provincial heart health program to address the three key risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, including stroke, like tobacco use prevention, healthy eating and nutrition and increasing levels of physical activity. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has agreed in principle to be a partner with the province in this program. This is good news for Ontarians because of their expertise in these areas.

I am very proud too that the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Niagara will have endeavoured to educate the residents and health professionals alike by providing information about early diagnosis, prevention, recovery and treatment options.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's time for oral questions -- the official opposition.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, who we do not see yet in the House so we will be standing down.

The Speaker: Second question? Stand both of them down?

Mr Phillips: Stand down.

The Speaker: First question, the third party? Leader of the third party?

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Minister of Health is not here, the Premier is not here, so I'm not sure who we can ask the question of either.

The Speaker: The Premier's coming.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it's on the shooting death of a first nations person at Ipperwash and the government's role in that. We know there are many unanswered questions about the government's role in this tragedy. These can only be answered by a public inquiry.

The Liberal caucus feels the key to unlocking what happened at Ipperwash rests with the Premier's records. Your trusted long-time adviser and executive assistant, Deb Hutton, attended high-level meetings on your behalf the day before the shooting, the day of the shooting and each day for several weeks after. However, you have told us that never once from September 1 to October 1, 1995, did she ever prepare any briefing note, any file or any

summary for you. Premier, is this normal operating procedure for your office, that the Premier's executive assistant would attend critical meetings daily and never prepare for the Premier a note, a file or a briefing

summary?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): None of the meetings were our meetings or her meeting or my office meeting or the cabinet office meeting or the Premier's office meeting. So while there were minutes kept, they would be as a result of the lead ministries in this. Native affairs I think had the lead on it. The Attorney General, the minister responsible, can report on that. Those minutes would have been kept and I think have been made available as appropriate through any of the freedom of information requests for those it was deemed appropriate to have them.

Mr Phillips: Imagine the suspicion the people of Ontario have. This was a shooting taking place shortly after you became Premier, the first time a first nations person had been killed in a confrontation with the government, a major crisis. Your executive assistant, your long-time, trusted adviser, Deb Hutton, was there on your behalf every single day, often for three hours, at these meetings. Then your trusted assistant would come back and brief you.

Are you saying that never once in that whole month did she ever write a note, a file, a

summary, a briefing note? Are you saying today that you never once asked her to write down for you what took place at those meetings and what advice she had for you? You're saying Deb Hutton never once wrote a memo or a file or a briefing note to you?

Hon Mr Harris: We are going back over a year and a half ago. I know there were minutes kept by others who hosted the meetings and were responsible for that. I don't recall ever seeing a briefing note or a file from Ms Hutton. She would brief verbally and use what minutes were kept by others who were responsible for doing that.

Mr Phillips: I think the public can understand our suspicion. The Premier is saying that for an entire month his senior staff, on perhaps the gravest crisis facing the government, never wrote the Premier a file, a briefing note, a memo. There is clearly a need for a public inquiry.

Amnesty International said today, not yesterday, today: "We've got grave concerns that major human rights violations took place at Ipperwash in 1995. The way, we feel, to address that is to hold a full and public inquiry so people can see, you know, what happened that night." That's what they said today.

We now have a legal opinion by three lawyers indicating that there are, in their language, "no legal impediments to the government of Ontario ordering the immediate commencement of a public judicial inquiry into the incident at Ipperwash." Premier, if we are able to prove that, are you prepared today to order a full public judicial inquiry into the tragedy at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Harris: We've been very clear on this. We've made public, certainly, all of our role in this. The only decision I recall being made was to seek a civil injunction from the whole matter. Other than that, there's been no real involvement other than being informed and relaying whatever information was appropriate to the public. That's all a matter of public record. We've indicated that when all of the criminal matters and judicial matters going before the court are there and nothing could be prejudiced by that, if at that time further information is required, we'd be happy to do that in the appropriate way.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've gained a reputation, as you well know, for refusing to tolerate opposition, whether it's from the public, from members of your own party or from we who happen to sit on this side of the House. I want you to understand that with your rule changes you're going one step too far.

You are simply and effectively about to severely limit the opportunity for full and thorough debate of important public policy. You are about to limit not only our right as members of the opposition to engage in debate but the right of the media to keep our public informed and for our public to gain a good understanding of what goes on inside this chamber.

Premier, good governments listen and learn from listening. Will you please, in the interests of democracy in Ontario, withdraw your rule changes?

Applause.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the applause. The House leader will be pleased to answer.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Contrary to the statements made, this government has listened long and hard to the people of Ontario. We've had public hearings on quite a number of issues, public hearings on many bills that have come back. Hours and hours, days and days of public hearings have helped shaped the legislation that has gone through the Legislature of Ontario.

I'm pleased to say that the House leaders have had extensive meetings on the proposed House procedures. I believe there's a spirit of goodwill and I think that over the next week we will find a new set of House procedures that will be to the satisfaction of all three parties. That certainly is my goal.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you know full well that your rule changes are going to effectively silence the opposition in this Legislature. You know, as well, that you wouldn't even attempt to do this if you didn't think you could get away with it. The fact that you introduced these changes under cover of a federal election day is most telling in this issue.

Opposition is not something you can merely sweep away. It is an integral component of a healthy and vibrant parliamentary democracy. You have a neat and tidy mind, Premier, and that is a dangerous thing in a democracy. We are not merely some kind of obstacle you can overcome, some kind of bump in the road you can run over. I ask you one more time: Will you withdraw your rule changes?

Hon David Johnson: We certainly have no intention of withdrawing the rule changes, but we have every intention of negotiating and discussing with the other two parties. I find it somewhat interesting that many of the rule changes that are involved we have actually taken from the federal Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: Apparently, in the federal Legislature, Prime Minister Chrétien and the members of the House find that the changes, many of which we are attempting to implement here, allow for more members to be involved in the debate, allow for more time for debate, allow for more time for private members' business, and I would suggest to you are more democratic and allow the members of the House to serve the people of Ontario or Canada in a superior fashion.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, sir, you should understand that these rules have been developed over centuries by parliamentarians who understood only too well that in a healthy, vibrant democracy not only does the government have the right to govern, but the opposition has the right and indeed the obligation to oppose. We are Her Majesty's loyal opposition. When we act, we act in the public interest. What you are about to do, Premier, is to take this rule book and put your stamp on it. I want to tell you that it is completely unacceptable to me, to my caucus and to the people of this province, and I'm not going to put up with it.

Here's your book. Here are your rules. They're not mine.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: I will say in response to the opposition party, which has chosen to leave the House, that in 1989 the government at that time, now the opposition, the Liberal Party of the province of Ontario, brought in rule changes, brought in House procedural changes. At that point Sean Conway was quoted. He indicated, "We felt we were facing a pattern of obstructionism that was really making this place somewhat less effective and less efficient than the people of Ontario expect it to be." That was his quote in 1989. They brought in rule changes.

In 1992, the government, now the third party, brought in rule changes. This government is proposing and has been involved in a negotiated process to bring in rule changes. I hope that those negotiations will be fruitful, that we can all get together and determine appropriate rules to make this place work better for the people of the province of Ontario, and I firmly believe that we can do that.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier, and I want you to know, Speaker, that we are equally upset about these proposed rule changes because, in our view, they do threaten democracy in this province.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, my question has to do with the Amnesty International report released today. The report covers worldwide human rights violations and for the first time, certainly in my memory, it raises an issue in Ontario. It raises the issue concerning the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash.

The researcher for the report says there are still many questions that need to be answered. We agree with some of his questions: "How did the situation come about? Who was in control? Why wasn't it defused in a peaceful manner?"

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, Amnesty International has asked you and we are asking you again, will you hold a full public inquiry into this so these questions can be --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I know the Attorney General can respond.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We've made it very clear that legal matters are currently before the courts that must be completed before any other options can be considered. It would be premature to make a decision or to comment further while these matters remain before the courts. Certainly I can add that the characterization of Amnesty International I think is incorrect and I disagree with it. I take some comfort in the fact that they are reviewing the way they did the report and the conclusions that they made.

Mr Hampton: Amnesty is not reviewing the report. What they note is that Acting Sergeant Deane has been convicted of a crime in respect of this death but that does not change the need for a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the issues, and that's what your government tries to avoid. You don't want to answer questions as to how someone died. What were the events that led up to this?

You're trying to hide behind a criminal investigation but, Mr Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Canada has already held that in this type of situation, and they refer to the Westray mine situation, a public inquiry can go ahead.

So perhaps you can answer this for people: Why can a public inquiry go ahead in the province of Nova Scotia, yet you cannot hold a public inquiry here in the same sort of factual scenario in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harnick: The prudent course and the clear course is that legal matters that are presently before the courts must be completed. That is the wise and prudent course to take. That is the course that we indicated very clearly we would take and that is what we will do. When those legal matters are completed, we will review other options.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): There are too many unanswered questions that remain in the Ipperwash events. The refusal of the government to hold a public inquiry continues to poison the atmosphere. It's creating a very difficult situation and making a bad situation even worse.

Lawyers for the George family today held a press conference in Ottawa. I'd like to quote briefly from a legal opinion they presented at that press conference.

"There was a deliberate political decision by the Ontario government to use violence against the protesters in the park. That decision was made at a very high level, and quite possibly by the Premier personally. We believe that this political decision to use force against native rights protestors was a critical factor in the death of Dudley George."

You must have an inquiry that deals with all the events that led to the tragic death of this unarmed man. Will the government now do what is the right thing, seek the truth through a full public judicial inquiry that does not in any way impinge on further court decisions?

Hon Mr Harnick: That is a question that we have answered many times. I want to say that there has been no refusal, as the member poses in his question. Options remain open.

The one thing I want to take issue with is that there was a decision by this government. The decision by the government was a decision to seek a civil injunction. That was the course the government took. It has been reiterated time and again by the chief of the Ontario Provincial Police that there was no political involvement whatsoever in determining police actions. Quite simply, those are the facts and that is the history of this matter.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Have you made a decision to close the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and turn over its operations and assets to some other body?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): No.

Mr Hampton: Perhaps the Minister of Health can explain this. This is a copy of a work plan for the creation of something called the Addiction and Mental Health Services Corp for the amalgamation of the Clarke Institute, Donwood and the Addiction Research Foundation and the takeover of Queen Street by this new entity. The work plan indicates that this process will be complete by September. Page 9 indicates clearly that the new corporation will, by the end of September, be in a position to acquire Queen Street.

Minister, your hospital commission has yet to release its final report on Metro. It is supposed to be making final decisions based on public input. We hear through the grapevine that the commission may not release its final decisions until September, yet apparently you've already got a process under way to start this new corporation. Can you explain how this can be happening behind closed doors, without public input?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member has to be the last person in the province to know about this process. It's been a very public process. In fact, there were protests a couple months ago in front of this building when your party and others went out and said we'd be closing beds at Queen Street. The process is driven by the Clarke, by the Donwood, by the ARF and by Queen Street. They're trying to get together in terms of governance to be more efficient. They're having discussions, which I think is a very healthy thing. They're all in similar businesses, yet they've run separate institutions for years.

We assured them that if they come up with some agreement and it's consistent with the Health Services Restructuring Commission -- the commission is fully aware of it, as is everybody else in the province who has an interest in these areas -- it's a very positive set of discussions that are going on, and they're being driven by the local area, not by the Ministry of Health.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, in addition to the report we have, we also have a copy of your ministry's letter to Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the HSRC. On page 3 of that Ms Mottershead says: "We believe it is essential that the community services be established ahead of the downsizing and decentralizing and that all resources currently utilized in the delivery of mental health services be retained in the restructured mental health system."

Yet, even though you're questioning the recommendations in that initial report in terms of bed numbers, in terms of the community services -- your own ministry is doing that -- here you've gone ahead with an implementation report when the commission has not even reported. Minister, you really have a lot to answer for when you have talked about how this system has integrity when you are going ahead with an implementation plan that's to be in place in September when the restructuring commission has not even released its report. How many severely mentally ill people at Queen Street are going to be thrown into the street?

Hon Mr Wilson: None. We've reversed the trend of the previous two governments, and not one mental health service has been cut by this government. We've increased mental health services in your own community, on Queen Street, we've put a moratorium on the closure of beds. You closed hundreds of beds in the province and people went out on the street. That was the history of the last 10 years. We put a moratorium on: no beds to close.

These discussions among four institutions are driven by the four institutions. I've not personally been involved in them at all. The commission is fully aware. It has met with the parties involved. They're trying to get their governance and administration streamlined and share resources so there will be more money available for front-line mental health services, a very positive move and one you should be applauding, not condemning.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Premier in regard to the rule changes his government has brought forward, supposedly for discussion, on federal election day.

I want to refer to what happened in this House yesterday and juxtapose that with comments made in 1992 by the Premier's colleague the Minister of Finance, when he was House leader for the third party. The member for Parry Sound said at that time that if any government proceeded unilaterally with rule changes in this place, the assembly would become a very acrimonious place. He also said that rule changes of that sort would not work, that unless there was trust and respect among members in this House, the Legislature could not work.

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

Mr Wildman: With that in mind, you saw yesterday the reaction of the public to these changes, which they believe to be undemocratic. This is not just about reducing the rights of members, it's about the public and their right to have input into legislation. Two months ago we held up your megacity legislation to give the public a chance for a fair debate. Do you think the public should be shut out of public debate, as your rule changes will do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, of course, and that's why this government has had more public involvement, pre- and post-introduction of legislation, in the history of the Ontario Legislature.

Mr Wildman: These rule changes are about getting the government's agenda through quickly without proper scrutiny by the public or in this assembly. I predict, as the member for Parry Sound predicted, that this place will become even more acrimonious if you insist on proceeding in this way. We don't subscribe to the divine right of kings theory of government. The government must be scrutinized and criticized and must listen to the opposition. Why don't you do the democratic thing and withdraw these rule changes so we don't have the kinds of difficulties we're obviously now facing in this assembly?

Hon Mr Harris: I suggest to you that the rule changes being proposed are to facilitate the operation of the Legislature and its committees to maximize the opportunities for debate by all members and to maximize the opportunities for input from the public. I suggest to you that they are consistent with the statement by the member for Cochrane South in 1992 that said:

"We're doing rule changes because it's very, very necessary to have rules that allow the legislation in this House to go through in a smooth and effective manner. When you've got opposition parties playing games, it is quite, quite, quite something."

The rule changes, which are quite reflective of other jurisdictions in Canada, particularly the federal House of Commons, are there --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: -- yes, to try and prevent using up hours and hours and hours and days and days of time in non-productive debate and replacing it with --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. You recently introduced new legislation to update the obsolete Game and Fish Act. This new bill, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, if passed by the Legislature, will increase wildlife protection in Ontario.

As you're aware, outdoor groups have long believed that effective management of fish and wildlife will provide huge environmental and economic benefits. Could you clarify for my constituents and for the outdoorspeople of Ontario what some of the proposed changes are under the new bill and what the rationale behind them is.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Oshawa for the question. I know he has a keen interest in this issue, as do many of his constituents.

I'm sure all members in the House would agree that the Game and Fish Act needs to be updated. This act hasn't been revised in more than 40 years. This new bill, if passed, will lead to improvements in a number of areas, including tougher enforcement of the game and fish laws and expanded protection of a number of species.

Let me speak first to the enhancement of the enforcement provisions. First of all, the new act, if passed, will dramatically increase fines for offences. For example, the maximum fine for commercial offences will be increased to $100,000 and up to two years in jail from the previous maximum fine of $25,000 and one year in jail.

Once passed, this bill will improve our ability to investigate offences. We're looking to give enforcement officers more time on cases, and --

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: -- the limitation period on prosecutions will be extended up to two years from the current six months, to give our officers more time to investigate the tougher cases. Tough enforcement --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Ouellette: As you know, the Toronto Star headline last Wednesday stated, "New Fish, Wildlife Act Tries to Protect Birds, Bears -- and Hunters." There has been a great deal of concern expressed by citizens of this province as well as the Legislature about the protection of wildlife. Outdoor groups have long felt that this province's natural resources should receive effective long-term management.

The other reference in the headline concerned hunters. The treatment of hunters in Ontario is a concern of many of my constituents and a large number of outdoor groups throughout the province. Could you please clarify for these groups what this legislation is seeking to accomplish.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Again I'd like to thank the member for Oshawa for the insightful question. It's true the new bill includes an anti-harassment provision to protect hunters and anglers. In fact, Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in North America that doesn't already have this type of protection in place. As many people in this House would know, this is an important step forward. It may not be of crucial importance to the third party, but it is important to most of the members in the province.

Essentially, our provisions would protect people who hunt and fish or trap from unwanted harassment. This measure would make it illegal to interfere with lawful hunting activity. It will make it illegal to damage traps or to scare wildlife away while someone is legally hunting.

This government recognizes the importance of the hunting and fishing heritage in this province. Just this past Saturday morning I was a guest on the Barclay's outdoor show, the radio program on the Fan 590. I was reminded of the valuable contribution --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm answering, Mr Speaker; this is an important issue and it requires a bit of elaboration -- the outdoors community makes to preserving our wilderness --

The Speaker: If you hadn't wasted that time, you could have got the answer out.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. In your answer to my colleague the member for Algoma, you said your newly proposed rules would maximize the opportunity for public input. As we read the rules and as others have read them, your proposed changes would essentially allow you to ram legislation through here in four days. Can you tell me how that would maximize the opportunity for public input?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the House leader would be pleased to answer this.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): One provision, for example, at the federal level is that the lead speakers, rather than having 90 minutes, would have 40 minutes; subsequent speakers, rather than having 30 minutes, would have either 20 or 10. This allows many more speakers, many more members of the Legislature to get involved in the debate. That's a provision in the federal Legislature whereby they feel that many more elected representatives get involved.

I have indicated that it has never been the intention of this government to ram legislation through and it's not the intention of this government to ram legislation through. I am certainly interested in negotiating with the opposition parties provisions whereby the length of time in the future, after the new changes, would be no shorter than the length of time as it exists presently.

Mr Hampton: My question was very clear. I asked about public input. We understand that your definition of democracy is that a government is elected and then it gets to do whatever it wants for four years. That's become very clear. It became clear with Bill 7, it became clear with Bill 26, it became clear with your attempts around the megacity. You simply wanted to ram through the legislation with no opportunity for the public to understand what was happening, with no opportunity for the public to respond to what you're proposing to do.

I asked you that question and your response was that you don't want to talk about the opportunity for the public. I put the question to you again. The text of the proposed rule changes would essentially shut the public out of the democratic process of passing legislation. The public would have no time to understand what is being proposed, the public would have no time to respond. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. Why are you trying to shut the public out of the democratic process with your rule changes?

Hon David Johnson: I wish to assure the leader of the third party that that's far from the factual situation. In fact, the rule procedures will allow for extra debate in this Legislature, will allow for bills to receive second reading. We have involved the general public far more than the previous government in terms of hearings in Toronto, in terms of travelling across the province. We have a record that's unmatched, certainly by the previous government, in terms of hours and days of public hearings. I can assure you here today that this government fully intends to involve the general public in the future as it has done in the past.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The minister is not -- yes, she is. It's amazing how you knew she was coming, actually.

Mr Pettit: In the federal election of June 2, the people of Canada sent the Chrétien government back to Ottawa for a second mandate. During the previous mandate a number of key issues were discussed regarding a fair share for the provinces in certain areas of federal spending and on rebalancing certain areas of federal-provincial responsibility. Will you please tell my constituents high atop Hamilton Mountain and all Ontarians what expectations our government is putting on federal-provincial relations for the next mandate.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to answer the question from the member for Hamilton Mountain by saying that we have had good working relationships at the intergovernmental level with the government in Ottawa and we are looking very much forward to even improved federal working relationships with it.

Since our government took office, there have been numerous constructive discussions. However, we've made it clear that we do have a couple of challenges in not receiving our fair share of funding. That's not new. In the case of training, we do not receive our fair share and, although in EI we give to the federal government net profit to them of $4 billion, we have some work to do. Also, in the area of the CHST we're looking for our fair share. Over the next mandate of this particular federal government we will seek to redress these imbalances and we look forward to some success in this area.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Minister. That's very positive. I believe it's important that we continue to pressure the federal government to ensure that the needs of the individual provinces are accounted for, and yet not at the expense of the federation. Will the interprovincial social policy council continue to work with the new government and the federal ministers responsible for social policy issues to ensure that Ottawa effectively meets the needs of the provinces and does not intrude into areas of provincial responsibility?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're extremely pleased that the Prime Minister saw fit to appoint to his cabinet some continuity with ministers, and I will say that we particularly enjoy working with the Minister of Human Resources, Mr Pierre Pettigrew. I'd also like to say that we look forward to the positive work of the social policy council.

It is continuing. I was in Calgary last week where we were discussing a number of items to do with -- I might make it blunt from our point of view -- children and jobs, and mechanisms to work better with our colleagues across the provinces and certainly with the federal government. This work will be presented to the premiers this summer at the annual premiers' conference in New Brunswick, and I will finish by saying that we are very much looking forward to continuing our work once again, to see some action at the Prime Minister's level with the premiers in this regard.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Chair of the Management Board. Minister, you got caught, didn't you? The Ontario Grievance Settlement Board said last week that your efforts to require private contractors to hire existing public service employees were a total sham. That was their ruling last week. As a matter of fact your privatization efforts have even violated your own agreement with OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. Now you have to go back and redesign the whole process.

As I've asked you before in this place, will you, when you reopen those requests, assure us that all RFPs, requests for proposals, across the government contain a clause that guarantees disabled people will be hired when a service is privatized?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): There's a little bit of embellishment in terms of "a total sham," etc, but this is a normal Grievance Settlement Board process. There was an application to the Grievance Settlement Board regarding a contract that was put out in the Chatham area. A judgement was made involving the human resource factors for that particular contract. Yes, we're reviewing that situation and certainly the government will comply.

There is another grievance associated with the contract associated with the mail messenger services, so there's very little I can say about that particular situation other than that we have extended the closing for two months on that particular bid and we certainly will be looking at the judgement of the Grievance Settlement Board.

Mr Laughren: I don't think we're asking for too much here. We're asking, in particular in regard to the mail room employees to whom you yourself refer, that when you extend the deadline for closing you simply build into the new -- I don't know whether you're going to issue new requests for proposals or not; why would you extend the deadline unless you're going to do that? -- that when do that, you ensure that the RFPs say that disabled people must be assured of employment with a new employer.

I think it was just last week that your Minister of Community and Social Services talked about the importance of bringing disabled people into the mainstream of society and she said, and I quote, "not to protect them but to work with them to realize their own potential." What better way of showing that you mean those words than to ensure that disabled people now in the employ of the government will be able to continue their employment if you privatize the service where they are now employed?

Hon David Johnson: The human resource factor was built into those situations whereby a piece of the corporation is contracted out, goes out to the private sector, so that the private sector would perform that sort of service. Through the process involving the Chatham contract, there have been questions raised about the human resource factor, whether it was sufficient or not, and the Grievance Settlement Board has made a decision in that regard.

It is an attempt to ensure that all employees, regardless of their situation, have a better opportunity to maintain employment under a private sector contract. We will be looking at it. We will certainly look at the Grievance Settlement Board's proposal, and I can assure that over the next period of time we'll be doing everything we can to comply in all contracts, including the mail messenger contract.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to Minister Ecker, the Minister of Community and Social Services. A recent

article appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record in my riding indicating that there was a requirement for single mothers with children over the age of three to participate in workfare. It goes on to say that single fathers with children under three years of age are not exempt from workfare. Minister, is this a double standard? Could you clarify this

article that appeared in the Record?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the opportunity to make sure that this has been clarified for those residents in Kitchener-Waterloo. Sole-support parents with school-age children, whether fathers or mothers, will be part of Ontario Works, our work-for-welfare program, and the reason we are doing that is because we believe they deserve the same opportunities as those singles on workfare to take advantage of the programs to get off welfare, to get into paid jobs, which is where most of them certainly want to be.

We have made sure that the rules are very flexible so that those parents with school-age children will be able to undertake their activities at the time the children are in school, and if indeed there needs to be child care, there are resources there that will help those parents with appropriate quality child care if they are needed.

Mr Leadston: Minister, you've shared with us the importance of assisting single parents back into the workforce and how you are helping to achieve that goal. What are doing and what is your ministry attempting to do for the young children in our communities that are caught in the system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are two changes we are making, which we think will help young people and families. First, we are making mandatory the dental and vision benefits for a child if the family is on welfare. For many families on welfare those benefits were discretionary, whether the municipality chose to provide it or not. We are making those a mandatory program because we think that dental and health and vision benefits for children are extremely important, so that will be a mandatory service.

The other change we're making is that those 16- and 17-year-olds who have been able to leave the family home and obtain welfare will no longer be able to do that. If there are exceptional circumstances, of course, supports will be there as needed, but we want to make sure that a 16- and 17-year-old, if they're leaving the family home, has to be in school or in an appropriate training, educational, whatever, activity. They have to have adult supervision, and if there is indeed financial support that's required, it will go through a trustee. We don't think we should try and fix family problems --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, contrary to public pronouncements you made and that junior minister Jackson made regarding full province-wide public hearings on your WCB attack called Bill 99, you have only allowed four half-days here in Toronto and six days for the rest of the province in the summer intersession. Yet this is for a bill that completely replaces the WCB act that you have said is complex and far-reaching. When we did Bill 49, your changes to the Employment Standards Act, which you said were minor and housekeeping in nature, you agreed to four full weeks of province-wide public hearings.

Knowing that there are hundreds and hundreds of groups and individuals that want an opportunity to speak to this bill that's going to have such a fundamental effect on their lives, how do you square such a few measly days on Bill 99 and yet four full weeks on Bill 49? How do you do that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I think it's important to remember that when we were in opposition we had already put forward our plan for overhauling the WCB. What we are simply doing in Bill 99 is building on what we had indicated in opposition we would do.

We have been meeting with our stakeholders since early 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 until the present time, so there certainly has been ample time for consultation. In fact, the Premier felt it was so important he designated Mr Jackson with responsibility for WCB reform, and Mr Jackson spent a whole year travelling this province and meeting with stakeholders.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, just before your supplementary, we refer to the ministers by title. It's the minister without portfolio responsible for seniors.

Mr Christopherson: You mean when I said "junior minister Jackson," that's what I should have said?

The Speaker: Yes. It's minister without portfolio.

Mr Christopherson: I will follow that direction in the future, Speaker.

The fact is that we had overflow crowds here on the first day of hearings into Bill 99. You have not been meeting with injured workers and their representatives. They have specifically asked you for one large meeting, which has been done in the past, so that they can all, together, with the support they receive from one another, give you the stories you need to hear if you were truly listening.

We listened to the Premier earlier today talk about wanting public input. Here's your opportunity to prove it. Prove that you and the Premier and your government care about what the public have to say. Prove that we're wrong when we say your rule changes will stifle people's opportunity to have input. Prove me wrong when I say you're afraid to meet with injured workers. Prove me wrong by standing up now and saying you'll extend those public hearings and allow all those injured workers who want and deserve an opportunity to bloody well be heard.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you well know, every MPP in this House, from the time they're elected, meets with injured workers. We have all been meeting with injured workers. We continue to hear the stories, and obviously the stories impact us. I would indicate to you that during my term as Minister of Labour I have continued to extend an invitation to the injured workers to meet with me. As recently as January 29, 1997, I wrote a letter to them extending an invitation, and I have never yet received a response to the letter I sent to the Toronto Injured Workers' Advocacy Group. I will simply indicate we are more than willing to meet with injured workers at any time.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): My question is for the Solicitor General. According to press reports yesterday, Ross Hastings, the chairman of the National Crime Prevention Council, stated his opposition to the establishment of the strict discipline facility for young offenders, which is commonly referred to as a boot camp.

According to the report, "`The kids who go to boot camps, whether they go for three months, six months, nine months, don't come back better kids -- they may be fitter, they can run away faster, they can get into more trouble, but they're not better citizens,' Hastings said."

Minister, would you please indicate to the members of the House the goals you are striving to attain in the establishment of the strict discipline program and what research your ministry has completed which makes you believe the goals are realistic.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I read those comments as well and I'm not sure how Mr Hastings reaches those conclusions, since this is a pilot program and a made-in-Ontario program based on the best of a variety of programs we've studied throughout North America. I would urge him to hold off on reaching conclusions until we've fulfilled the pilot tenure, which is three years.

I think the comments were essentially reflective of the views of the government that appointed Mr Hastings. We've had resistance from the federal government with respect to new initiatives and this is a new initiative we feel is clearly justified by the fact that about 80% of the individuals who are residing in provincial jails are folks who have had experience in the youth justice system. Almost 65% of the individuals in the youth justice system are repeat offenders, so clearly we have to look at new initiatives, new alternatives, new directions, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Hastings has also suggested that the educational and rehabilitative aspects of the strict discipline program we are introducing in the province will merely result in graduating a better class of young criminal.

I know that my constituents in my riding of Kitchener, and many other people throughout the province, have great concerns about the apparent increase in youth crime. Minister, will the strict discipline program include educational and rehabilitative components? If so, what are your expectations as to the effect of these programs on young offenders continuing to break the law when they are released from the program?

Hon Mr Runciman: Yes, Project Turnaround will have specialized educational opportunities, programs such as substance abuse, anger management and a variety of courses which will be available to repeat young offenders who will be housed in Project Turnaround. We have had the program based on the outline that was made public some time ago, endorsed by the London Family Court Clinic, the Clarke Institute, a number of very well respected organizations and institutions.

I think the comments of the federal appointee are reflective of the federal government's view towards young offenders. They have ignored the frustrations of the public with respect to the Young Offenders Act, the fact that it simply is not doing the job. They've ignored recommendations form this government with respect to very meaningful changes that should occur with the act. They are cutting back on our funding. In fact, they're suggesting that they're going to reduce our funding by $3 million in the upcoming fiscal year, the only province in Canada to suffer a reduction. The federal government is not in a position to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Solicitor General. New question, third party.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the minister against the environment. Minister, for nearly two years --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No, do you know what? You've said it now, we have to do it properly, and I ask the member for Riverdale to withdraw that comment and refer to the minister by the proper title.

Ms Churley: I will withdraw it. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. For nearly two years I have been demanding action from you and from your predecessor, Brenda Elliott, on the auto emissions that create dangerous air pollution in our province. I have the Hansards here of the weasel words this government has been using to avoid taking a position on this, like, "We're exploring our options," like "We want to see how well it works on a public basis." The minister acknowledges that almost 2,000 people a year are killed in Ontario through this. Will you bring in a mandatory auto emissions program?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I, of course, have said that air quality is of great concern to me and to this government. Smog is caused by a number of factors, including the emissions from automobiles and cars and trucks and everything else in terms of the transportation area.

We are looking very seriously at a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program. We are, however, cautious about how we're doing this, because in the 32 states in the United States, and in British Columbia, the first program each of those jurisdictions introduced failed and they had to go to a second, and in some cases a third program. So we are looking very carefully at the options before we go ahead so that we can ensure, number one, that we get the emissions reductions we are aiming for and, number two, that the public will buy into this particular program.

Ms Churley: Minister, why don't you look at the many programs that are working, like BC's, for instance? You keep talking about the ones that have failed. The previous minister, in one of her responses, let her mask slip a bit. She said, "The Conservative Party believes people want government out of their face." This is an approach that puts free market ideology over the health of our people. Remember, and let me remind you again, as you yourself said, nearly 2,000 people a year die in Ontario because of smog. Part of that is contributed, as you know, by the automobile.

There are many safe and workable programs in existence already. I ask you again. There is no reason to stall any more. Our government started with an experimental, voluntary one. It worked. It is time to get on with it.

Hon Mr Sterling: I appreciate the concern of the member and her knowledge with regard to this matter. However, it is true that the programs in the United States have met with varying degrees of success in terms of what they have achieved. It is our hope that we will be able to bring forward in this province a program which will meet our needs.

The kinds of reductions that are aimed for in other jurisdictions do not necessarily match the same kind of reductions we are looking for here. In the end, we will have a program. We will have a program that affects the areas that need this kind of protection, we will have a program that will be accepted by the public and we will have a program that is fair to all the citizens of Ontario.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. One of the big priorities in my constituency in the last provincial election campaign was welfare reform. The people in my constituency said the welfare system was broken and they wanted major change.

Home ownership is one of the important goals for many hard-working families in my riding. While many struggle to save a down payment, they watch others on social assistance enjoy tens of thousands of dollars of equity in their own homes and sometimes own their own homes outright. Can the minister inform the House if this is fair for the working poor of Ontario and how she would propose to change this in the Ontario Works legislation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): In the reforms we did on welfare legislation we set out some very clear objectives that we wanted to achieve with the reforms. The first one is to ensure that the program is a transitional program of last resort to help people get back into the work force, that the program must be fair to those who are in low-income working positions, and third, that people should be better off working than they are on social assistance.

So one of the policies that we have put forward in our legislation is that we would, in certain circumstances, place a lien on a house, not forcing people to sell but it does give the taxpayers the opportunity to recoup the investment they have made in this person's future.

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code relating to public nudity be clarified to provide better protection of community standards;

I submit this petition by signing it.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): It seems I can't go into a restaurant or a store in my riding without receiving a petition on health care. I received these last night from ladies who run Hewitt's Dairy Bar near Hagersville. There are well over 400 signatures from Tillsonburg, Simcoe, Delhi, Townsend and Port Dover, as well as many points beyond my riding.

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities; and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I affix my signature to this.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature and it reads:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules for the Ontario Legislature which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll just go to the NDP, then come back to the Liberals. There was a mistake made at the beginning. So to be fair with everyone, I would now recognize the member for Hamilton Centre and after that the member for Port Arthur.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time. I'll explain again: There was a mistake made at the beginning. There was a member from the government who was recognized, and a second one was recognized. In order to correct the mistake, I will now recognize the member of the NDP, a Liberal, and then start the rotation again to be fair with everyone. Good. The member for Hamilton Centre.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you, Speaker. I'm sure all members would want to give proper respect to a petition from Ontarians regarding WCB and workers' health.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, like injured workers, I'm just going to keep trying and trying and trying.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government's contribution to prevention services made through the WCB has been reduced from $62 million to $47 million, with no explanation as to where this money has gone; and

"Whereas the prevention services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and other safety associations, thereby increasing the demand for the prevention services provided by the centre; and

"Whereas the government has gutted the certification training standards for health and safety committee members and is replacing them with minimalist performance standards which, in combination with funding cuts, have resulted in a 40% reduction in the staff of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre is facing further cuts of $2.3 million to finance the establishment of several new employer safety associations, thereby duplicating administrative costs and services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the gutting of the funding of prevention services provided by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

Further we, the undersigned, demand that the moneys taken from the health and safety prevention services of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the other safety associations be returned to them."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of the people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I read this on behalf of the backbenchers of the government party as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from members of the Service Employees International Union, Local 268, in Thunder Bay. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has begun a process to fundamentally alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations with the release of the discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas these changes threaten to deregulate the health and safety protection for workers and reduce or eliminate the rights of workers and joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the ministry intentionally organized meetings in a manner which allowed only marginal opportunity for workers to discuss with the ministry the issues raised in the discussion paper; and

"Whereas workers deserve a full opportunity to be heard regarding the proposals that threaten the legislated provisions that provide them with protection from workplace injury, illness and death;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the deregulation of workplace health and safety and any erosion of the protection provided workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Further we, the undersigned, demand that province-wide public hearings be held once any amendments to the act are introduced," and certainly a lot more than the measly few days WCB is getting.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition signed by 700 people in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, support our OPP, especially Sergeant Deane, in their testimony and actions taken at Ipperwash park; and

"We believe all of the OPP acted properly in their line of duty."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario are incensed about the Mike Harris plan to kill debate in the Legislature. The petitions are rolling in with signatures from all across the province. This petition reads:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to sign my name on behalf of many other constituents as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, OPEIU, Local 343. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre has provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre has made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre."

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I add my name to theirs.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 49 tenants from 2500 Bathurst Street in my riding.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have yet another petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I concur and will affix my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I request leave to present the 39th report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mr Laughren: No.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr81,

An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation

Bill Pr82,

An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services

Bill Pr83,

An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY / ADOPTION DU BUDGET DES DÉPENSES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to call orders 44 to 52 inclusively so that they can be moved and debated concurrently.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the understanding that this is for purposes of debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that's what it is. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I move concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Ministry of Natural Resources

Office of Francophone Affairs.

I really don't have any particular comments to make other than that this is an important debate and I know that all parties will participate. It's a debate that involves the estimates of the province of Ontario, so essentially it allows the members an opportunity to speak about the spending in any of the ministries I've listed, Education and Training and Health being two big ministries, but all of the other ministries which are important to the people of Ontario.

I might say what's behind this, although it's maybe not too visible, is a great deal of effort by each individual ministry to bring forward its plans and its expenditures for the fiscal year. There's a great deal of thought and effort that goes into it. There's a great deal of thought and effort that goes into it from my particular ministry as well, Management Board, in terms of analysing the estimates, in terms of ensuring that taxpayers get value for the dollars they spend. We know that taxpayers pay a great deal towards the running of the province. The expenditures are about $50 billion a year in total for Ontario.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): And billions more in interest charges.

Hon David Johnson: As my colleague across the way is saying, interest charges unfortunately make up a very high proportion of the total expenditures, and this is something that has been carried over for a number of years. The reason those interest charges are there is that the debt of the province of Ontario has gone up, particularly between 1990 and 1995, that debt being over $100 billion at the present time.

The good news, though, in that regard is that the annual deficits which register the shortfall between expenditures and revenue -- unfortunately, we spend more than the money that's coming in -- are going down. This year the deficit will be about $7.5 billion, which is still much too high but at least it's on a downward track. By the end of this term that deficit will be eliminated.

The other piece of good news is that actually the revenues are coming up. Not only are expenditures for the province going down, which is primarily what we'll be talking about today -- the government has cut its cloth to suit its means and has reined in expenditures across all ministries, has reduced expenditures at the same time as developing efficient programs to serve the people of Ontario. To tackle that deficit, not only have the expenditures come down but the revenues are very buoyant. That is partially a result of the fact that more people are working in Ontario.

In the last three months, according to the statistics -- I guess it's Stats Canada which keeps these statistics -- some 100,000 more people are working in Ontario, which is good news. It's good news for those people who are working, certainly, but it's good news for governments too, because of course if 100,000 more people are working, then they're paying taxes. Many of them are coming off welfare, for example, many of them want to get off welfare and get working, and they are getting that opportunity.

By getting that opportunity and working, they are earning money, are paying taxes and we have more taxpayers now in the province. With more taxpayers, more money comes in and helps to reduce that deficit.

It also helps with the excellent programs we have in Ontario. I know that many of my colleagues in the House on all sides will be talking about those programs -- education programs, health programs -- that we are proud of that we are delivering to the people of Ontario, not to say there can't be improvements in those programs, but I think we recognize in the province of Ontario that in many regards we're fortunate to have excellent health care, good education programs, good justice programs, and we need to work on them and make them even better.

There is reason to continue to work hard on the financial picture, the expenditures of the province of Ontario, but there's every reason to say that at least we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We see that the expenditures are coming under control from the various ministries. We see that expenditures are coming more in line with the revenues we have. We see that expenditures now are sustainable into the future years and that those very programs we enjoy and have enjoyed will be sustainable in the future years for the younger people, for our children and our grandchildren. That I believe is important to us.

We see that revenues are coming up, we see that more people are being employed, we see that we're heading on the right track, but the job is not finished. The job is never finished. We need to continue to work to improve those programs and to ensure that the expenditures in each ministry are focused on delivering the best service to the people of Ontario, giving the best value to the people of Ontario that we can possibly achieve.

With those few comments I will sit down and allow the debate to carry on with the other members.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on supply and on the government's financial plans.

I think the people of Ontario, as they watch the Legislature, periodically are somewhat perplexed about the place because the opposition has one view and the government another and they may wonder where are the facts of the matter.

I would say to the people of Ontario that we've had in the last week, I guess the last 10 days, three very professional organizations whose job it is to look at the fiscal plans of governments, companies and organizations and to assess those plans and to rate their creditworthiness -- these are organizations which get paid by organizations that are going to loan money to governments or to companies. Obviously, how much interest you pay depends on how creditworthy you are.

The organizations that have issued their reports on Ontario in the last few days are Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Service, all three of them highly reputable international companies whose judgement is respected in the financial community.

They looked at the government's finances and all three of them reached the same conclusion, that the government is putting the fiscal health of the province at risk with its tax cut. So for the people at home who are watching, as to the 30% tax cut, without question, the government's numbers show that people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars -- $250,000 -- a year are going to get a $500 million tax break.

What Moody's, Standard and Poor's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service all say is that is a risky proposition. It puts at risk the fiscal health of the province of Ontario. Moody's the other day said that in their opinion we are at the midpoint of the economic cycle, that we should expect, as normal, a downturn, perhaps in two years, and that at that point in time the government is going to have to cut deeper than they had planned to keep the fiscal house in order.

While Mike Harris is very proud of his plan for the 30% tax cut, the independent agencies that look at the fiscal health of the province have raised real concerns. Interestingly enough, I remember Mike Harris was absolutely apoplectic at Bob Rae. Mike sat right there somewhere and Bob Rae sat over there. Mike Harris used to rail at him about the credit rating of Ontario because it used to be AAA and it was downgraded to AA+, AA, AA-, and Mike Harris essentially said that is unacceptable.

What do we find? All three that have looked at the financial plans of the province of Ontario have given Mike Harris exactly the same credit rating they gave Bob Rae. This is looking at the budget and looking at the future.

You are putting the fiscal health of the province at risk and many of the programs that the people of Ontario have come to regard as fundamental to a quality of life -- our programs for our seniors, our health care programs. Incidentally, as the doctors' agreement said, we are going to see the population grow by about a million and a half people over the next 10 years, with the people over the age of 65 increasing dramatically, but we've decided that the province can afford a 30% tax cut that benefits the best-off in this province, and Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Service have all said to us that is high risk.

What else are we doing to put at risk the future financial health and our programs? One way the government has decided to get its spending down, to cut spending so that it can do the tax cut -- what have they done? -- is they've loaded expense on to property tax. I keep saying this to the Legislature because in less than a year now the people of Ontario are going to get a huge shock when they get their property tax bill. One of the reasons they're going to get a huge shock is the province of Ontario decided to dump, to download, to add on to property tax, about $660 million of new cost.

They've taken costs that used to be the provincial costs and they've pushed them on to the municipalities. That alone takes property tax up by about 5%, just that one item.

By the way, I will add, particularly to the seniors in this province, all of the social housing now is on property tax. It used to be handled by the province out of broadly based taxes. It's all going now on to property taxes. When we recognize, as we in the Liberal caucus do, that a majority of social housing is for seniors, as it should be -- I think the measure of a society is how it deals with its young people and how it deals with its seniors. But the government has decided to dump all of the social housing on to property tax, 100% of social housing.

I absolutely guarantee you that, as our seniors realize that in difficult times they're going to have to go to city hall when property taxpayers are hard-pressed and they're going to have to be begging for the local property tax to continue to ensure they have quality accommodation, we're simply asking for problems.

I would add further that the dumping went on to dumping on to rural municipalities the cost of a program for our farm community. It used to be that there was something called the farm tax rebate, paid for by the province, and with good reason; supported by all parties, I might add. But the province says, "No, we want to cut $170 million out of our support for our farm community, so we're going to discontinue that program but we're going to insist that the municipalities pick up the cost of it."

When we were dealing with the property tax bill, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said: "You can't do this. You are dumping $170 million of new cost on to rural municipalities." Certainly our farm community deserves it, but the rural municipalities can't afford it out of property taxes. But somebody has got to pay for the tax cut. That's how the province has decided to fund it.

They've added about $180 million of policing on to property taxes. I have a saying about Mike Harris: He's all badge and no money. He loves the photo opportunities with our policing community, loves to drive around in the OPP cruisers with the nice hat on, but they've cut $180 million out of police financing for our municipalities.

The reason I raise all of this is because the government has to find the money for the tax cut. Now people are beginning to realize and ask, "How am I paying for it?" They're paying for it by user fees on policing and fire services. Now our seniors' housing is 100% on the property tax, and I repeat that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario begged our committee -- Mr Pouliot and myself were on it -- "Don't go ahead with the dumping of these costs on to our rural communities." But no, the government had to push forward with that.

Another way the government has decided to manage to cut its expenditures is that now, for the first time ever, the province is going to set the property tax mill rate for education on businesses and on residences. That used to be something that was handled by the local municipality. A local school board would set the local rate. Now, for the first time ever, the province is going to be setting the educational mill rate.

My friends in the business community thought education was coming off property tax. I said, "No, none of it, zero is coming off." The only issue, and there's a group going around the province now, is whether some businesses are going to pay more and some less. But the province is determined to raise the same amount of money, and similarly with the residential.

I remember very well early in January something called mega-week, when Mike Harris said: "It's unfair to have residences paying education property tax. We're going to take it off completely." Of course, they hadn't done the numbers. They made the announcement before they did the numbers. When the numbers finally came out, they had to begin to wipe some egg off their face and backpedal on it. Those people who heard the chamber of commerce speech by Mike Harris, that they're going to remove education from residential property tax, have had quite a little surprise, because Mike Harris found out he couldn't do it. Now, of course, it's heavily back on to property tax.

Also going 100% on to property tax are some of the health areas. Any debate we've had on health here in Ontario for the last 15 years probably has been about the need to have a totally integrated health system, to find ways, to use the jargon, to make it seamless. Yet, surprise, surprise, the province has actually decided to fragment health care. Now, surprisingly, public health and ambulances are 100% on property tax. Rather than this well-integrated health system, we're finding that the way the government is getting its spending down is by dumping a substantial amount of cost on to municipalities.

I would just say to the municipal politicians who are, hopefully, watching at some stage, I really think you do the property taxpayers a disservice by not raising the fact that they are picking up a substantial amount of the cost of the Mike Harris income tax cut, because, as we all know, when property taxes go up, people get very, very angry. There's no doubt in my mind that a year from now, when those property taxes come out, they're going to be extremely angry.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wondered if you would ascertain whether or not there is a quorum here.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The thing that often surprises people who watch proceedings here but aren't intimately involved with them, and that's understandable -- I say to them, "You realize that the province isn't going to balance its budget until March 31, 2001." That's what the government says: March 31, 2001. As a matter of fact, that's a year after the latest possible day of the next election.

I say to them, "You realize that Mike Harris has decided to" -- and this was in the budget; you just get yourself on page 32 and you look at the cumulative deficits, how much they are adding to the debt of the province from the time he became Premier. You can see it's $30 billion. Well, $30 billion is a lot of money. It's equivalent to the debt that was accumulated over the first 120 years of the province. Mike Harris is adding $30 billion to the debt of the province.

We all understand the need to tackle the deficit, and that's why children on social assistance have had to take a 20% reduction in the level of support for them. I think there are half a million children on social assistance. They're getting by right now with 20% less than they did before, because we have this terrific deficit problem. That's why seniors have had to pay a user fee, even though Mike Harris guaranteed there would be no user fees on drugs. But the seniors have had to pay a user fee because we have this deficit we have to tackle. Actually, the people of Ontario are quite understanding of that. They know they have to get our fiscal house in order.

Then I say to them, or they often say this to me -- "If we have such a huge problem with the deficit" -- people on social assistance, seniors, our educational community; we've got to close a third of the hospitals in this province, all to get at that deficit -- "tell me again how we can afford a tax cut that will give people making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, $250,000 a year, a $500-million tax break?"

There is where people question the priorities of Mike Harris. If we have to do all of these very tough things -- and I might add, there are more tough things coming -- to get our deficit and our debt under control, tell me again how we can afford that sort of tax cut and one that, without question, the more you make, the bigger the benefit.

The government itself says, "What is the impact on revenue losses as a result of the tax cut?" Here it is. The revenue changes, the tax cut, cost $4.815 billion a year, and that's in 1996-97 numbers, and it goes up to about $5.5 billion. You can see it actually in the government's own revenue estimates. You can see they've said that personal income tax revenue in 1995-96 was $16.3 billion, then it goes to $15.6 billion, and this year, 1997-98, they're predicting $14.5 billion.

The reason I raise all of this is that without any question of a doubt, the income tax cut represents a substantial loss of revenue. The government's own numbers show that. Every single penny of that we have to go out and borrow. We are going out to borrow the money to fund the tax cut. I say to my business friends, if you are running this like a business, and that certainly is not the way it's being done, would you declare that kind of dividend when you're still running those huge deficits? The answer, of course, is no.

So why is the tax cut being done? The first and foremost reason is because the Reform Party was going to enter provincial politics in 1994 and the only way you could keep them out, the only way Preston Manning would not run candidates here, was for Mike Harris to put together a Reform agenda -- and it worked. The unfortunate deal was that Mike Harris had to promise he wouldn't support Jean Charest in the next federal election, and we saw what happened there.

Jean was left hanging out to dry as Mike sat on his hands, and the Reform Party said some things that I don't think were in the best interests of the Progressive Conservative federal party or of Canada. Anyway, that's the price that Mike was prepared to pay: "Reform, don't come into Ontario. We'll give you a Reform agenda anyway."

As a matter of fact, many of the members are supporters of the federal Reform. They make no bones about it. During the campaign I saw several of the provincial Conservative caucus on television at Reform meetings and making no bones about it. Many of the members have been active in the federal Reform Party. I know that. I understand all of that. I'm just saying, if the deficit is such a huge problem, how can we afford a 30% cut in personal income tax? You can say, "Well, it will stimulate the economy." If you want to borrow that kind of money to stimulate the economy, perhaps.

On the job front, here in the Legislature we do get into an argument around numbers: "A thousand jobs a day created." "No, no, it's something different." Just in very simple terms, there are more people out of work today in Ontario than the day Mike Harris became Premier. That is fact. That is absolute fact.

Many people on social assistance actually voted for Mike Harris because he said, "I am going to make sure you get a job." In fact, here's the language that Mike used: "There are more than half a million people unemployed in this province." He railed against that in the Common Sense Revolution. Guess what? Today there are 505,000 people out of work in Ontario, as of May 1997.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy is youth unemployment. As long as there's no recognition by the government that it's a problem, it will never be solved. If Mike Harris simply wants to say, "The revolution's working; don't worry, youth unemployment is not a problem," we will never solve this. If you look at the numbers that are happening right now, in 1997, the unemployment rate for the first five months in 1997 among young people was 18.5%. Last year at the same time it was 16.3%. It is a problem. Believe me, it's a problem.

I take my hat off to some of the private sector people. I repeat this. There's an organization, Careers First, that is working hard at trying to help young people in the workforce. I attended a session a couple of weeks ago sponsored by one of the major banks, the CIBC; a very fine job by them looking at the issue of youth unemployment and putting together a group of corporations that would help to begin to deal with it. But as long as Mike Harris says, "This is not a problem," we'll never tackle this.

I say again, there are more people out of work in Ontario today than when Mike Harris became Premier. The reason I say that is that people on social assistance, for whatever reason, I'm afraid are an easy target for a society that can be angry about things. It's perhaps understandable, but if you're on social assistance and you are looking for work -- all of us in our constituencies deal with people on social assistance.

We know that the overwhelming majority of them would like nothing better than to have a decent job, but when we have more people out of work today than when Mike Harris became Premier, clearly it is a challenge for people on social assistance, or any people, to get a job. And we all know many, many young people who are desperate to find work. I say, as part of the government's approach, there is a terrific danger that we are dividing this province along the lines of those who have and those who don't have.

I mentioned earlier about how the government is dealing with cutting its costs. Clearly one way they're doing it is loading them on to the property tax. I would just say that we had been promised a bill by the Minister of Finance. He said he would have it in the spring. Well, spring is here, spring is almost gone, and the bill isn't here. What was that bill supposed to do? It was supposed to help small business property taxes. I can guarantee you this: The bill that the Legislature currently has passed, over our objections, over the NDP's objections, because we saw that it was going to hurt small business, does not allow municipalities to in any way assist small business.

By the way, the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, raised this issue with us and with the government. They said, "We've been calling for property tax reform; ironically, this is going to hurt us." What's going to happen there, in a rather technical way, is that something called the business occupancy tax is gone. That's $1.6 billion. It's all going to be added right back on to the realty tax and that's going to drive realty taxes up dramatically; more on small business, less on large business. So large business is going to benefit and small business is going to be dramatically hurt.

I also want to say just a word about the 407 because it will in the end prove very interesting to us. Its opening has been delayed for six months; it was supposed to open January 1. It now looks like the costs are obviously escalating, because the interest is growing on the fact that the tolls have not started up.

It's positioned as, "This road's going to pay for itself." I will be very interested in seeing the reports on it. That's what it's supposed to do, but it looks to me like the cost is well over $1 billion. The tolls are going to perhaps be $50 million to $60 million and the costs $20 million. We're looking at net tolls in the $50-million range to carry a $1-billion cost. It doesn't work. I gather that today they announced the expansion of it. We will be looking for the finances of that project to ensure that it isn't simply a way of the government borrowing more money off the books.

I want to close by saying how concerned we in the opposition are about the approach the government takes. I call it a bully approach. I've seen it in Ipperwash. I continue to feel very strongly that the government made the key decisions involved in handling what I call the Ipperwash affair, the Ipperwash incident, where a first nations person for the first time in over 100 years was killed in a land claim confrontation with the government of Ontario.

We have been told the government had nothing to do with it. We find minutes indicating the government made the decision to get those natives out ASAP. We know the Premier's executive assistant was at daily crisis meetings, often for three hours, instructed to go back to the Premier, to advise him on what was happening, and we're told there was never a minute or a note or a motion kept, forever, which is just unacceptable. We're told they can't have a public inquiry. We find there's precedent for holding public inquiries under similar circumstances.

That's why we're so angry about the rule changes. The day we forget we are here to represent the public -- the public simply gave us the authority to come down and represent them, not to come down here and do whatever we want. Furthermore, the public has elected what's called an opposition to challenge and ask questions and examine. Nobody has the right to dictate their agenda.

There is no question that the rules that have been laid before us -- I hope the public will appreciate that what Mike Harris really wants to do is have the authority to do whatever he wants, at whatever speed, with as little debate and input as possible. That is not what the public wants. The public expect an opportunity for their government to explain what they're doing, to outline what they're doing. If they are proceeding to do things that the public feel aren't appropriate, the public wants a chance for input on that before it becomes law.

If you tried these rules on a municipality, the province of Ontario would step in and say: "That municipality is a dictatorship. The public are being shut out." But we now find these rules that are attempting to gag and to stop legitimate debate by opposition. I know from experience the public watches and has difficulty in getting agitated about rules, but fundamentally, I guarantee you that if you give any government authority to do whatever they want and that power, any government becomes abusive. Every government needs to be held accountable. This government is asking for the authority to become abusive.

I'm pleased to add to the debate on our budget bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Vous me permettrez bien sûr de participer aux débats émanant du dernier budget provincial où plusieurs ministères ont subit, ont été assujettis à des coupures sérieuses.

The last provincial budget was a bit like Bre-X. The package looked very good; the budget book reads quite well. But when you open and scrutinize, when you indulge in due diligence, you find out it's quite deceiving, that there is a focus on changing responsibilities, downloading on municipalities, in order to attempt to make ends meet.

The people at Standard and Poor's of New York, the people at the Dominion Bond Rating Service -- I trust they are based in Toronto -- and the Canadian Bond Rating Service -- I know that one is based in Montreal -- have been poring over Ontario's books for weeks now. They make it their business to assess the books and the performance of large borrowers. The province of Ontario continues to be a very large borrower.

The bond rating agency has issued a caution to the province. When you read between the lines, once you get past the legalese, they're asking, "Is it wise to get an extension on your credit card, or is it wiser to pay your debt?"

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): You tell me.

Mr Pouliot: I'll tell you, and you should know. What they're saying is that you should forgo all future cuts in taxes in order to upgrade your rating. As the people opposite know, every level of rating accorded by the agencies represents 25 basis points in the interest rate, which translates into approximately $25 million. If the province of Ontario was to achieve an AAA rating, it would need to upgrade three times, and this would result in a saving of 75 basis points, translating into $75 million that it could hit the deficit with, maybe put a little more money into hospitals, into health, into education.

It would make immense economic sense to hit the deficit as opposed to opt for a tax cut.

But life is not so simple if you're a member of the Conservative-Reform Party of Ontario. They went out soliciting big-time prior to the June 8, 1995, election. This lot would have done and did practically anything and everything to get a majority government, to form the government. Some of their promises they're coming close to keeping. Others have gone by the boards.

I read in the paper the other day someone mentioning that it was the big lie, after going through the program. I'm not the one saying this, Mr Speaker -- it is not parliamentary -- but this is what I read. It said the government shied away from the truth.

Recall, and I don't see it in the budget, that they said there would be no new taxes, that there would be no user fees because a tax is a tax, no matter what you call it. Yet if you're a senior, you've been punished, you've been levied for the first time. You will pay a $100 deductible for prescribed drugs if you are not straight on the poverty line. If you are among the less fortunate, you will pay a minimum of $2. They will show no mercy. They don't call it a user fee, but if you use prescribed drugs, you have to pay the fee. You can't get around it. You can't be hypocritical about it. A fee is a fee.

Then they had the audacity -- the program started on July 15, 1996 -- to state that not only were the seniors going to get hit with this new levy, but once a year the process would repeat itself. They couldn't wait. They quickly became insatiable, so they went to the seniors again in April -- not in July -- eight and a half months after, and said, "Open your purse, open your pocket, because we're here to pick it."

An honourable member, when presented with this situation, would have one opportunity, one exit, and that would be to resign. I can assure you that if a similar situation had occurred when we were the government, having been fortunate to be a minister of the crown, I would have tabled my resignation. I would have had a great deal of difficulty showing up in the House. They got caught. No new fees --

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Like the social contract.

Mr Pouliot: I see the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines, who takes a great deal of pleasure in interjecting. In 30 seconds he can tell us a lot more than he knows.

I want to share with him, since he's responsible for northern development, the vehicle population statistics for northern Ontario: passenger vehicles, 354,663; motorcycles, 10,925; commercial vehicles, 178,424. In the last election there were to be no new taxes, no user fees. Guess what? The budget decrees that if you live in northern Ontario, you will pay $37 for your licence plate. You know the geography. Winter is a long affair where we live. We measure distances on a different scale. We have no alternative mode of transportation. We pay as much as 15 cents more per litre for gasoline. So you're right, Speaker, we give at the pump.

The discrepancy was the recognition that since we pay so much at the pump, we would get a bit of a break. We had counted on the government not to increase, not to levy for licence plates, because they had said they would not, but they couldn't resist. Recall the health levy? There were going to be no new taxes. Let's listen to what the seniors have to say. There were to be no new fees on licence plates, and the list goes on. The government is playing a bit of a shell game. They lure people. It's a bit like snake oil at a cheap circus that's about to leave town, a tombola.

We're spending more money on health care? The population of Ontario has increased some 700,000 in the past five years. In 1993 health care costs per person were $1,607, and this was during a very acute, very harsh recession; it is now $1,563 per person. When they say they are spending more on health, it's not true; they are spending less. You can see it yourself. For every citizen in Ontario it was $1,607; now it's $1,563. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but certainly when you're reduced to this level in order to get your message across, when you push all the right sensitive buttons -- this is the government that hit the less fortunate by 21.6%, the poor people.

Then some of the backbenchers will remind us at every opportunity about the children, that they care for my children and the children of others. Their actions betray what they say. They're talking about their children, and in many cases, their children are going to be just fine. What about the other children, who won't have the same chance? "Oh, well, if they fall upon hard times and they're on general assistance, I guess it must be their fault." That's the message. That's what this government says.

I'm happy. This is perhaps one of the last times that we will have the opportunity to debate freely in this House. I understand that the team of misery has gathered and developed a concoction with which they will change the rules. The opposition will be handcuffed. In a matter of a few days, the opposition will be straitjacketed. We will be muzzled. Democracy will suffer yet one more assault.

C'est quand on regarde chaque ligne du budget, chaque ministère, qu'on s'aperçoit que la véhémence, que l'idéologie de ces idéologues de droite, se retrouve à l'intérieur de tous les ministères. This is what the ideologues have decreed.

Education and training: The budget in 1993-94 was $8.691 billion; this fiscal year, 1997-98, it is $7.7 billion. So talk to me about not cutting in the classroom. They're cutting. They're going right to the heart of the program, and when you listen to the women and the men who are in the classroom, they know that there is a dark cloud on the horizon. They're about to be taken on by the government. They have been targeted. They will shoot to kill.

They will withdraw their democratic right, one way or the other, to go to a legal work stoppage under a state of siege, and they will pick their pockets, because $5.4 billion -- that's a heck of a lot of money by any account -- is the tax cut, and yet you've got this looming deficit, this albatross.

The choice is quite clear. But no, they're on the hook because they court people who are quite fortunate in life, people's whose pockets are full of money, coupons, debentures. The more you make, the richer you are, the more the tax cut is tailored for you. This is not a tax cut off the rack; this is tailored to help those who need it the least. Alas, you must pay; there is no free lunch. The hand that gives and the hand that takes, except that the hand that takes takes from those who are the most vulnerable, who need it the most. The hand that gives gives to those who really don't need it at all.

You do a tax cut and on the one hand, you turn around and you padlock the most essential service, that of health care. Hospitals are being closed. We've heard of some incidents, most unfortunately, of people dying in the corridor, and it's well documented. We get up and we say, "Our condolences." Who's next on the list? No one means for that to happen. I don't meet anyone who wouldn't be troubled, but those things will happen, most unfortunately, most regrettably, when with the power of the pen you dedicate less money. What are the consequences? What are the ramifications? What are the results of cutting social services? You will find them.

The government has a right to scrutinize, to conduct due diligence, to make sure that the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario indeed get full value for their tax dollars. But you must take the opportunity to represent all Ontarians, not only those who can run the fastest, who can best defend themselves. This is not survival of the fittest. For some it is surviving the day, and they place a great deal of confidence in the most important tabling, that of the budget.

You've missed an opportunity. You had the chance. There is a recovery, and yet the money won't be coming in in terms of tax receipts. What will you do when the cycle hits? What