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

November 5, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L056a - Thu 5 Nov 1998 / Jeu 5 Nov 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

TAXATION

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

TAXATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

SPECIAL TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

JACK ROSEN

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WORKERS

WAR MEDALS DONATION

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

REMEMBRANCE DAY JOUR DU SOUVENIR

KRISTALLNACHT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LAND USE PLANNING

ICE STORM

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry / Projet de loi 71, Loi concernant la réglementation de l'exercice de la profession de forestier.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's with great pleasure that I move second reading of this bill,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry, because we in the province of Ontario know how important the management of our forests is. Over the years there has been tremendous concern by the public as to the management of our crown forests and how forests on private land are managed. It has become quite frankly a very political issue. For that reason, for the privatization of forest management over the years, really taking custody of our forests over the years and how the government has operated that, it makes very important that the public has assurance that our crown forests especially are being managed to the very highest regard.

I think people would be aware that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is an association that already exists. It was incorporated by

an act of this Legislature in 1957. At that time, the act set up a voluntary professional association that offered its members a professional forum and educational opportunities and other benefits typical of any professional association. But because of the increasing need and the demand on this profession, it is time to move the bar up to basically grant this association self-regulatory powers so they can discipline themselves, and also receive scrutiny and, if it happens, complaints from the public and be able to deal with those in a professional manner. It's very important that this happen.

The growth of the profession's numbers and the value of its certification has led to calls within this organization for the government to vest the forestry association with licensing power. In essence, what the association wants is the government to enhance the reach, the authority and the accountability of the profession in order to lead to greater conformity to the highest standards of forest management throughout Ontario. I believe no one in the province could really argue with that.

As I've mentioned, there certainly is a public policy need for this. The central rationale for this transformation in this association to a professional one is the growing need for an accountable, independent profession to provide expert professional services aimed at ensuring the best possible forest management practices. There are three significant trends that have contributed to the emergence of this need: the mounting public concern over the state of the forests, the consequent politicization of forest management and the changing role of government in Ontario in managing the province's forest resource.

First, I'd like to touch upon the mounting public concern. As a northerner I certainly understand, and any member of this Legislature would understand, especially with the latest go-around by the government in trying to deal with the overall management of our forests in the Lands for Life process, that there is great public interest, both in the south and in the north, right across this province, in how our forests are managed.

Probably, being Canadians, we strongly identify with our forests. If we don't work in our forests, a lot of us recreate in our forests. Even if we don't do that and maybe just live in some of our larger urban centres, we look to our forests as a very strong symbol of this country and also as a very strong resource that contributes greatly to our economy. Regardless of where you live in this country or this province, the management of our forests is of paramount concern. We've seen over the years a growing concern by everyone in how our forests are managed.

It is very important that the public have a comfort level with this and that they know that the people who are charged with managing our forests are working at the very highest standards with the very latest skills and professionalism that is available anywhere in the world. That is one of the main reasons for doing this.

The key to meeting this public demand is to increase the accountability of those who manage the forest. This greater accountability can be achieved by extending the reach of the forestry profession to cover all individuals practising forestry, ensuring the educational qualifications and enforcing adequate practice standards for those individuals and defining an appropriate scope of practice for them. By vesting the professional body with the licensing power that I call for in this act, these goals can be achieved in a way that demonstrates the government's commitment to accountable forest management in Ontario.

Another reason, and it really relates to the first issue of public concern in this, is the concern that we have the very best standards and the best professional knowledge being applied to our forests. There would be those in society who would comply with the profession and others would call it junk science. A lot of people might have ideas about how they feel the forest should be managed, but what we have to ensure is that the people who have the responsibility and who are charged with this management have the very best scientific knowledge and training to do this, so that junk science doesn't enter into the management of our forests.

Just like in any field, whether it's the justice system or politics, it's not only that the right thing is being done, but the perception that the right thing is being done is very important. That's why establishing a professional organization for foresters would ensure that not only is it getting done but the perception would be that it is being done properly. I think that would alleviate a lot of concern.

A strong, authoritative, self-governing forestry profession is needed to serve as a standard-setter and a referee in the forest management debate. Without such an honest broker, there is a risk that the public dialogue over Ontario's forests could degenerate into a battle of junk science issuing from competing interests. I believe that's a very important reason why this legislation should proceed, and I would encourage members to support it.

The third reason, and I talked about this at the beginning of my opening remarks today, is that there is a very large, changing role in how our forests are managed. This is the third and the fastest moving trend that points towards the need for a very strong forestry profession, and that is this changing role of the provincial government.

Throughout the industrialized world, governments are shifting towards the role of "steering, not rowing." I recognize this quote by Osborne from his book Reinventing Government. In the old days government basically did everything, especially in the Ministry of Natural Resources. It was a hands-on ministry, for sure. It not only managed the forests, it actively, with thousands of employees, did much of the work that today is being done by the forestry companies themselves.

In my area, in Timiskaming, forest co-operatives and federations, forest companies that are not on such a large scale and some of our largest producers, come together and hire professional foresters to manage the forest they cut. They work this in agreement, and with this there are many advantages. There are economies of scale in working together with one good team of foresters.

The other thing that's important about this is that the companies are working together and you get a very good, rational distribution of wood fibre supply, so that you don't have large roundwood going to a plant that's just going to chip it up to make particleboard, for example. It's important to have good coordination, and certainly a lot of this is working very well.

With this, the public should know that these new entities, such as the Timiskaming Forestry Alliance, are personed by professional, first-rate foresters, and with this designation, the public could be assured that the very best science, the very best professionalism is being applied to the local forests.

This is why a licensing program within the profession would give this assurance to people that the profession has licensed its people, that professional foresters that are licensed in Ontario have the very highest credentials to manage Ontario's forests.

Again, I am very pleased to bring this bill forward. I certainly hope the members of the Legislature will support this, especially today, to allow it to move on. I'm certainly willing to work with the government if you want this to go to committee maybe in the next stage or go to third reading, whatever the government would like to do. This, as you know, is a non-partisan bill, and I do this in the interests of professional forestry in this province.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate today and to indicate that members of our caucus will be supporting the passage of second reading of Bill 71 today,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this forward, although I would have hoped the government would have done that, because I think the Ministry of Natural Resources in particular, specifically the minister, could use some good news these days, and this would have been it. However, it appears that the government agenda is full with other things and so a private member has been asked and has agreed to bring it forward, and I would like to thank Mr Ramsay for doing that.

It is an important piece of legislation. There has been a tremendous amount of work that has gone on to getting us here today to second reading. It would be a shame if we missed this opportunity to allow foresters to move to what is a logical next step, that is, to be self-regulating, to have the association have the ability to license, to deal with disciplinary measures, licensing measures etc. So we really have a tremendous opportunity here, and I do hope that other members in the assembly today will pass second reading and we can either deal with committee or move directly to third reading.

I have, over at least the last two years, probably a little bit longer, been watching the progress of this project with a great deal of interest. I'm sure that a number of members, including myself, receive the newsletter that goes out from the Ontario Professional Foresters Association called the Professional Forester. I receive it mainly in the capacity of critic for MNR for the NDP.

But in any event, as early as April 1996 there was a notice under committees that said very clearly that a licensing committee had been formed. As a result of discussions and views that came up at the annual meeting in February with respect to licensing and reopening that issue and the need to look at licensing again, particularly in light of the shift of the management of forest responsibilities from government to industry, it was clear that members of the profession thought this issue needed to be raised again.

Work had been done in the past, but this time there was clearly a determination that some move had to be made, there had to be legislation that would allow for regulation, allow for certification, allow for the association to do that.

So as early as April 1996 the foresters association created a licensing committee and asked its members to have the mandate to explore the merits of licensing. Draft terms of reference were developed at that time. Tasks were set out for that particular calendar year to define what licensing would mean, to review how licensing was applied in other provincial and federal jurisdictions, to look at the pros and cons and to develop a position paper.

As I followed it through, in the next newsletter, in July 1996, there was a second article, which again talked about the committee being formed, repeated what the terms of reference were, looked at what the tasks were that had been set down and asked for members of the association, both active and retired, to begin to provide their input into this very important issue.

It seems that as the months passed and as the work progressed, the space dedicated in the Professional Forester to a look at the licensing issue became greater and greater. Almost two years after the day that a committee had actually been struck, in April 1998, there was a very large segment of the newsletter dedicated to all of the work that had been done and a

summary of all the decisions that had been made by the association over that two-year period to look at this licensing issue.

It is safe to say that the bill that is before us has the overwhelming support of professional foresters in this province, and two thirds of them are members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. Clearly, the association was given a direct mandate to put together a draft bill, to present that to the government and to try to work with this government to have that brought through as a government piece of legislation.

If you look, for example, at the public consultation that occurred with members, it was very extensive. Beginning in the fall of 1996, the licensing committee that had been established researched, developed and distributed to all members three discussion papers about this issue.

Articles on licensing and self-regulation were in the next four issues of the association's newsletter. That carried them over the next year.

The association sponsored a workshop on the standards of practice at Lakehead University.

At the February 1997 annual meeting, there were speakers and discussions on the licensing of foresters in Ontario and how licensing worked in other jurisdictions. There were almost 200 members who attended 14 meetings that were held on this issue in different communities across the province.

Members then also were asked to fax in to the licensing committee or the director any questions, concerns or comments they had, and that was done on a regular basis.

Finally then, in June 1997, there was a vote of the members on whether or not the association should proceed to licensing, and clearly there was an overwhelming majority who supported that need and supported the movement forward to a draft bill. There were 861 registered professional foresters who were eligible to vote; 65.5% returned their ballots and, of those, 80.8% voted yes. So it was clear that council had a very strong mandate to proceed to a draft bill and to proceed with discussions with this government about licensing and certification.

It's also fair to say that the association has done a tremendous amount of work to talk to other non-governmental organizations who have an interest in forestry, and consultation documents and letters were sent to almost 70 of those to outline what the association was doing, to ask for input, comments, to raise questions or concerns. A number of those 70 organizations did reply.

There were also fairly extensive consultations undertaken during the summer and this fall with MPPs so that MPPs could be aware of why the association wanted to move in the direction that it did and why it would be a good public policy issue for foresters to be licensed in Ontario.

So it's safe to say that there has been very extensive consultation. It has occurred over a two-year period. Many of the concerns that had been raised have been dealt with. People who would have an interest have been spoken to. We are here today with a very solid mandate from the members that this is the direction in which they want to move and that is why they are asking for support for this bill today.

It's important to look again at why it is necessary, why it is important, and why the opportunity now exists for Ontario to move towards licensing of professional foresters. If you take a look at what has happened in this province over the last number of years, there have been many professional groups who have felt that in the best interests of the public and in the best interests of maintaining high standards in their particular profession, the best thing that could happen would be for their own association to be self-regulating, to have the power to license, to have the power to discipline, to have the power to set accreditation standards and educational standards.

If you look during the early 1990s at what happened in the health care profession, some 22 health care professional bodies were regulated under our NDP government at that time, and that followed a process that had begun 10 years before we got here. If you look at what happened to midwifery in the time that we were the government, the same thing happened: accreditation, licensing, discipline, all of that occurred.

We are at a stage now where, frankly, in a de facto sort of way, the government has already moved to that. Under the old Crown Timber Act, registered professional foresters did have to sign forest management plans. When we made changes and brought in the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, we too required that registered professional foresters had to be a very important part of the development of those forest management plans, and there are sign-off conditions attached to that legislation as well.

If you look at the recommendations of the class environmental assessment on timber management, the board members there also recommended that registered professional foresters have a much greater role to play in the development of forest management plans.

We have seen gradually, in the profession itself but also through legislation that affected the Ministry of Natural Resources and, de facto, affected foresters in the province, a move to certainly increase accreditation, increase standards, increase obligations. What we see now in terms of the request before us for licensing is a logical conclusion to all of the things that have already happened.

I also think we have clearly seen in this province a dramatic shift - and that has become very clear in the last two years in particular - of forest management responsibilities from government, from the Ministry of Natural Resources, directly on to industry. Clearly that is a trend that is going to continue in this province, and I think clearly there flows from that a public concern about how our forests are being managed. We have to remember that forestry resources are public resources.

How we manage them in a sustainable way now and in the future is important not only to Ontario's economy, but it's exceptionally important to the thousands and thousands of people out there who are employed in this industry in any number of our communities across the province.

The public needs to be sure that the best interests of the forests are being met - not the best interests of employers, not the best interests of forestry companies, not the best interests of other user groups of the forest, but that the public interest must be met all of the time if we are going to guarantee a sustainable resource in the future.

I think the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is well positioned to play that role for the public. This is an association, it is true, that was incorporated by

an act of this government in 1957, but it is an association that has always maintained high standard with respect to forest management. It has had a soft certification process, it is true, but one that did involve disciplinary measures and removal of that certificate to practise. It has always maintained very high standards with respect to education. It has had a code of practice and a code of ethics, and it has been for a very long time now in a very good position to ensure the public that the work that is undertaken, the forestry services that are provided, is of the highest calibre, the highest quality.

But we need to go one step beyond, and that has to do with the licensing, because the licensing itself will be one more proof that in fact professional foresters take their responsibilities very seriously and understand that if they do not do their work with the highest quality, protecting the public interest, then they will lose their licence to practise, and many of them would then lose all hope of employment in this province in particular.

That is a very strong deterrent for anyone who doesn't want to practise safe forest management or proper forest management, who doesn't want to deal with sustainability, who doesn't want to deal with the best public interest of the forest and timber values and timber use.

So it is a very strong motivating factor, and one that the association obviously wants to have in its possession, to guarantee to the public very clearly that anyone who practises in this province is certified, has to follow a particular code of practice, has to follow a particular scope of practice, and will have a designation as a registered professional forester that flows from both work experience and educational experience that is common to all. For all of these reasons, it will give the public a greater sense of surety and security that the forest is being managed well on their behalf by these individuals.

It is clear that we had some concerns originally when we were approached by the association in two areas in particular, one with respect to how the public would be able to participate in the association and in its regulatory bodies. We know that in a number of the other professions that have been regulated over the last number of years there has been a method for public input and public participation. Clearly in the bill, as I read through it, I see that in a number of areas there is room for the public to participate. That is essential. They will be participating in the board of directors, on the registration committee, the discipline committee and the complaints committee.

The second concern we had was focused around the issue of grandparenting and how we would deal with those people who wanted to continue to practise or who practised non-forest work but had an association with the forest. Clearly, in the bill, in the bylaws of the council, those issues about different classes of licences and how people will be brought into the fold are all lined out, so we feel confident and comfortable that our concerns have been met.

I want to congratulate the members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association for their tremendous work over the last two years, and I hope that some who are in the gallery today will see the rest of us pass this at second reading and on to third.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise today, and I will be supporting the bill by the member for Timiskaming. I want to congratulate him for bringing this matter forward.

It may seem strange that a member from the greater Toronto area would speak to a forestry bill. Very few people realize that there are in fact many acres of forests within the GTA, and specifically York region. We particularly have a concern that that forest is appropriately and professionally managed in the public interest. I, for one, believe that licensing will be in the public interest.

What I'm concerned about, and it's why I'm going to suggest this bill go to committee, is that we have an opportunity to refine some of the issues, ensure that it's not overkill and ensure that we don't get involved in over-regulation, but that we have in this bill the necessary parameters to ensure there is a full-fledged profession of forestry that can effectively do its job in this province.

It's a commitment that I believe we as a government, as a province, can make to sound forest management, so I will be supporting this bill. Again, I commend the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and the member for his work on this.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): To begin with, I would as well like to congratulate the member for Timiskaming for bringing this bill forward. It has received nothing but positive support throughout my region of the province in the northwest, in the Kenora-Rainy River area. There has certainly been a great amount of interest in this bill. As you will know, forestry in that region is very important to the economy, and I've heard nothing but this being an excellent idea, a self-regulated profession with not only foresters but public members on the board and on governing committees.

We've heard a little bit about how the actual makeup of this would come about. They're talking about the inclusion of the public on committees such as their registration and discipline committee.

As we know, in the northwest forestry affects all of us, not just those in the industry but those who rely on not only the forest products but those areas as well. I'm talking about the various competing interests for the resource area, not particularly the fibre but the area itself, whether it be the angler and hunter interests in the area, whether it be the tourist operator interest, whether it be the environmentalists' interest. These folks all have tremendous interest in the areas we talk about where the forestry practices take place. I'm very happy to see that they too have been considered in terms of the registration of professional foresters.

My riding probably makes up a good portion of the 33 million hectares of productive forests owned by the crown in this province. It probably makes up a good portion as well of the six million hectares of private forests, so again, it's an issue of great interest.

I also have a number of woodlot owners in my area, in the northwest. It's interesting that they rely a lot on the information and the advice given to them by professional foresters. We've noticed that the woodlot owners will continue to be able to look after their own lots on their own, but I'm sure they will also continue to rely on the advice given to them by professional foresters.

We know that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is behind this bill. They've done a number of publications to support it, and we know of their excellent record and their support for this concept.

The movement of direct delivery of forest management to the companies from the Ministry of Natural Resources is just another reason, which is very evident, why we should be looking at these folks moving into such an organization. We know the Ministry of Natural Resources has dumped or moved over a lot of the responsibility of the management of our forests to these companies, so this can only help in terms of the management of these very important areas.

"Public concern about forests is growing." I take that headline out of a publication by the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. They certainly have noticed the public concern. As we know, "Ontario's Environmental Assessment Board in 1994 ordered greater involvement by the RPFs," registered professional foresters, "in forest management on crown lands." They go on to say, "Public concern about Ontario's forests has been growing," because, as I indicated earlier, "there are multiple, and often competing, demands on our forests." They certainly recognize that as well.

They go on to talk in their publication about how it's time to license foresters in Ontario, and I would just like to read into the record what they have to say about it. This is from the Professional Forester, their publication. It reads:

"The time has come to license professional foresters in Ontario. With government downsizing, Ontario needs an independent, accountable forestry profession to ensure our forests are managed in the public interest.

"The Ontario Professional Foresters Association needs your support and input to this watershed project. Licensing will significantly improve forestry practices in Ontario and ensure scientifically sound, high-quality standards be applied to all practitioners."

That is something that my constituents will like to hear and will appreciate coming from this association. I cannot say enough about how much they support this.

Another concern that has been brought to my attention, and it also has been addressed, is that of out-of-province foresters. As folks in the northwest will know, we quite often see a good number of foresters coming to us from literally all over the world, whether it be a company that has moved them in from another mill they own or another region they're doing their forestry practices in or whether it be labour coming to us from other provinces. We have a great variety of foresters, be it from Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, the east coast, or, as I indicated earlier, even from the States and other countries.

When we talk about the out-of-province foresters, they've indicated here, "A class of licence called a special permit will be developed that will enable out-of-province qualified foresters to practise in the province on a one-time basis for a limited period of time." That's another concern that was brought to my attention and one that I think can be laid to rest by the issuing of this special permit. I'm sure there will be many folks in my region who will be happy to know that is being addressed.

In closing, I would just like to congratulate the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. I hope that this bill, with the help of the members in the House, will move onwards, either into committee or even on to third reading.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): First, let me say that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is certainly a well known and long-standing association that has an excellent reputation in the province of Ontario. In giving them this authority to institute a peer review and hold their members accountable, certainly you couldn't pick a better association in the province to carry out the kinds of standards and codes that would be put in place under this legislation.

Licensing used as a regulatory tool is something that is perhaps long-standing in Ontario. It is used by a number of groups of professionals, which include organizations such as accountants and engineering, and registered professional foresters are only one more of that group. This government has implemented other organizations to carry out these functions within their industries, which includes the travel agents of Ontario, the auto dealers association, along with others, including, I believe, the funeral directors in Ontario.

As a regulatory tool, it's in the public's best interests to have these kinds of associations because it doesn't require any government funding or any government involvement, as the public sector is part of the governing agency, part of the association and part of the control which is implemented on the various associations.

Specifically in this piece of legislation, licensing will not prevent owners of private woodlots from managing their own forests. I think that's a very important part of this legislation, in that it's non-intrusive. However, if someone who has a private forest does want to create a forest management plan and they deal with a professional forester, they will have the assurance that the person they are dealing with will be qualified to give his opinion on where that goes.

This also has had a large number of regional meetings. I believe 15 were held across the province in the spring of 1997. I believe there were well over 200 people who attended those meetings. The membership of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association has been surveyed and in that survey I believe over 60% of the ballots were returned. Of those returned, there was over 80% support for this type of professional association in Ontario. So I believe the public is being well served by this. It'll give me some pleasure to support this bill, although we'd like to see it go to committee so that it can be merged with the other legislation that we've done in this area.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The first thing we should do here is commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this bill forward this morning. It's a bill that's overdue. It's a bill that should have come forward sooner. I think the member for Sudbury East alluded to the history of the registered foresters in the province and the various government bodies that had recommended a stronger role.

Some of the comments from the other side disturb me just slightly. I know they weren't meant to. One of the things we often do around here is pass, on second reading, legislation such as this and never get to third reading. I presume, from what I've heard on the other side of the Legislature, that they intend fully to support this bill. But that's all very nice if we don't actually get to third reading. I suggest there's no reason we couldn't do the committee hearings this fall, and before we break for Christmas have this piece of legislation put in place so that we will be able to deal with it and get on with life.

The public has to understand there are a number of reasons why the profession needs to be licensed at this point, and they kind of come through a history. One of those would be the Crown Forest Sustainability Act passed by Mr Hampton and Mr Wildman, which privatized the management of all the crown forests in Ontario, at least all of those below 50, I believe. When we have privatized that, and at the same time gutted MNR, we no longer have the foresters in MNR who used to prepare these plans. We no longer have a sufficient staff of foresters within MNR to go over each and every plan as carefully.

We know the horror stories coming out of the Ministry of Natural Resources because the auditor has just reported about some of the absolutely outstanding boondoggles of the Ministry of Natural Resources over recent years: the fact that they somehow can't account for $4.5 million in the wildlife trust, and somehow have $800,000 of travel expenses they can't account for, and it goes on. People should have a look at the auditor's report on MNR and you would know what the government's actions over the last few years have done to a ministry that was proud and has a lot of good people but has not had the tools to manage Ontario's assets as they should.

The second thing every member should know, particularly the rural members, is that the change from what used to be the managed forest tax rebate to a change in assessment has also provided the public with a huge incentive to manage private woodlots and to qualify under this act by means of filing a managed forest plan. The public needs to know who it is who has the expertise. Who is it who can legitimately offer them advice on these plans? In my constituency, where we have a large amount of private land, there too is an interest by the general public in having good advice on how to manage their woodlots.

There is a real need for them to know and for the Ministry of Natural Resources to know what is a managed forest and who the professionals are who can provide the advice on how to manage their particular woodlot or forest in a reasonable way. The demand for the services and the demand to know who can provide these services so the public can have confidence in them, and the government have confidence, is probably - well, not probably - it is at an all-time high in Ontario.

I've had some chats with some professional foresters in my area. My friend and neighbour John Christian, for example, well known throughout MNR and well known to a number of people in this Legislature, has talked to me on a number of occasions about this bill. It's very clear, from John's point of view, that this bill needs to move very quickly through the Legislature. I think the government has understood this. I'm kind of surprised that the government, in privatizing many of these functions, did not recognize this sooner.

Nevertheless, I understand from the goodwill across here that we will be moving very rapidly to have this bill through this Legislature by Christmastime. I see no problem with that. Certainly from our side of the House we are very supportive.

My colleagues have canvassed most of the forest issues. I also wanted to talk about the SFL process, which is culminating in my riding. The operators on the Spanish and Mississagi crown units are signing right now - I think last Friday, actually - agreements with Northshore Forest Inc in order that those former crown units will be managed by professional foresters privately, by a company that provides the services to all those people who are presently operating on those lands.

There's been a tremendous amount of controversy. The process is being worked through. I have a fax in my office saying there are still some problems, but by and large, an operator told me just last week that they would all be signing the SFL. What that means to the public is that there will be one body across the entire region providing the management operational plans for these woodlots. That is very significant. Ontario needs to have those plans managed and has to have them managed in a way that the public can have confidence in. That's why it is so important at this point in the game to move forward with the licensing of professional foresters so we do have the confidence.

At this time I'll conclude my remarks. I hope the government will move quickly with this legislation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the few seconds left, let me say that there have been several demonstrations out in front of this building about the future of forestry in this province. I want to ensure that we have a forestry industry and also that we have protected large tracts of land for park purposes and for the enjoyment of the people of this province. I hope this bill will assist in that regard.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm delighted to take

part in the debate on Bill 71. I'd like to say at the outset that I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing forward the legislation. There is a significant amount of interest in my riding in Muskoka-Georgian Bay in this type of legislation and in any type of activity at the government level regarding the forest industry.

I also want to make the point that it is a delight to participate in and listen to a debate where all the speakers have knowledge of the subject and are engaged in talking about the subject at hand. Certainly today we've heard, from all members who have spoken on the subject, a good deal of expertise in the area of forest management. I listened with great attention to the member for Sudbury East, who I thought provided an excellent

summary of the history of forest management regulation in Ontario and provided a very compelling argument for supporting the bill.

I will say at the outset that I will be supporting the bill, but with some reservations. I think it should go to committee. That is not a delaying tactic on my part or on behalf of my constituents. But there are some issues that need to be discussed in committee. I'd like to raise some of them now and perhaps I'll have an opportunity at committee, if it goes to committee, to further explore them.

Along with the public interest in good forest management and in making sure that government regulation is not overly cumbersome, there are also private interests that have to be respected and considered when we look at this type of legislation. When you look particularly at

section 13 in the bill - I'll just read it because it's brief - "No person shall engage in or hold himself, herself or itself out as able to engage in the practice of professional forestry unless the person holds a certificate of registration issued by the association."

That is a critical issue in the debate. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will limit participation in the forestry profession. The people who currently are involved in that activity and are not members of the association or are not what this legislation would consider professionals have an interest in being heard in this debate, and they should have an opportunity to speak at committee as to their concerns or whether it's all right for them. It could well be that they will support the legislation.

In my riding, the small operators in the lumber industry, those people who have one-person or maybe two-person operations - despite the fact, as the member for Timiskaming has said quite eloquently, that government now is more in the steering process with respect to forestry than in the rowing process - see a replacement of red tape within the industry. We have to make sure that all people in the industry and small farmers, people who are really never represented by lobbyists, are heard, that their interests are heard.

I think of Harry Truman, who when he had a meeting with lobbyists, at the end of the meeting said to them, "Gentlemen, you should be aware that I also have an interest and a responsibility to represent those people who don't have lobbyists." That certainly is something we have to keep in mind when we're speaking about this kind of legislation.

I want to make the point that, going around to summer and fall fairs in my riding, there is usually a spot at the fall fair where they have old photographs. When I go to these fall fairs, I look at the photographs. They're photographs of Bracebridge or Gravenhurst or Huntsville at the turn of the century. It's interesting to see that there are no trees in any of these pictures. In my riding now there is an abundance of trees, there are lots of trees. I think it's part of a trend. We are more cognizant of the need to preserve the forest. I think there will be an increasing amount of forest in the future.

The member for York-Mackenzie made the very good point that this is not a northern Ontario issue. It's an issue that goes through the whole of the province. There is more and more interest in preserving trees and preserving the forest, so there is I think more and more need for public debate to include discussions about how every individual is affected by this type of regulation.

In conclusion, I just wanted to say again that I'm supporting the legislation but I feel it should go to committee. There are concerns about over-regulation, there are concerns about limiting membership in the profession, and those all have to be addressed before the legislation proceeds.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill and the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and what they want to accomplish.

I was interested in the comments from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is concerned that this might not get very far, that it might be passed here today and not go to committee. I can assure him that I'm certainly enthusiastically supporting the bill, not only in the vote today but also to go to committee. I have a reservation and I will mention that in a few minutes. I would have some difficulty in third reading if that particular issue were not recognized.

I think it's interesting, the member for Timiskaming introducing this, recognizing that government is now here to be steering and not the old process of rowing. It's obvious he's read the book Reinventing Government, or at least he's copying some of the statements from it. That is indeed the direction: the restructuring of government. Some 98% of the countries around the world are now restructuring their governments with that intent in mind.

Compliments to the Professional Foresters Association for their very professional lobbying approach to bringing this bill forward. They did not use partisan politics. They've approached members on both sides of the House. David Curtis came to me. He's a professional forester and a lawyer from my riding who lives in Brighton. I think we also have some very famous foresters like Bob Carman, who is secretary of cabinet. His father, who has passed away, was also a professional forester and lived less than a kilometre from where I live in Northumberland - two exemplary men in our society.

I'd like to just draw a few comparisons with some of the other professions that are self-regulating: engineers, for example. We really don't tell engineers how to design and build bridges. There are all kinds of self-regulating people in the various colleges of medicine. I think there are 13 or 14 there. We just recently passed a bill that teaching would be a self-regulating profession. I think when you develop a self-regulating bill or act, that group becomes a profession. I think of my own profession of veterinarians, which is also a self-regulating body.

This brings me to my area of concern because, as I read the bill, it appears that the lobby group, the current professional association, will also be the licensing body. That, to me, is a conflict of interest. I don't think it's wise to have your lobby group also the licensing body. If that is the way it is when we get to third reading, I would have to vote against it.

I've talked to some of the foresters. I think maybe they appreciate this particular problem, that it needs to be separated out, that those who are going to be self-regulating, those who are going to look after that activity, including those who would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, have a different role from the group that would be the lobby group.

I know it's a small organization, and to split it up and have two different bodies might be cumbersome for them. They have close to 1,000 who are presently registered.

But I think it would operate in a much better way if they were separated out and they had the self-regulating body and called it a college or professional foresters of Ontario or whatever name they would give to it - it would have a specific responsibility to ensure that their membership paid attention, came up to the standards - and then have the other group that could lobby on their behalf and do so in the very professional way they have in the past in bringing this one forward. It's very logical that their association would lobby to bring this forward.

I think this group has a big responsibility in the future. Some of it has been alluded to: the change in government and those responsibilities. But there is another area and that relates to, as we've been bringing in over the 20, 25, maybe 30 years, high-yield agriculture. We're producing far more grains, far more crops on less acreage. The marginal lands of Ontario and Canada and probably the world are really returning to forests.

Certainly the area that I'm familiar with in Northumberland, and particularly east of there as you approach the Shield, tremendous tracts of land that used to be cultivated are no longer meeting with the plow. This is certainly a pressure in the future for foresters.

Time is running out. I can enthusiastically support this on second reading. One major change needs to occur prior to me voting in favour of it on third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Timiskaming, two minutes.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank all the members of the Legislature who partook in the debate today. I very much appreciate your encouragement and support that this piece of legislation should move on to committee stage. I accept that advice and recommendation and after a voice vote at 12 I certainly will be asking for that referral so that we can deal with some of the concerns that members have expressed here today. Again, I thank all who have partaken in this debate.

Just to reiterate, this legislation will mean that only qualified persons with the appropriate professional designation will be allowed to practise forestry and call themselves professional foresters. Through this, the public will have assurance that the foresters who are managing our forests are properly qualified and will do work that meets an approved and professional standard.

I'd like to say that in proposing this law, I believe that Ontario forests must be managed to the highest possible standards. Sustainability and environmental benefits can only be achieved by using the best available science, practised by professionals of the highest calibre. Since, as we've said before, the government is moving to direct delivery of forest management and increasing the responsibility for forest management by the forest companies, professional foresters will be held very much accountable for their decisions and actions not only to their employers, but to the professional association itself.

This legislation proposes that the public be represented in the management of the foresters' association. There will be public members on the board of directors and on some of the key governing committees, such as registration and discipline.

In

summary, with the passage of this legislation I believe Ontario will have a truly independent, scientifically sound, and fully accountable forestry profession as a partner in protecting Ontario forests' estate.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

TAXATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further middle-class tax cut.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Mushinski: It is my pleasure to introduce a private member's resolution today that, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further personal income tax cut for middle-income taxpayers.

The reasons for this motion are clear. There is no doubt that tax cuts stimulate job growth and, as a result, the economy in general. Since our government's tax cuts began, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been in this province. Over 400,000 jobs have been created in Ontario since September 1995.

Under the previous two governments, during the early to mid-1990s, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of Canada gained jobs.

In fact, from 1985 to 1995, previous governments increased every kind -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Ms Mushinski: As I was saying, under the previous two governments during the early to mid-1990s, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of Canada gained jobs.

From 1985 to 1995, previous governments increased every kind of tax imaginable: the personal income tax, corporations tax, retail sales tax, gasoline tax and all the so-called sin taxes, just to name a few. I won't even mention commercial concentration tax and what that did to the city of Toronto. In all, those governments raised taxes 65 times over that 10-year period. They even gave us a new tax. It was called the employer health tax.

In 1988, under the Liberals, the sales tax rate increased from 7% to 8%, adding another $850 million a year to Ontarians' tax burden, about one third of which was paid for by business. In 1990, under the same government, OHIP premiums were replaced by the employer health tax, which was a new payroll tax. This tax raised over $2 billion a year, but the net impact on business was a job-killing $553 million annually. Both the NDP and the Liberals were instrumental in increasing gasoline and fuel taxes, which raised about $1 billion.

This government wants to support individuals and businesses in Ontario. We don't want to cripple them with continuing onerous tax burdens. As we announced in the 1998 budget, over the next eight years the corporate income tax rate for small business will be cut in half, to 4.75%, which is the lowest rate in all of Canada. This will benefit some 90,000 small businesses. This government also announced in the 1996 budget a three-year plan to exempt the first $400,000 of payroll from the employer health tax by 1999. In this year's budget we announced that we would accelerate the final phase of this exception.

We also want to let hard-working Ontarians keep more of the money that they earn. We think we have shown that by phasing in our promised 30% tax cut way ahead of schedule. In fact, 90% of Ontario taxpayers will be getting a tax cut of 30% or more. This government is giving extra tax cuts to modest-income taxpayers through adjustments to the Ontario tax reduction program. Some 70,000 taxpayers will have their Ontario personal income taxes eliminated and an additional 290,000 will have their income tax reduced by more than 30%.

Economic studies have almost universally found substantial short-run and long-run benefits from tax cuts. Our government knows that reducing taxes provides a direct stimulus to consumer spending and creates jobs. The old tax-and-spend ways of government was crippling Ontario. The people told us that things had to be done differently to create a stable and prosperous economic climate in Ontario. They told us to restructure a government that was inefficient and had grown too large. They told us to lower taxes. They told us to reduce the deficit.

We made a plan and set out a program of steady deficit reduction and tax cuts. Each year, we have beaten our target. We are well on track to eliminating the deficit by the year 2000-01. We have kept our promises to reduce taxes for individuals and for businesses. Our policies have brought about economic growth and job creation well above the Canadian average. Consumer confidence in Ontario is growing faster than in the rest of Canada.

Previous administrations in Ontario raised taxes repeatedly and the deficit grew in spite of that. We have shown that it is possible to cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time. The benefits of the tax cuts are clear. By offering further tax relief to middle-income earners we can leave more dollars where they belong: in the pockets of the hard-working citizens who earned those dollars in the first place. This is another way that we are acting on our commitment to make Ontario one of the best places in the world in which to live, work and invest.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the chance to speak to this resolution today and to indicate why I will not be supporting it. I listened very carefully to Mrs Mushinski in her presentation and actually was interested in whether hers would simply be a defence of her government's record, which I certainly expected to see, but also why and how she would justify the way in which she has worded this particular resolution. Is it an admission that her government's policies have not been working as they relate to the middle class, or is she simply, as I think she was trying to claim, suggesting that this would be a logical extension, from her perspective, of what they have been doing?

The interesting thing is that when you look at what the tax cut is doing, we have pointed out time and time again, and indeed others outside this House have pointed out, that one of the things we are seeing come about as a result of the fiscal policies of the Mike Harris government, which of course as you know has as its central thrust the 30% income tax cut, is that the gap between the richest citizens in our province and the poorest citizens in our province widen to the point where a study that was just released a couple of weeks ago called The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Inequality between the Rich and Poor in Canada, by Armine Yalnizyan for the Centre for Social Justice, points out that if you look at the situation in 1996, which is the last year for which figures were available for this study, the richest families made 314 times as much as the poorest families in Canada, but I think a lot of that can be extrapolated to Ontario.

I see nothing in what the Mike Harris government has done or in this resolution that's going to assist to change that around.

We know that a good indicator of how well our society is doing is when we are able to reduce the gap between the richest citizens and the poorest citizens. I am astounded that a member of the Tory party could stand here - if they want to defend their government's record, that's fine, but I hope they realize that by virtue of this very resolution they are admitting that their own policies are not working. Why? For a couple of reasons. First and foremost, they have been trumpeting this notion that tax cuts create jobs. Their own job numbers show that the jobs are not being put into place to the extent that they said they were going to, so that isn't working.

We are seeing service after service that has to be cut in order for the Mike Harris government to find the money they need to be able to pay for the tax cut. This talks about middle-class taxpayers.

I'm not sure how Ms Mushinski defines middle-class taxpayers - I listened and I thought we might get some sense of that - but I can tell you that many people in my own community and in communities across this province, but I'm seeing this in a very big way in my own community, who would categorize themselves as generally middle-class taxpayers are saying to me and are saying to this government if it would only listen that they don't particularly care for their income tax cut, because they would rather see their schools stay open, they would rather see their hospitals and other health services continue to be there than see the very small benefit that they might get from this tax cut.

You know what? As they begin to do the numbers, they realize that there isn't really much benefit. Because at the same time as Mike Harris is cutting income tax by 30%, they forget to tell people, they conveniently pretend that people are not going to notice, that they've also pushed a lot of the costs on to the property tax system, and so property taxes are going up for the middle class, low income, seniors and for many others across this province.

They conveniently forget to tell people that in fact it's by taking money out of our health care system, it's by taking money out of our school system that the money is being found to pay for this tax cut. At the end of the day, families, middle class and working class across the whole sphere, are paying more, unless of course you happen to be in the top range, and I want to come back to that.

What are people seeing? They are seeing higher user fees, they are seeing higher property taxes, they're seeing higher tuition fees if they're trying to send their children to post-secondary education. That's the result. They're not seeing the jobs. Yes, the economy is growing, and we're all happy that it's growing, but we also know that we are still living through a fairly uncertain time. Find me two economists, chosen at random, who will agree as to what the economic situation is going to be in this province and in this country over the next two to three years. It just isn't there.

For people to come forward and say, "The solution to all of our problems is a further middle-class tax cut," I'm sorry, it just will not wash, and I for one will not support it.

The impact of the tax cuts so far has not provided any great benefit to middle-class and low-income people in this province. When you look at the fact that 60% of Ontarians make less than $38,000, even if you go up into what I guess traditionally might be considered to be middle-class income, you're talking about people between $45,000 and, say, $76,000, being 23% of taxpayers, that category of taxpayer is not seeing any huge benefit from Mike Harris's tax cuts.

Interestingly enough, the 6% who are at the top end, or if you want to go further up, it's indeed the 3% making over $100,000 who are getting over $1 billion worth of the tax cut. They may be the ones who are seeing a positive at the end of the day when they do their numbers, but for middle-class families, for working-class families, what they are seeing is less in the way of service and indeed, at the end of the day, more that they are paying out for fewer services. That's the Mike Harris reality.

What people out there are telling me is that they would rather see their schools stay open; they would rather know that they have a hospital that's functioning when they have an emergency; they would rather know that there are services in our health care system they can call upon and rely upon, than to simply be caught in this kind of cycle the Harris government wants to spin that the answer is all magically in cutting taxes. The taxes are what pay for the services that we want to have in this province.

I don't know what kind of world the Tory members are living in, but the kind of world I and my constituents live in tells me that they want to see, yes, good fiscal management of public funds, but they want, first and foremost, to know that the services that have made Ontario and Canada the best place in the world to live continue to be there. In the Mike Harris world, those are the services that are disappearing, whether it's in health care, whether it's in social services, whether it's in the school system, as we are seeing now in a very big way.

I say to Mrs Mushinski and any of the other Tory members, who undoubtedly will support this motion, you can continue to spin your rhetoric, but people out there are understanding the reality of what you're doing, and the reality is not answered by a simplistic notion of cutting taxes; it's answered by providing the services people need.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I rise today to speak in support of the private member's resolution, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a further middle-class tax cut."

Ontario leads the way in tax cuts. In 1998 the broad-based Ontario income tax cut will provide five times more in tax reductions than the selective cuts made by the federal government. The Ontario tax reductions mean more relief for more people.

As indicated by my colleague, our government has announced 66 tax cuts since 1996, one more than the number of tax increases by the previous two governments in 10 years; 66 tax cuts over the past three years that have been effective in boosting our economy and nurturing the creation of new jobs.

To stimulate employment, we've introduced the Ontario new technology tax incentive, the business-research institute tax credit, a capital tax deduction for research and development expenditures, a co-operative education tax credit, the graduate transitions tax credit, the Ontario computer animation and special effects tax credit, the film production services tax credit and an interactive digital media tax credit.

To help individuals, we've cut personal income taxes five times.

In addition, we have cut the small business corporate income tax nine times, the employer health tax three times, the commercial and industrial education property tax eight times and selective retail sales tax reductions seven times.

Tax credits for business have been announced for racetracks, Ontario sound recording, Ontario film and television and Ontario book publishing. It's an impressive list, and it adds up to more money in the individual's pocket, tax relief for businesses and a major boost for job creation in Ontario.

Many economic studies worldwide have found substantial short-term and long-term benefits from tax cuts. They provide a direct stimulus to consumer spending and create more jobs by making the business sector more dynamic. When business owners are allowed to keep more of the money they earn, they expand their businesses and they hire more people. Every time someone uses their tax cut, they're helping to build a prosperous Ontario. They're helping to build the brightest possible future for our children.

We've said all along that a tax cut for every Ontario taxpayer is the best job creation program, and the Ontario economy has produced more than 400,000 net new private sector jobs since 1995. That's 48.6% of the total new jobs in all of Canada right here in Ontario. In the past 18 months, 53% of the private sector job creation Canada-wide has been in Ontario, even though Ontario has only 38% of Canada's population. Meaningful and lasting jobs, jobs that grow, are created by the private sector.

Governments can help by establishing an environment that supports job creation by cutting taxes, reducing the deficit and eliminating red tape. The government of Ontario is doing just that. Tax cuts help the economy grow by supporting the entrepreneurial spirit in this province that frankly was stifled by the two previous governments, that were trying to do too much at a cost nobody could afford.

Clearly, letting people who earn the money in the first place keep and spend more of it is fuelling growth and investment and helping the economy create jobs in record numbers across this province. We want to continue to leave more money in the hands of hard-working Ontarians, who have endured 65 tax increases in the previous decade. Most of the tax cuts will go to the nearly three million middle-income taxpayers. Taxpayers earning between $25,000 and $75,000 will receive 64%, or almost $3 billion, in savings from the tax cut every year.

With this private member's resolution, we are committed to taking further action to provide tax relief for Ontarians and to foster job creation. Tax cuts don't just create opportunities. They ensure a quality of life that allows all Ontarians to take advantage of new opportunities today and in the future.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on this tax resolution to say that I think the public has to weigh the costs of this commitment. The people of Ontario are now recognizing the price they're paying for Mike Harris's fiscal plan.

First, property taxes: The government dumped, downloaded $600 million of extra costs on to property taxes. That is a fact. The government admitted it: $600 million. So when people across the province now are seeing their tax bills, they say, "Mike gave me a tax cut on my income but I'm paying for it here in my property taxes" - particularly, I might add, for small business. Small business has been hammered by them on the property tax issue. As I said, $600 million dumped on to property taxes.

I always say to my business friends: "Do you know where this money for the tax cut is coming from? Take a look at the budget." Mike Harris has added $22 billion to the debt of the province. When he became Premier, the debt of the province was $88 billion. According to his numbers, it's $110 billion right now. It took us 125 years of our history to get to that number, but Harris has added $22 billion in four years. So I say to my business friends, Harris has had to borrow every penny of the tax cut. The tax cut has cost roughly $10 billion in lost revenue. Every penny we've had to go out and borrow.

The interest we're paying just for the tax cut each year is about $400 million. Yes, you say to the public, "There's a nice tax cut for you." Where did the money for it come from? We went out and borrowed it. I know from my experience in business that it's normally not wise to borrow money to pay yourself a dividend; normally, it's wise to get your fiscal house in order. But every penny is borrowed money.

Look at the numbers on the job front. Mike Harris right now is 75,000 jobs behind his target. He said when he ran, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs." That's what Mike Harris said. By the way, I would never have said that. I don't think governments create jobs, but Mike Harris said, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs." Right now, today, he is 75,000 jobs behind his target. I guarantee that that will be an issue in the campaign, because that was a broken promise - among others. He promised, "I will not close hospitals," and then yesterday, of course, he said: "I'm sorry. I was wrong.

I know I promised I would not close hospitals." Just yesterday he went down to the OHA and said: "I was wrong. I am closing hospitals." He said, "My plan will create 725,000 jobs," and he is 75,000 jobs behind that target right now, so we look forward to his mathematics on this.

I might talk about the price we're paying for the Harris government. It was just this morning that they announced in the area I represent in Scarborough an MRI, a magnetic resonating machine, for Scarborough. This is typical Harris. He makes the announcement and then there's no money. He said, "We're going to let you have an MRI, but we're not going to give you any money." Do you know what it's going to cost Scarborough General Hospital? It will cost $800,000 a year to run it. Do you know how much Mike Harris gave Scarborough General? It was $150,000. So it's one of those phony gifts from Mike Harris.

He gives the gift and then he doesn't fund it. It is a phony gift. Not only that, but the residents of Scarborough have to raise all the capital money. They've got to go out with cap in hand and raise all the money. This is a typical example.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You've given it; you've got to take it.

Mr Phillips: Well said, Mr Speaker.

Nothing could illustrate better than this sort of thing: "I'm going to give you a tax break," and then Mike goes and borrows the money to do it. "I'm going to give you an MRI," and then not fund it.

I used to be chairman of Scarborough General Hospital. I tell you, to find the money to keep that machine operating - they said: "Do you know what you do, Scarborough General? You lease it out at night." Believe me, hospitals are going to have to find some creative ways to fund the MRI machines.

I use that as an example to the public about the - let me select my words properly, Mr Speaker, so you don't rule me out of order - the phoniness of these promises. Go back to the tax break. Everybody loves the tax break, "Give me a tax break," and now what Ontario is finding is: "I got an income tax break and I'm paying for it on my property taxes. I'm paying for it with my young people going to school now, with tuition fees going up astronomically." At my old school the MBA tuition fee has gone from $3,000 a year to $18,000 a year. Good old Western has taken it up to $18,000 a year.

So Mike Harris goes around saying, "I did this on the income tax," borrowed all the money to do it, and then we find that people are paying dozens and dozens of new fees.

Nothing could illustrate better than the auditor's report this week. That was perhaps the most damning indictment of the mismanagement of a government I've seen. Believe me, you can lay out the auditor's reports from the last 15 years, and if you can find a more damning report than the one that Mike Harris presented -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale doesn't want to hear this. Just so the public knows, Mike Harris gave a consulting firm $180 million. The consulting firm said, "We think this thing may be worth $50 million to $70 million." That includes their profit and everything else. Good old Mike gave them $180 million.

It was fairly easy to get after people on social assistance and beat them up, but when it came to taking on somebody of equal size, Andersen Consulting took this government to the cleaners - and it isn't the government; it's the taxpayers - $180 million for perhaps $70 million worth of work, at most. Not only that, they've taken their fees up 63% since they were awarded this contract in January of last year. They billed the government - this is the most extraordinary thing. They charged interest on their bill and then they marked it up for a profit.

It is obscene, but that's Mike Harris looking after the tax dollars. Yeah. Giving a $180-million contract to somebody who said it may be worth $70 million is obscene, and frankly, taking taxes down in one area and then forcing them back up in another area, property taxes, is equally troubling.

It may look to the public like, "I want to cut taxes," but look at the price you're going to pay for it. Look at the fine print in this thing, and I think the government is now being exposed for it really is, an unusual government.

Mr Bisson: First we saw the phony tax scheme introduced by Mike Harris, and we all know at the end of the day who benefits from that tax scheme. Is it the middle class? Obviously not. The reports that have come out since the tax scheme has been put in place have shown that those people who have benefited by the phony tax scheme of Mike Harris have been the people at the upper end of the income scale.

Now we have this member who comes in here and gives an equally phony resolution, supposedly talking about how she's going to do something to help the middle class. I really wonder where this government has been when it came to trying to assist the middle class of the province over the last three years. If you go back and look at the record, you will find that this government, in initiative after initiative, has hammered the middle class like no government in the past.

The government crows and says: "Oh, we've given them a tax break. Oh, we're so good. We gave them a tax break." I already said the middle class, by and large, didn't benefit by the tax break, but what we have had to pay to offset that tax break that they've really given to the people at the upper end of the income scale is a whole bunch of hidden taxes. For example, now when seniors go to buy prescription drugs, what do they have to pay? They have to pay a user fee. They call it a copayment now.

When a person wants to rent an arena in their local municipality, or a football field or a soccer field or whatever it might be, the fees have gone up. Why? Because municipalities have lost money by way of transfer from the provincial government, and now people and associations are having to pay a lot more. Every time you take out any kind of permit with the government, you are now having to pay fees where they didn't exist before, and where they did, those fees for permits and other registration-type arrangements have gone up.

But that's not the worst of it. The one that I find most offensive is what's happening with property taxes. This government on the one hand says, "Oh, we've given people a tax break." We know middle-income people didn't benefit from that tax break, but let me tell you, are we ever paying for the changes they have made to the property assessment system. By and large, this government has shifted the burden of assessment income for municipalities from the corporate sector on to individual homeowners.

Now we see the government is about to introduce legislation that will supposedly cap the increases we're seeing in property taxes because of the new assessment system. What did they do? They capped the richest people in society, the large corporations, and also the not-so-large smaller businesses, which I support; they should not have done what they did in the assessment system in the first place.

This legislation basically kills the assessment bill for small businesses, but on the other hand they're saying, "We're not going to cap individual homeowners." Now all that loss of revenue that we're seeing because of these assessment shifts is moving over to the homeowner, so the middle-income people again are the ones who are getting it in the ear.

This government talks a good line when it comes to giving people a tax break, but when it comes down to the final analysis we're finding, as middle-income people, we are further back than we ever were before.

For example, the Centre for Social Justice had a study that was funded by the Atkinson foundation and they found some very revealing statistics on what has happened since the Harris government has come into power. For example, they found that since 1995-96, the poorest 10% of Canadian families with children under 18 saw their average after-tax income drop from $15,208 to $13,453. What happened to the supposed middle class that this government is trying to help? We find example after example that they've actually been hurt.

I say to this government, you talk a good line. If you ask most people at the front end, "Are you in favour of a tax break?" I think everybody, including myself, would say, "Yes, I'd love to have a tax break." I think that's what people probably said in the election of 1995. A lot of people bought the argument of the tax break as put forward by Mike Harris during that election.

But now people are starting to realize that supposed, phony income tax break that they really didn't get means that the richest people at the other end of the income scale are getting the lion's share of the savings when it comes to tax cuts, and then at the opposite end we're having to lose services that are important to us when it comes to our local communities.

We're seeing hospital closures - over 37 hospitals being closed in the province of Ontario. We're seeing health care services being reduced to a shadow of what they used to be before. We're seeing schools across the province closing. In the city of Toronto alone, in the public board, 138 schools are being closed. Do you think all this is just happening by coincidence? It's happening for the very same reason: this phony income tax break that this government supposedly has given people. What it means is that people have lost their ability to get any benefit out of this.

I certainly don't support this particular motion and I will encourage other members to vote against it, because in the end the people who are going to get hurt are the middle class.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to speak on the resolution of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I know she has done an outstanding job on behalf of her constituents. I'm equally happy today that Scarborough General is one of the four hospitals in Toronto to receive an MRI. We now have 30 MRIs in Ontario, and once our final announcements are made and there are 35 MRIs in Ontario, we'll have more MRIs than the rest of Canada combined.

What's important in this issue is to look back to May 7, 1998, when the member for Oxford brought forward a similar resolution. Mr Hardeman had brought that resolution forward. It was the second ballot item of the day. What happened after we had a vote on the first item was that members of the opposition just ran. They scrammed. They ran out of this place so quickly; I've never seen so many people do the 40-yard dash so quickly. What happened was that they got up and spoke against tax cuts for families. When it came time to vote, they were not there. They said they were going to vote against it, but when the day came to vote, they were not there.

Members of the opposition who spoke today, who said that they are against this resolution and will be voting so, I challenge them, if they're against tax cuts for families, to stand up today and be counted. Tell the people of Ontario that you are against tax cuts.

Mr Silipo: You'll see my vote.

Mr Newman: The member for Dovercourt says we'll see his vote. That will be interesting. That would be the first NDP person who stood up and voted against a resolution like this, because they were the party that ran right out the doors of this Legislature last time. But before they decide to vote No, they ought to check their own Web site because on that Web site it says: "Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton says the wealthy are doing very well on their own, they don't need more tax breaks and special attention from the government. It's working families who need people on their side fighting for things that matter most."

I say to the member for Dovercourt, if you're on the side of working families, support this resolution. These people earned that money in the first place. They deserve to keep more of it.

Hospitals: There are more announcements today on MRIs, which I think are outstanding for the people of Ontario. I've encouraged the members opposite if they are so much opposed to this bill -

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Where is the money? Put some money behind it too.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton East.

Mr Newman: If the members of the opposition are so against this resolution, let's see them stand up and say that's how they're going to vote, because at the end of the day I think what's going to happen today is what happened back in May: You're going to see members of the opposition running out the doors because they don't want to be on record as not being in favour of tax cuts for working families.

Mr Agostino: I can assure my colleague across the floor that I certainly won't be running out any door. I'll be happy to stand here and vote against this Republican, Reform-minded resolution that you have in front of you.

We like to talk about middle-class families; we like to talk about working people. The Tories all of a sudden are part of the working people, which is the biggest joke since the announcement of the MRIs this morning. What is really clear here is this is nothing more than a trial balloon for the next election, nothing more than Mike Harris's office telling the members of this Legislature on the government side which bill to introduce to float the balloons for the next election.

We've already seen the results of your tax cut. We've seen the impact it's had on the middle class and working people in this province. We have seen an agenda that is more fitting of Texas, Mississippi or Alabama than it is of Ontario. We've seen the results. We've seen 500,000 kids in this province whose benefits you've cut by 22% because you think those kids are living high off the hog. We've seen hospital closures. We've seen school closures by the hundreds. We've seen a total ban of environmental protection. That has been the result.

The biggest joke is the fact that you claim to be good fiscal managers. My colleague talked about the giveaway, the gift you gave to Andersen Consulting. If you were the CEO of any major corporation, you'd be fired after that screw-up. Think about it. They come in and ask for $70 million and you say: "Oh, no, we'll negotiate a better deal. We'll give you $180 million and an open-ended contract." That is Tory fiscal management, the same fiscal management that is taking the accumulated debt in this province from $100 billion to over $120 billion. You almost match the NDP record in five years of increasing debt in this province. That is Tory fiscal management.

Now you want to go further. Let me tell you, we are on the side of working families, because we believe working families and the middle class deserve their community schools that you're going to close. That is why we're on the side of working families. Kids need to go to a neighbourhood school. Neighbourhood schools that you're going to close are the heart and soul of a community. The middle class and working people need to be assured that there's 24-hour emergency care in hospitals if they need it, and they're not sitting in an ambulance for an hour being driven around to find an emergency room that's open.

That's what working people need; that's what middle-class Ontarians need and look for in a government, not your phony tax cut scheme.

Ask the homeowners whose property tax went up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% how they feel about your tax cut, because you've downloaded $600 million on to municipalities. Ask those folks what they think of your tax cut. Ask the seniors who have to pay a user fee as a result of your tax cut how they want to pay a further user fee as a result of what you're doing. You've abandoned municipal transportation; you've taken all the grants away from municipal transportation service. Ask those people how they feel about your further tax cut. It is not the vision of Ontario; that is not a vision we are going to fight for.

I'll be happy, proud, to stand in the next election and tell Ontarians: "Vote for Mike Harris, because he'll give you a further tax cut and he'll continue to close your hospitals and close your schools and cut environmental protection and continue to cut benefits for kids. Yes, vote for Mike Harris and you'll guarantee four more years of all that."

We, as an alternative, will make it very clear to Ontarians that we believe that money should be reinvested into health care, into education, into environmental protection, into children's services. It is clearly a different vision of Ontario, not one that favours the wealthy, because we believe our communities need to be safe, they need to be healthy and kids need to be taken care of. If you support the tax cut, what you're supporting is further closures of hospitals, of schools, and further abandonment of our kids in this province. I will not be part of that. I'll be happy and proud to vote against it.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It just galls me every time I get into this Legislature and I listen to some of the people on the Liberal benches speak down to the people of Ontario. It really frustrates me. Mr Phillips, the member from Scarborough, when he tries to fleece the voters by telling them we've added $22 billion to the debt - what they should do is look at the budget. In February 1995 the NDP set a budget which had an $11.9-billion deficit. We came in and had to make some drastic changes right off the bat to reduce the deficit that year to about $8.5 billion.

Every single one of those deficit dollars that got added to the debt was as a result of the previous government, the NDP. When the Liberals try to get up and fleece the voters and say that the debt when we took office was only $89 billion, they're speaking down to the voters. They're assuming they're dumb. They're assuming they don't understand how to read budgets. That's just so offensive.

The other thing that really bothers me about that is that the Liberals stand here now and talk about the size of the debt, which we agree needs to be addressed. The Liberals have voted against every single expenditure reduction measure we've taken, every single one. It flies in the face.

Mr Conway said in the North Renfrew Times in May 1995, during an election: "We are going to have to get our financial house in order, we're going to have to reduce government spending. And that's not going to be easy. I don't want to mislead anyone on that." They lose the election; we make the expenditure reductions; they vote against every single one.

Dalton McGuinty in August 1996 says, "Given that Ontario has had to borrow about $10 billion during each of the past four years to meet its expenses, nobody can seriously argue against getting our costs under control," yet voted against every expenditure reduction measure we've ever taken. They want it both ways. It's ridiculous.

Again, the little patting on the head of Ontario taxpayers that says tax cuts - realize, folks, that's your money. You earned that money. Government takes it from you. When you get a tax cut, you're just being allowed to keep more of your own money. The Liberals think they can spend money better than you. That's insulting. We believe you know how to spend your money better than the government does, but the Liberals think, "No, no," pat you on the head, little Ontario taxpayer. "Give us your money. We'll spend it properly." I'm totally opposed to that kind of attitude. I support this resolution today because it's the total opposite of what the Liberal attitude is towards Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am pleased to rise to say that I will not be in support of this resolution as well. We have here a government that has suggested that they have given every resident in Ontario a personal income tax cut. The government sold this idea during the 1995 campaign, where they were running around saying, "You're going to receive a 30% income tax cut."

I had a good number of people who were voting in the Kenora riding come to me and say, "This Mike Harris guy is suggesting that I am going to get a 30% income tax reduction." The first thing they weren't looking at was it was a provincial income tax reduction. The second thing they weren't looking at was that user fees and other rates would skyrocket once Mike Harris got into power.

I have hundreds of examples of where people have come to me saying, "Why has my fee for my licence that allows me to work increased fourfold?" I say, "Did you not know about Mike Harris's 30% income tax reduction?" They say, "I haven't even noticed that; it hasn't made any difference to me there, yet I'm paying four times for a fee that allows me to go out and twist a wrench," or do whatever.

Just recently I was literally inundated with calls from people suggesting: "I've just put $3,000 or $4,000 into my road sign on the Trans-Canada Highway. Mike Harris has come along and told me now my fee to have that road sign there is going to triple." I could not believe what I was hearing. There was no indication of that, no warning, nothing. People who had invested a lot of dollars in their road signs are now faced with a fee, where they're saying: "I'm going out with a chainsaw to cut it down.

I can't afford that." It finally got through to the Minister of Transportation - the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism had something to do with this as well - and they began to realize that this is getting too close to election time. "We can't do this right now. Maybe we'll get them later." But I tell you, it was an underhanded approach to get those fees. We're finding that everywhere.

The previous speaker spoke about the provincial debt. That is something I'm going to be letting every one of my constituents know about when we head into the next provincial election. A lot of people don't understand, yes, the deficit's been eliminated, but look at that debt going up. You're getting your 30% income tax reduction, but watch the debt. What are we doing to the future taxpayers of this province, to the next generation of this province?

Thirty-seven-dollar registration fees for vehicles: You don't believe that Mike Harris tax on the drivers of northwestern Ontario is not going to be remembered? Forget it. I tell you, I cannot support this private member's resolution.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I think the quote that the member for Niagara Falls made from the Liberal Party was quite interesting. I have a couple from the NDP.

On March 15, 1996, Howard Hampton said, "Balancing the budget over the long term has to be part of our game plan." Then, on September 15, just a little later in that same year, he said, "First of all, we don't have a debt and deficit crisis." This is after the credit agency had downgraded Ontario nine times during their term in office.

More recently, in February 1998, Standard and Poor's expressed confidence in our province's finances, stating, "Ontario is benefiting from a booming economy and remains on target in its deficit reduction schedule."

You have to ask why this has been occurring. It's because of the tax cuts that we've already made. It stimulated the economy. As a matter of fact, it stimulated the Ontario economy so much, and a little spinoff to Canada, that the federal government has actually been able to balance its budget. They are unaware, and I'm sure the members in opposition are also unaware, that the only reason the federal government has been able to balance the budget is because of what Ontario has been doing to stimulate the economy.

Just in the last minute that I have, I want to point out what the poor middle class are being hit with. The average family, a mother, father and two children, is paying approximately $7,000 for health. They're paying approximately $5,000 for education, plus the post-secondary education costs. They're paying $4,000 a year for interest. They're spending about $4,000 on social programs. Those are the major ticket items in Ontario and that's running at $20,000.

The average family, over and above that in taxes, is paying federal income tax, property tax, GST, PST, gasoline tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, and the list goes on and on. That family is only making a little over $50,000. They indeed, as the member has introduced here, need a break.

The middle class has been consistently hit in the province of Ontario, and it's high time they did get a break from these kinds of taxes. We have given them, with the cut in the provincial income tax, a bit of a break. There's no question they need a bigger break. That will stimulate the economy even further in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, you have two minutes.

Ms Mushinski: A lot of reference has been made to the Centre for Social Justice report that was released recently. I think it's important to note that we actually agree with the findings of that study. You see, the middle class did take it on the chin under the Liberals and the NDP. That particular report only goes to the year 1996, which was less than one year into our mandate, so the study really is a condemnation of the previous two governments. It's a report card on the opposition parties' years in government. Let's not confuse the public with respect to their track record.

The Peterson and Rae governments hiked personal income taxes on individuals making $25,000 annually by $290. Mike Harris cut their taxes by $510. The opposition hiked the PIT of $40,000 earners by $630 annually. Mike Harris gave those same individuals a tax cut of $1,100. Middle-income earners at $50,000 saw their annual income tax bill rise by $890 between 1985 and 1995. Mike Harris cut their taxes by $1,555. Middle-income taxpayers with earnings between $25,000 and $75,000 per year received 64% or $3 billion in tax cut savings each year under our plan. With our tax cuts fully implemented, the top 10% of taxpayers pay a greater portion of Ontario's income tax.

We have made it our business to be the champions of the middle class because we're sick and tired of seeing successive provincial governments put the screws to hard-working families.

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 71,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, I'd ask that this bill be referred to the resources development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

TAXATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Ms Mushinski.

Ms Mushinski has moved private member's notice of motion number 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 9.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The problem the Mike Harris government is causing Sudbury and northern Ontario continues to skyrocket. Not only is Mike Harris intent on closing our schools and destroying our commercial tax base, he now wants to close down more job opportunities in the north by getting rid of valuable resource-based jobs.

The region of Sudbury has an unemployment rate of 10.8%, which is up from last month and has shown a whopping 2% rise over the course of the last year, making northeastern Ontario the area of highest unemployment in this entire province.

What is the Mike Harris solution to this plaguing problem? Harris says, "Let's sell off the geoscience lab in Sudbury to the highest bidder and forget about the 24 people who are employed there."

"What's 24 more lost government jobs?" is Mike Harris's response.

In fact he says, "Who cares about the 2,365 people and families who have lost their government job?" in my part of Ontario. The answer is simple: I do and so does Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals.

All northerners now realize that the Common Sense Revolution and Mike Harris do not represent the north. In fact, we have no voice in the north. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines is simply a puppet pulled by the strings by Mike.

We need government jobs in the north. Stop the onslaught against the north. Stop the carnage. Care about us.

SPECIAL TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): The city of Sudbury recently passed a resolution at its council meeting to petition the government of Ontario to permanently fold the special transitional assistance grant into the community reinvestment fund, or the CRF, as a permanent financial adjustment for northern Ontario and rural municipalities, thereby ensuring revenue-neutrality.

The north will be burdened significantly more than the south when the non-permanent special transitional assistance is removed by the year 2000.

There are two scenarios. The first scenario is that in the year 2000, when the STA is no longer funded, revenue-neutrality is no longer achieved in the north as the north is required to further reduce municipal spending by 2.3%. For the south as a whole, it's not as significant and revenue-neutrality is still achieved.

The second scenario is when the STA is permanently rolled into the funding. Revenue-neutrality is permanently achieved in the north and the province as a whole. Year one efficiency targets: In order to reduce municipal spending to ensure revenue-neutrality, the south as a whole must reduce spending by 2.7%, while in the north they must reduce their budgets by 4.4%.

I urge this government to maintain the special transitional assistance grants in northern Ontario. My constituents of Nickel Belt want a level playing field which ensures revenue-neutrality between municipalities in northern and southern Ontario.

JACK ROSEN

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am pleased to rise today to inform this Legislature of the honour to be bestowed on a constituent of mine, Mr Jack Rosen. Mr Rosen has been selected to receive a citation from the Zachor Committee in Ottawa on November 18.

The ceremony will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Mr Rosen, a Holocaust survivor himself, is one of only 50 Canadian Holocaust survivors selected to receive this award and will represent all Holocaust survivors in Canada. The award acknowledges the outstanding contribution survivors have made to Canadian society.

Mr Rosen has been a dedicated community volunteer and has contributed numerous hours to many charitable causes in Hamilton. He was a charter member of the now defunct Hamilton Supports for Israel for 25 years.

Recently, Mr Rosen received the 1998 Volunteer of the Year Award from the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp for his many hours of volunteer service at McMaster University. Mr Rosen has been affiliated with the Hamilton Holocaust Survivors Education Committee and is called on repeatedly to address high school students. For the past 40 years he has been affiliated with the Jewish National Fund through the blue box campaign.

Jack, Hamiltonians are all proud of you and proud to boast of your accomplishments and the honour to be bestowed on you on the 18th. Congratulations. Sincere best wishes.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I have raised concerns in the past regarding the handling of long-term care. I can tell you that I have no confidence in the way that minister handles his affairs. I have no doubt now that there is a hostile takeover of small, community-established nursing homes by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care. This government fails to see, time and time again, the importance of community-based health care.

Van Del Manor Nursing Home has been seized by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care as of a day or two ago. Mrs Stella Pinnock, owner and administrator of Van Del Manor, with over 30 years of experience in health care, has been constantly harassed by the bureaucrats with an agenda. That agenda is to take over these small nursing homes.

Will the ministers rescind their order to take Van Del Manor Nursing Home away from the operator, and will the ministers have an independent investigation into the matter?

Will they work with Mrs Pinnock to provide the necessary resources to serve the needs of the residents and their families? Will they stop harassing the small nursing home operators, who work hard to provide community care for this province?

That same property has been approved for funding, and today, while they approve funding, they are taking away the woman's property.

I say to this minister, stop harassing and have a special investigation into this matter today.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I came about 40 minutes ago from Williamson Road Public School. This is one of the schools that is on the list being reviewed for closure in the city of Toronto.

Williamson Road is in the heart of the Beach. The Beach is a community in which the schools are already very overcrowded. Most of the schools are older schools. We have substantial new development coming into our community with the residential development of the Greenwood Race Track land and of course development of the CN lands at Main and Gerrard. Parents are already worried about the lack of capacity.

One of the things that was so evident to me as I walked down the halls of Williamson Road is the argument that the minister makes about inefficiency. The hallways of Williamson Road Public School are as wide as the classrooms. The teachers and the students and the Toronto board can't help that now; it was a design from a number of years ago. It's not usable classroom space and yet it's counted as such in the funding formula.

The rigidity of the funding formula is what is causing much of the chaos in our boards right now. The minister can fix that. His own expert panel recommended that there be an appeal process for just those sorts of circumstances like building characteristics. I asked him yesterday - and I plead now with all of the Tory backbenchers to ask him - to implement those recommendations for an appeal process.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I would like to remind all members that this week is Holocaust Education Week in Ontario.

Holocaust Education Week occurs every year before November 9, the anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass.

Its purpose is to deepen public awareness about the Holocaust, the Yom ha-Shoah of 1933 to 1945, in which six million Jewish Holocaust victims perished, along with others who were targeted by Naziism and its collaborators for religious, racial and other reasons, as outlined in the Holocaust Memorial Day Act by my colleague Ted Chudleigh, the member for Halton North.

Holocaust Education Week affords all Ontarians an opportunity to learn about the underlying causes of the Holocaust. It provides Christians and Jews and others with a forum within which to reflect together on their historic relations, on the issue of deeper reconciliation and on how to ensure that "Never again" becomes more than a slogan, but a reality for all time.

There are many ways in which to observe Holocaust Education Week. For some of us, this will mean attending an educational event organized by the Canadian Jewish Congress; for others, a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Centre. For still others, it may mean simply spending a moment in silent contemplation.

As we approach Remembrance Day, it is important that we remember why at times a people must go to war. To those who fought to defeat the evil Nazi regime: We shall remember.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Last week Premier Harris and Health Minister Witmer came to Thunder Bay to announce government approval for a new acute care hospital in our city. While this news pleased many of us who were frustrated by the delays in reaching this final decision, there was still something missing in this good-news announcement.

All across the province where the Health Services Restructuring Commission has been rendering decisions, the province commits to 70% of the costs of new capital construction, except, it seems, in Thunder Bay. While the government has formally approved a new hospital for our region, they are only providing something less than 58% of the capital needed to build this important facility.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Why should the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario be treated any differently than those in the rest of the province? In fact, just two days after the Thunder Bay announcement, the people in the Premier's own community of North Bay learned that they were to get a brand new hospital as well, with the province picking up 70% of the acute care capital costs.

There are many challenges ahead for us as we move to secure top-quality health care in our region. Among other things, a major fundraising drive will be needed in order to reach our goals. It seems utterly unfair that this government would approve this new facility, yet deprive us of the provincial financial support that applies everywhere else across the province.

I'm calling on the Premier and the Minister of Health today to recognize this unfair treatment and to provide the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario with the financial support we need and deserve.

HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WORKERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Beginning this weekend, the International Union Federation, which is the international federation of all unions of hotel and restaurant workers, is having its annual convention here in Toronto. Over 80 leaders of unions representing hotel and restaurant workers from all over the world will be here in Toronto, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome all of those distinguished guests to our city.

The conference will then proceed to culminate on Tuesday with a day which will honour all of the hotel and restaurant workers. The mayor of Toronto will declare Tuesday, November 10, Hotel and Restaurant Workers Day in this city.

When we think of the tourism industry, we often tend to think of it as a never-ending series of infrastructure projects, from hotels to wonderlands. But today, in conjunction with this very important event taking place over the next few days, I also want to recognize and honour in this House all the men and women who work hard in the hotels and restaurants in Ontario. It is their effort, their hard work and dedication to serving their guests that make this province a great tourist destination.

I would also like to congratulate the leaders and all the members of local 75 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union for their initiative in putting together this great event.

WAR MEDALS DONATION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian. In a December 1915 publication of Punch Magazine, a poem was published that seemed to echo the pathos of sacrifice in battle on the Western Front. It is a poem that has become a requiem for those Canadians who fought and died under the Union Jack, the Red Ensign and the Maple Leaf.

The poem, of course, is In Flanders Fields and was composed by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae. McCrae died on January 28, 1918, shortly after receiving word that he was to be appointed consulting surgeon to the British army, the first Canadian to be so honoured.

Today I honour not only the author of the poem but also Mr Arthur Lee. Mr Arthur Lee arrived in Canada at the age of 12 and later became a Canadian citizen. The last line of the oath of citizenship is, "I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Arthur Lee stepped forward when he heard that the medals of that great Canadian, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, were to be auctioned off and that there was a chance that the medals could leave our country for good. Mr Lee purchased the medals to ensure that the medals of this fine Canadian stayed in Canada.

Arthur Lee certainly has fulfilled his duties as a citizen of Canada. After the auction was concluded, Mr Lee then proceeded to donate the medals to the McCrae Museum in Guelph. This unselfish act will ensure that future generations of Canadians remember the sacrifices of the past which have ensured the freedoms of today.

The poem concludes with:

"If ye break faith with us who die,

"We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

"In Flanders fields."

Mr Lee is with us today in the members' gallery. Sir, to you I offer our highest praise and thanks, and to our veterans, we shall never forget.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope you will have some patience with me as I work my way through this. There is a group in this community that has been protesting for a long time now the agenda of this government and in particular the hiring of Andersen Consulting to take money away from those who are on welfare in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need a point of order here.

Mr Martin: It's coming. I asked you if could just -

The Speaker: No, I appreciate it -

Mr Martin: OK. They have also been protesting in other jurisdictions around the question of this gap that's growing between the rich and the poor. We found this past week that there's a lot of substance to what they're talking about. If they're not allowed to bring that to the attention of this government, chances are it will never be brought. They've been just recently, by yourself, cut off from attending at Queen's Park to demonstrate in that way that we have taken for granted belongs in a democratic -

The Speaker: With great respect, I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the point of order. Member for Sault Ste Marie, can you take your seat for a moment.

Mr Martin: It's coming.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. I'll give you a brief moment to be very succinct and made your point of order. If your point of order is that somebody doesn't have access to the building, that's not a point of order. I'll tell you that right up front.

Mr Martin: You've made a ruling, Speaker, that this group - and you'll recognize the name of a Mr Behrens - cannot attend at this place to carry out their democratic right to and -

The Speaker: I've never made such a ruling.

Mr Martin: In their letter they say you have.

The Speaker: Let me just say this quickly, if you could take your seat, please. I will be happy at any time to meet with you with respect to this issue. It may be a very important issue; I'm not suggesting it's not. It's an important issue to you and those people, I'm sure, as well as me, but with great respect, it's not a point of order in this assembly. I'll be happy to take it up at another time, but bringing it up as a point of order here is completely out of order. But I appreciate it; thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. I will in fact take advantage of your invitation and we will sit down and talk about this, because it is an important issue.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for one member from each recognized party to speak on Remembrance Day, and one member from each party to Kristallnacht/Holocaust Education Week.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

REMEMBRANCE DAY JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Like many in my generation, I grew up on war stories: my father's stories of the North Atlantic, my grandfather's library about the First World War. To understand the real experience of war, we should listen to the voices of those who were there.

A friend in my generation, Gord Christmas from Simcoe, has captured stories of various wars. As Gord begins:

"Every November 11 we see them gathered in legion halls and cenotaphs across the country. Their ranks get thinner every year and their backs a bit more stooped, but for a few moments, when the clear, mournful notes of the last post float by, spines stiffen to attention, stomachs tighten. They seem once again the youths in grainy newsreels and faded photographs."

Gord Christmas, a civilian instructor with the Simcoe 2853 Army Cadet Corp, 56th Field Regiment, published his stories on November 11 last year in the Times-Reformer. Gord and his son Joseph, a cadet, are in the gallery today.

I wish to continue with Gord's words:

"By their stars you know them and where they've been: bits of coloured ribbon and shining points of brass on each blue blazer."

Gord describes:

"One hearty-looking fellow sports a nose like W.C. Fields. He looks like your favourite uncle, or granddad, perhaps. You know, the one that's got great taste in whisky. Today he can't forget the time that nose was stuck in a slit trench downwind of an orchard in Normandy. The smell that came out of it wasn't the cidery tang of crushed apples or the fresh odour of mown grass. Rather, it was the green, coppery reek of corpses rotting in the sun. Colour his ribbon red, white and blue, France and Germany, 1944-45.

"Among the `old sweats' there will be a sprinkling of `old salts,' wearing the blue, white, light-green ribbon of the Atlantic Star. They share recollections that, even filtered through more than half a century, still remain sharp and clear as the snap of a windblown white ensign.

"The fellow standing alone among the trees wears the blue and gold of RCAF aircrew. He knows he has helped make history, this once handsome man; the `guinea pigs' they called them, a new cliché at the time. He was one of the successful recipients of a brilliant Canadian doctor's efforts at reconstructive surgery. Still, he'd rather have his old face back, but it melted one night when his Lancaster blew up on the run to Cologne.

"Next to him in starched splendour stands a matronly woman, looking a bit like the Queen Mother, but with a hardness in her eyes. Her war was spent as head nurse in a field hospital a mile from the front line.

"Some of it is a bit of a blur now, like a hellish procession of smashed limbs, blinded eyes, gaping wounds. They came to her strapped to Jeeps, on bloody stretchers, or on the back of a buddy. They were her boys and there were so very many of them, the only sons she would ever have and she remembers the face of every one.

"One group, until recently, had no ribbon. In fact, it had no war. It had been termed a `police action.' This police action cost over 300 Canadians their lives. The Korean veterans will be there, as they always are, overlooked in the remembrance of grand campaigns and sweeping strategy.

"Nobody knows how many Canadians served in Southeast Asia or their individual reasons for being there. It doesn't matter really, their blood was as red as anyone else's."

"As well, somewhere in the crowd there may be a representative of the dwindling band whose sacrifice started it all. He will probably be in a wheelchair. Memories for him are dim, vague recollections of hell. He will, if pressed, give you the names of towns that were burned into the conscience of a generation: Ypres, Mons, Vimy, Amiens. He won't tell you about the dead body that formed part of the trench that fell apart when he leaned against it. No, he won't tell you any of this. You wouldn't understand. What he will tell you is, if he could just get out of this damned chair, he'd do it all over again.

"We could do with a few of his kind now. For him and the few like him that are left now, November 11 will always be known as Armistice Day. Call it what you wish, but the next time we get the chance, maybe it wouldn't hurt a few of us, born into the peace these people bought, to pick out a blue blazer and shake the wearer by the hand and say thank you. The ranks are thinning. Someday it will be too late."

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Je remercie mes collègues de mon parti, que je représente, de m'accorder à nouveau cet honneur de parler en leur nom et d'exprimer les sentiments personnels