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

December 4, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L034a - Mon 4 Dec 1995 / Lun 4 Déc 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF HEALTH

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

ROBERTSON DAVIES

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PHIL GIVENS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

TAX REDUCTION

REPORT CARDS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SILVER SPRING FARM

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

REPLIES TO ECONOMIC STATEMENT

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF HEALTH

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As Jim Wilson prepares to give himself sweeping, absolute powers over health care in Ontario, powers which would allow him to singlehandedly close any hospital in the province with the stroke of a pen, without any input whatever, it's only fair that we examine Jim Wilson's record to see if he can be entrusted with this enormous and absolute power.

Did Jim Wilson have the strength to remind Mike Harris of the Conservatives' promise not to cut a single penny from health care? No. Did Jim Wilson have the courage to tell Mike Harris that a further $1.3 billion in health cuts will jeopardize lives? No. Did Jim Wilson have the influence in cabinet to stop the $225 million in new user fees that seniors and the poor will be forced to pay when they get sick? No. Did Jim Wilson have the character to explain to Mike Harris that promises should be kept, not broken at the first opportunity? No.

Should Jim Wilson or any individual get the unprecedented new powers to singlehandedly, with the stroke of a pen, without any public input whatsoever, close down a hospital or an independent health facility? No. Not only should no one ever have that power, but based on his actions to date, Jim Wilson, Mike Harris's health care hatchet man, is absolutely the last person who should be given absolute power.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I was in Kitchener-Waterloo on Friday meeting with some ordinary folks -- you know, the type who live and work in communities across this wonderful province. I met with the type of people who pay rent or hold mortgages, buy groceries and clothes and invest in a car, the men and women of Ontario who keep the economy going. And do you know what they're telling me?

They said this government does not know what it's doing. This government has no idea of the impact of the decisions it has made and will make on people and communities like Kitchener-Waterloo. The Common Sense Revolution makes no sense to them. It was and is not well-thought-out. They are feeling at first hand the sad truth that it was nothing more than an election gimmick.

In July they took away the money out of the pockets of the poor, last Wednesday they took away their services, and soon you will lay off the people who service and support them. At first it was the poor. Now it is the lower middle class and seniors. Soon it will be everybody.

The Common Sense Revolution is an unmitigated disaster, and the omnibus bill that was delivered to us here last week is a serious abuse of power.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I rise today to mark the first anniversary of the proclamation of the Tobacco Control Act and to congratulate all school boards across Ontario for their effective implementation of the legislation banning smoking on school property.

Smoking is the most important cause of preventable illness, disability and premature death in Canada. Each year more than 13,000 Ontarians die from tobacco use.

In our schools, we educate our youth about the dangers of smoking. By banning smoking on school property, the Tobacco Control Act ensures we are sending a consistent and unequivocal message: Smoking is an addiction that kills and it will not be tolerated at school.

If an individual reaches the age of 19 and he or she is still a non-smoker, it is very unlikely that individual will ever start to smoke. By banning smoking at school, we are helping our youth get to 19 smoke-free.

We still face a considerable challenge. Smoking rates are going up in our youth, most notably among females aged 12 to 18. We need to seize every opportunity we can to reinforce the message to youth: Don't start smoking, and if you do smoke, quit.

The school boards of this province have accepted this challenge and are making a difference in the fight against cancer. As parliamentary assistant for Education and Training and as a parent, I congratulate them.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My speech today is dedicated to the Tory backbenchers. Determined to emphasize their view of the Tory reign as a full-fledged revolution, members of the Mike Harris government acted like true revolutionaries last Wednesday and staged a coup d'état on the notions of responsible government and, indeed, participatory democracy.

Bill 26, which was introduced into the Legislature under a cloak of secrecy, sneakily, is all about taking power out of the hands of our communities, established organizations and cherished institutions and placing that power in the hands of a select few in the Tory cabinet.

But Bill 26 goes further than that. It takes power out of the hands of our elected officials, and by doing so it renders the voice of the public powerless.

With its majority, the Tory government will ultimately be able to pass Bill 26, but one has to wonder whether the majority of the Tory members have themselves considered the extent to which this bill renders them mere decorations and powerless instruments of an agenda driven by two individuals, Eves and Harris, as opposed to representatives of their constituents serving to promote and to defend the interests of the electorate.

I ask the Tory backbenchers if they would think about that, that they indeed will have far less power under this kind of a move to introduce Bill 26.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On Friday of last week I was in Ottawa, and I met with a number of people who talked to me about what the Harris revolution means for them.

I heard such things as students in elementary schools being asked to pay a $40 fee for classroom supplies. I heard about people losing their day care spaces and as a result having to give up some of their jobs. I heard about women who had been victims of abuse, as a result of the social services cuts not being able to afford a telephone line any more, and as a result of that therefore being even more isolated and more prone to abuse than they were before.

I heard story after story about the kinds of impacts, the kinds of effects that this Harris government is having on ordinary people right across this province, and certainly in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and when I talked to them about the focus this government is putting on the tax cuts, they could not understand the logic. They could not understand why a government, why this Harris government, is so intent, for the sake of providing tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens in this province, to forsake some of the many basic services we've built up in this province over decades.

They said to me quite clearly that the Common Sense Revolution makes no sense to them, that this government has gone too far too fast, and that it is not doing the thing that is needed for the people of this province.

ROBERTSON DAVIES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This weekend one of the finest writers Canada has ever known, Robertson Davies, passed away. Undoubtedly we have lost a literary figure who has no equal. Since Robertson Davies first made his mark on Canadian letters more than 50 years ago, his pen has defined this country and its citizens with clarity, endless imagination and undeniable love. Robertson Davies will be remembered for his vast contribution to the Canadian arts as an actor, playwright and of course as an author.

Born in Thamesville, Professor Davies excelled in a number of careers including editor and publisher of the Kingston Whig-Standard and occasional actor before accepting the position of master to Massey College at the University of Toronto. His books were recognized with a Nobel Prize nomination, the Stephen Leacock Award for Humour and a Governor General's Award for fiction.

Yet none of these formal tributes can capture the greatness and humanity of the man. I know many people waited anxiously for Robertson Davies's next novel to take them on a new adventure, to a new wonder.

On behalf of the government, I would like to offer my condolences to Robertson Davies's wife and family. His family has lost a husband, a father and a grandfather. All of Canada has lost a statesman and scholar.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Never before has this Legislature seen a government so arrogant. Never before has this Legislature seen a government so dictatorial. Never before has this Legislature seen a government break major election promises so quickly. And never before has a government been so thirsty for unilateral, dictatorial power that it has locked out the public and the elected members of this Legislature from debating such an important bill.

Bill 26 gives the Minister of Health dictatorial power to close down any hospital in this province with the stroke of his pen. Bill 26 gives the Minister of Health dictatorial power to close down any hospital without public consultation. Bill 26 gives the cabinet the dictatorial power to ignore their backbenchers, ignore the opposition and ignore the public.

Bill 26 is a disgrace. Bill 26 is a plan to end democracy in Ontario as we know it. Governors in the United States don't have the powers Mike Harris will get as a result of this bill.

There is a role for the Legislature. There is a role for backbenchers. There is a role for the opposition. And I hope there still is a role for the public in this Legislature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This last weekend, like most members here, I had an opportunity to go back home to my riding and to speak to many, many people throughout the riding of Cochrane South, from Timmins to Iroquois Falls to Matheson. One thing that everybody was in agreement on was that we had to do something in order to try to deal with this government -- people back in Cochrane South by droves, I would say; in fact, I have never seen in my history, in my time as a member, people so opposed to what a government is doing.

People are concerned, first of all, that this government is trying to stifle the role of the opposition, and second of all, more importantly, is trying to stifle the role of the general public in regard to being able to exercise its right through democratic processes.

I have to say that the people of Cochrane South are no different than anybody else when it comes to how they look at this government, and they say to this government, "We understand that you have the right to govern, but we also understand that you have a responsibility to be able to govern for the people of Ontario through a democratic process, and the people of Cochrane South would like to see a return to democracy in the province of Ontario instead of seeing the Mike Harris dictatorship that is now unfolding."

One of the things I would also like to point out is that the cuts that are happening throughout this province are yet to be felt in full force. But I can tell you that in the community of Matheson, I was shocked to hear that the only government office in the municipality of Matheson, being the Ag and Food office, was being closed down -- one person, one office that services a huge geographic area was being shut down. I ask what the common sense is in doing such a stupid move. Quite frankly, I wish this government would wake up and smell the coffee.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): In response to some of the comments that were made today, I'd like to summarize an editorial that was given by the Toronto Sun over this past weekend.

"Premier Mike Harris and the Conservatives didn't win the last Ontario election in a sneak attack...they won it by advocating a program of spending restraint and tax cuts that they released to the public more than a year before the election -- a program that was widely ridiculed by the Liberals and the NDP before they stole most of what was in it....

"It used to be that politicians in Ontario got into trouble for saying one thing in the election and then doing another when in office.

"Now they get yelled at for doing what they said they would do.

"Sure you can quibble over details -- whether the $1.3 billion in cuts to health care announced in their economic statement last week constitutes a breaking of the Tory promise not to cut `a penny' of health care funding.

"But the reality is that as long as the Tories maintain overall health funding at $17.4 billion annually, they will have kept their pledge.

"The fact remains that in their first five months in office, the Tories have fulfilled more key election promises than the previous NDP government did in five years. And it's clear the name-calling isn't having any effect on the two men at the centre of the storm....

"It's clear the name-calling by the opposition and some media haven't fazed" the Premier of this province.

"Bottom line? This leader's not for turning.

"And instead of calling him names, Bob Rae and Lyn McLeod ought to reflect on the fact that if they had believed in their own programs" --

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

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I could have members' attention, I'd like to introduce a former member in the gallery today, Mr Ross McClellan from Bellwoods.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): As part of our government's commitment to meeting the medical needs of northern and rural communities throughout Ontario, I'm announcing today an initiative to ensure access to emergency physician services 24 hours a day.

To meet this commitment, we are reinvesting savings achieved through efficiencies to this crucial front-line service. This annual funding will ensure that physicians working in these communities are paid $70 an hour for working nights, weekends and holidays in hospital emergency departments.

We've been listening to local communities, local hospitals, physicians and the people they serve, and we've been listening to the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the association representing interns and residents.

Currently, a growing number of physicians in northern and rural communities are working less or not at all during off-hour shifts, leaving patients, hospitals and communities feeling anxious.

People in the community have been feeling more and more uneasy with each passing week, wondering whether emergency medical care will be there for them when they need it.

Hospitals have been scrambling to make sure enough physicians are available for emergency care. This has often meant dipping into their operating budgets to top up pay for physicians -- money that is urgently needed for other services in the hospital.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order, the member for Hamilton East.

Hon Mr Wilson: Or hospitals are limiting the hours the emergency department is open.

The reason for this uncertainty is simple: The fee-for-service system does not adequately ensure that emergency health services are available for communities.

Beginning in mid-January, communities such as Alliston, Bancroft, Exeter, Haliburton, Marathon and Southampton, to name just a few, will be assured of having emergency medical services 24 hours a day.

As promised, our government is committed to all communities, large or small, having access to the medical care they need. I'm pleased to be reinvesting savings found through efficiencies to improve access to emergency services.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Another promise.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold is out of order.

Hon Mr Wilson: The dollars we have invested today will help ensure that 67 Ontario communities have adequate access to emergency physician services. The $70-an-hour fee is based on a recommendation made by Graham Scott in his report on the medical coverage of small-hospital emergency departments.

This represents a significant reinvestment of health care dollars. We're making sure precious health care dollars are going where they are needed most. We will be announcing in the very near future details of further incentives to attract and retain physicians in small and rural communities.

We want to work with physicians to develop these incentives. The way to accomplish this is through real discussion, not media ad campaigns that only serve to create unnecessary fear.

We are also taking steps to increase the availability of alternative funding arrangements in order to improve distribution of physicians, control costs and improve access to medical services across the province, and we are continuing to support the development of decentralized medical education programs and professional supports for rural practice such as locums and continuing medical education. What will evolve will be one of the most generous packages of financial incentives and training initiatives in this province's history.

We are ensuring, as a government, that the people in northern and rural communities have access to emergency medical services that they pay for through their taxes, and that those services are there when they need them. This government is moving on commitments we made in the campaign and we're very proud of this reinvestment.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is a statement which is long overdue. The minister knows that the Scott task force report was delivered to the ministry in March 1995. It was there when he arrived in June 1995. He could have made this statement in July, in August, in September, in October or in November. Deliberately, in my view, he waited until December, until after the tabling of the most anti-democratic, dictatorial and absolute powers of Bill 26. He did this, in my view, to try and deflect criticism from this bill.

I can tell you, notwithstanding the fact that the people of small communities who depend on those emergency services will be pleased to hear that the minister has finally gotten around to doing something that he could have done within the first days in office, the fact that it has taken him this long is something they are very angry and frustrated about.

However, I can tell you that at the Ontario Hospital Association conference, the minister proudly said to them that he had found the money. What he didn't tell them was that he was going to be cutting hospital budgets by $1.3 billion. He neglected to tell them that. He neglected to tell them that he was giving himself the absolute powers in Bill 26 to close their hospitals, to order hospital boards to do whatever he says they should do. That he neglected to tell them. But he did mention that he would be moving to implement the Scott task force report.

This Scott task force report will, when implemented -- and I hope the minister is committed to implementing it immediately -- stop the kind of tragedies we saw in Alliston and the recent inquest as a result of that. It will stop the fact that people in small communities have been without access to emergency services when they need them.

One of the things we all realize -- that is, the Liberal caucus and myself as a former Health minister -- is that probably the most important service to anyone in this province is access to emergency services when they need them. The fact that the minister allowed this situation to go on for almost six months after he arrived in the office is nothing short of criminal.

He said with a straight face that he was listening to the OHA and the OMA and to the interns and residents represented by PAIRO. I say he said it with a straight face, but certainly he should have been blushing, because while everyone is pleased to see this plan implemented, he certainly has not been listening to the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association or PAIRO, the interns and residents. In fact, my understanding is that not only is he not listening but he is shutting them out, and Bill 26 proves that.

One of the things he is doing is suggesting that he wants to work with physicians and others to develop incentive programs and to have real discussions, not media ad campaigns. Yet I know that on day one of negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association, he directed his negotiators to inform them that he was not interested in negotiating, that in fact he was not interested in a solution and that he intended to bring in this bill with all of its powers -- on day one.

This bill is not only unprecedented in its power, but it is absolute. Bill 26 gives the minister absolute power to tell pharmacists what he will pay them, tell doctors what they will receive from him, where they can practise, where they can have access to hospitals. It says to independent health facilities not only what they can deliver but what they will no longer be able to deliver. It says that nobody will be able to take him to court if they disagree with any of his decisions. It says what drugs will be put on the formulary and what drugs will arbitrarily be left off the formulary.

The implications of this bill are so sweeping and absolute, I would say to the members of the Conservative back bench, that today's important statement about emergency services, which could have been delivered months ago by your government, is merely a sham to cover the absolute and draconian powers of this bill. Don't let him get away with it, because you know that absolute powers corrupt absolutely.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'm sure a number of communities will welcome this announcement. Since we appointed Mr Scott as the person responsible for bringing forward a report, which he did, a very constructive report, I think it would be a little odd were I to turn around today and denounce the minister for having implemented part of the report which our government commissioned. As odd as my statements are from time to time, I've no intention of doing that.

However, I would simply say this to the minister: If he would perhaps reflect a little on the experience he's about to go through in terms of his dealings with the medical association and with other representatives of doctors, I think he's making a mistake if he thinks this further unilateral step on his part, outside the context of the negotiations with the OMA, is going to do any particular good in that regard.

When I hear on a day-to-day basis from the minister in terms of the announcements that are being made, we're certainly never entirely clear which particular part of the agenda is being pursued. I welcome this particular announcement; I think it makes sense. We clearly had and have a problem with respect to the provision of emergency services in a number of rural communities, and that's precisely why we asked Mr Scott to sit down and help us try to find a solution to the problem.

But my sense, in the briefings I had and my discussions with the deputy minister and others during that period, was that this was part of an ongoing, difficult transition in the relationship between the government and the medical association; that it was not always wise to try to solve these on a one-off basis and that what one should be striving for is an overall agreement with the medical association and with interns and residents in which one would try to see that some things can be done in a positive direction, and at the same time that certain concessions have to be worked out on the other side.

My observation -- and I know the minister will not agree with it -- would be that what he is doing is proceeding in two unilateral ways. Unilaterally, he's making this announcement. On the other hand, as my colleague the member for Oriole has pointed out, unilaterally he's also proceeding with Bill 26. Then at the same time he's doing what all people in government do, and that is to complain when the OMA takes out ads denouncing the course the government is set to take.

My observation would be that the government is going to have a very hard time getting out from the implications of Bill 26 in its discussions with the doctors. It may well be that it will have this in its armoury as it heads into discussions with the doctors, but the simple fact is that this legislation amounts to the greatest potential unilateral power being granted to a Minister of Health that we've ever seen in the province. No other minister has ever attempted to exercise such unilateral power in the system. No Minister of Health in the history of medicare has ever sought to create this kind of regime.

As a result of this, we'll be the only province that has no effective regulatory structure for drug prices. We'll be the only province in which the Minister of Health has as much unilateral power as is now being granted to this particular minister. I know of no parallel in any jurisdiction since the introduction of medicare in which would be granted to the Minister of Health alone, one individual alone, the power to make the kinds of decisions that he is accruing to himself.

I say to my colleagues, who are all of us here as private members, that you will have no more power than I will in influencing the Minister of Health with respect to this decision. I say to my colleague from St Andrew-St Patrick, who has been such an advocate on behalf of Women's College Hospital, that she's going to have as little influence as the rest of us, because one person alone is going to be able to make that decision.

There will be no review process. There will be no discussion process. There will be no way in which this can be changed. A decision will be done and will be made by one person and one person alone. This is the first time in the history of the province that the Minister of Health unilaterally can determine which hospitals will receive funding, which hospitals will not, which boards can be suspended, which boards can sit, and what is going to be done with the funds that have been amassed in every institution in this province on a not-for-profit basis.

It is unprecedented, and it cannot be permitted to proceed in the way in which it has been proposed by the government.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The leader of the third party has asked for unanimous consent to make a statement with regard to Mr Givens. Agreed? Agreed.

PHIL GIVENS

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Yesterday, the Attorney General and the member for Wilson Heights and I attended the funeral services for a former member of this House, Mr Phil Givens. I know that each of us wanted to say a word today in memory of Mr Givens.

Phil was an outstanding citizen of this province and an outstanding citizen of Canada. He was born on Augusta Avenue. He felt the pulse of the city of Toronto every day. He knew this city better than almost any one of us. He cared very deeply about the city. He cared very deeply about this province, about Canada. And as we heard yesterday, he was a lifelong Zionist and someone who cared greatly about the fate of the State of Israel, about its success and about its challenges, and was a constant advocate on its behalf.

When I first came to Toronto to live, Phil Givens was the mayor. As a young student, to go down to city hall, as I used to do from time to time, and watch the debate, the great debate at that time was over whether there should be public funding for a statue which we all know as the Archer. The mayor was an indefatigable advocate on behalf of the arts. Yet when he suffered a defeat in the resolution, he immediately turned around and raised private funds to ensure that the statue was standing.

He went on to lose the next election to Mr Dennison, another very distinguished citizen of the province, but Phil was not set back by that defeat. He went on to serve in the House of Commons. He was elected as a member of this Legislature in 1971, where he served until 1977. He was a very effective member of the opposition. He was an extraordinarily eloquent speaker. He was a very lively mind, and he was a going concern for I would think at least 20 hours a day. He was a man of remarkable energy and remarkable talents.

He then went on to become the chairman of the police board at the time; we saw a sign of the affection of many members of the Toronto police yesterday, in the numbers of them who came to the funeral. He then went on to become a very active member of the Zionist Federation, of which he was president, and continued to be an advocate on behalf of the community.

Phil Givens gave me the best advice I've ever received from another politician, and perhaps the best observation on our political fates, when he said to me, quite recently, actually, "In politics you don't always get what you deserve, but you always get what's coming to you." I have remembered these words on many different occasions and I would share them with other members of the House, because I can assure you that as secure as you may feel in your current positions, this is not a security which always lasts. Mr Givens's observation on the way these things change and move is perhaps worth reflecting on.

On behalf of our party, I would like to extend our condolences to members of Phil's family: his wife, Min, his children and his grandchildren. He was a lively, friendly, remarkably intelligent, sparkling presence in our political lives and in our personal lives for many, many years, and I'm sure all of us would want to pass on our best wishes to his family.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I too, on behalf of the government and on behalf of my party, wish to say a few words about the late Phil Givens.

As I was a young boy during the period when he was mayor, I came to realize that the city of Toronto, when Phil Givens became the mayor, became a place to be reckoned with on the world map. Phil Givens made this city a recognizable urban metropolis around the world and it was because of the nature and style and personality of this very man.

Mr Givens was a lawyer, he was an alderman, he was a councillor, he was chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, he was the mayor, he was a member of Parliament, he was a member of the provincial Parliament, and he was a great Zionist. He was recognized in each of these positions as a leader, as a person who would be a dominant force in every endeavour he was ever involved in.

It was interesting that at his funeral yesterday the coffin was draped in both the flag of Canada and the Israeli flag, a testimony to a man who touched people in so many places and in so many ways.

I can personally say that Phil Givens followed in a great tradition. He followed in a tradition set by the late Senator David Croll and by the late Allan Grossman, who was no stranger to this place. Phil Givens was yet another person in that line who in many respects made it possible for people like me and people like Mr Kwinter to be able to serve in public life. Phil Givens, to a very large extent, made that possible.

I was struck yesterday while at his funeral by the number of people who were there. There were a number of politicians past and present. There were a number of members from the police force, both past and present. But the vast majority of people who were there were constituents, ordinary people who depended on Phil Givens, whom Phil Givens represented during his years of service to this community and who were there quite simply because of their love for this man.

It was quite evident yesterday that Phil Givens touched the lives of everyone who came to pay their respects to him. I would like to convey personally and on behalf of the government and on behalf of our party my sincere condolences to his wife, Min, to his children and to his grandchildren, and also to his many, many friends who mourn the loss of a very close friend.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I too would like to pay tribute to Phil Givens, a friend, a mentor, a confidant, a colleague, a sailing buddy and a good friend of the family. Our lives were intertwined for about 40 years. One of his great passions was B'nai Brith.

It seemed that my lot in life was to follow in the various offices that he held several years behind him, but my steps really mirrored his steps. When I first considered running for this place, obviously I turned to the consummate politician Phil Givens to ask his advice and his counsel. He never, ever missed talking to me about what was happening in the political scene.

Phil's greatest recognition probably is his connection with the Archer, the piece of sculpture that graces the square in front of city hall. But what most people don't know is, it wasn't just that he went out and raised privately $100,000 for that Archer, but because of his passion, because of what he felt about culture and the idea that that should be there, Henry Moore made the largest contribution of his works to the Art Gallery of Ontario, and we, the citizens of Ontario, have been the beneficiaries of that collection, and to a large amount it is due to Phil Givens.

Again, as both our careers progressed, he found himself as the chairman of the police commission, I found myself as the chairman of the harbour commission. One of the great areas of, I would say, discontent is the fact that I had responsibility for two police forces on the waterfront and he of course had responsibility for the Metro police force. There was duplication. We certainly all, as politicians, know that there are concerns about duplication, but it couldn't be resolved.

Phil and I had belonged to the same yacht club for 25 years. I've seen his children grow. We have sailed together. We've spent countless hours together. One night he said, "Monte, let's get this thing resolved. Let's merge all of these things," and we were fortunate in that we had another friend in the person of Paul Godfrey, who was chairman of Metro, and between the three of us we did something that had defied politicians for 25 years. Today, we have a unified police force on the waterfront to the betterment of the sailors who are in the harbour and to the safety of people who use that facility. I think, again, it is a tribute to Phil Givens.

There are circumstances that happen, acts of fate. Last Thursday night, the member for Renfrew North and I happened to be in my riding; we had dinner. He said: "This is Phil Givens's old territory. How is old Phil?" I said: "Well, you know, he's not well, but he's not really that sick either. He's got some problems with his legs, he's walking with canes, but he's still the same Phil Givens: witty, sharp, interested." Little did we know that at the precise moment that we were talking, he was dying.

The member for Renfrew North told me stories about when Phil was in the north wing and the things that they were doing, and Friday morning, when I read in the paper that he had died, I called his wife to offer my condolences and recounted some of the stories. She chuckled and said, "You know, Monte, I'd forgotten those things." I said, "It was eerie, because I hadn't talked to the member about Phil Givens ever," but there on that night as he was dying, we, in a different location, were talking about him.

I think that it's important that we recognize that he was unique. He was an eloquent speaker. He won the gold medal at Osgoode for his oratory. He was not only the mayor, he was a school trustee, he was an alderman, he was a controller, he was the mayor, he was the MP, the MPP, he was the chairman of the police commission and he was a provincial judge. The man -- and it has been said of him -- was a man for all seasons and a man for all reasons.

I want, on behalf of my caucus, to extend to his wife, Min, his children, Michael and Eleanor, and their grandchildren, our condolences and the condolences of all of us.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I want to thank all honourable members for their kind remarks with regard to the Givenses, and I will see that a copy of Hansard is sent to his wife and his family.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I want to bring to the attention of the House that the leader of the official opposition has returned to the House. She left the other day and I did not have the opportunity to have her named. I would ask the honourable member today if she would withdraw the remarks that she made.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I've come into the House today certainly prepared to participate. I want to be able to challenge this government very directly on what it's doing.

The Speaker: Would the member withdraw the remarks that she made last Thursday.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I think I made it very clear on Thursday, voluntarily, that I believe that what I said on --

The Speaker: Will you withdraw your remarks?

Mrs McLeod: I said no, I cannot.

The Speaker: I have no alternative but to name the honourable member.

Mrs McLeod: Are you asking me again to leave the House?

The Speaker: I'm naming the honourable member.

Mrs McLeod: And are you therefore asking me to withdraw from the House again?

The Speaker: I'm asking you to withdraw the remarks that you made last Thursday.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I've made it clear I cannot withdraw the remarks that I made.

The Speaker: Okay. I have to name the honourable member and ask the Sergeant at Arms if he could remove her.

Mrs McLeod: I will again leave, Mr Speaker, but Mike, let me tell you --

The Speaker: No. You have been named.

Mrs McLeod: -- you are not going to get away with this.

Mrs McLeod was escorted from the chamber.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It's a question that my leader would have liked to ask. She's not here because she said something that many of us believe, and that is, that in the campaign you couldn't have been clearer, Premier: You promised the people of Ontario that you would not touch a penny of health care spending. You didn't say that you would restore it in four years. You didn't say, "We will cut it and then bring it back." You said, "We will not touch a penny of health care spending." That reassured many of the people in this province; not one cent you would touch.

Now we find, in your statement last Wednesday, that you have cut $500 million of health care next fiscal year and $1.5 billion over the next three years.

This is a question of your personal integrity. Will you now at least acknowledge the truth, that during the campaign you said you would not touch a penny, and now you have cut $500 million next year and $1.5 billion? Will you personally, because it's your credibility, tell the people of Ontario when you were telling the truth?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question has been asked.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health should respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): You said it, not him.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora is totally out of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, order.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Unlike previous governments --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This is question and answer period. I would ask all honourable members to obey the rules of the House. I'd ask members to obey the rules of the Legislature.

Hon Mr Wilson: Unlike other governments that often made announcements about savings they were going to find in the system, whether it was health care or education or transportation or some other system, and they would then announce the same day multimillion-dollar programs of new spending in the hope that they would find the money in the future --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: What we found is a history and a litany in this province that the multimillion-dollar programs get up and running, but the savings never get found to pay for those programs, and therefore we end up with $10-billion deficits year over year, $100 billion worth of debt --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If you want to have question period, fine; if you don't, then I will just recess the House. It'll be your choice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: This is the document that the people of Ontario bought. This is the picture of the Premier on it. The commitment could not have been clearer. It was very, very specific. It wasn't, "We are going to cut spending now and bring it back up." It was that you would not touch a penny of health care spending, and I repeat: The people of the province took you at your word -- at your word, Premier -- and now we find in the announcement last week -- it also couldn't have been clearer -- you are cutting spending and that spending is going to fund your tax break. It isn't going to be reinvested in health care.

The Premier shakes his head, but he's afraid to answer the question. He's afraid to answer the question. Last week we were told that that money was going to reduce the deficit -- that's where it was going -- and to fund the tax break, not to be reinvested in health care.

Will you confirm -- and I would prefer the Premier; you can refer this back to the Premier -- that those health care funding cuts you announced last week are going to fund your tax break?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'd be happy to reaffirm, to affirm what the Premier and I and all members of this government have been saying all the way along, and that is, we would identify the savings -- and we've done that -- over the three years that the money will be taken out of the operating side of the hospital budget. You will see those reinvestment announcements.

It is not only unfair but it is ridiculous for the opposition right now to say that we're not going to reinvest that money in health care when today we made another significant announcement with respect to emergency on-call services, physician services, badly needed in some 67 communities. We're investing that money as part of our reinvestment strategy, and that's before -- that is months before -- we've seen any of the savings that were announced by the Treasurer last Wednesday. So we're already ahead on our reinvestment strategy, and I hope the opposition will recognize that.

Mr Phillips: The fact is that we no longer trust you. That is the fact. You are planning, by your own admission, massive cuts to the hospitals. You've cut funding to the hospitals by 20%. You are planning massive cuts to the hospitals. There's no question about that. The only way you can do that is with this bill.

I would say to the people of Ontario, pay attention to this, because one of the things this bill includes is it gives the minister the unilateral right, the minister alone, to close hospitals, and it gives the minister the unilateral right to tell every hospital in this province whether they stay open, whether they close, and more, whatever services they offer are under the direct control of the minister.

Why is this being forced through in two weeks with virtually no debate? I will tell you the reason why: Because you are imposing massive cuts on the health care system, massive cuts to the hospital section, and you want that done in two weeks so you can have those powers.

My question is this: Will you today acknowledge that the reason your government is forcing this bill through, with many sweeping powers, is so you will have the unilateral right to decide which hospitals in this province are closed, which hospitals are open and the services that are determined in those hospitals? Will you acknowledge that?

Hon Mr Wilson: Good management dictates that we make the reinvestment announcements in health care as we can realistically expect that the savings in other parts of the health care portfolio, that those savings are --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East is out of order.

Hon Mr Wilson: So I repeat. Unlike other governments that made the multimillion-dollar announcements on day one, didn't actually achieve the savings and ended up driving the whole system into debt, we're taking a good management approach.

Secondly, with respect to the legislation and the member's question, I made it clear last Thursday, we will continue to make it clear that, as a matter of policy, the Minister of Health will not exercise the powers contained in that legislation, that those powers are there as an amendment to the Public Hospitals Act, and those powers will be delegated to the Health Services Restructuring Commission, as we were asked to do by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council's restructuring study.

It recommends very clearly that we set up a commission, that we give it this authority, that the authority only be used by the commission as a last resort, that restructurings continue to be done at the local level by volunteers, and that there be no political interference.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission will ensure that we take the politics out of restructuring the hospital system so that we can finally get it done when it should have been done 10 years ago and other political parties in this place didn't have the courage to do it right.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Deputy Premier who is also the government House leader.

On Wednesday of last week, when most of the news media and members of this Legislature were in the lockup for the budget across the street, your government introduced a massive budget bill which amends some 43 acts, which repeals two acts and which creates three new acts, a bill which gives the Minister of Health the absolute power to close hospitals and to run any hospital he wishes as he chooses, that allows him to impose user fees on the people of Ontario, that allows him to tell doctors when, where and how they will practise in this province, a bill which gives your cabinet and unelected advisers sweeping powers in a large number of important areas.

You determined to pass this huge bill, quite obviously, with just a few days of debate, allowing no public hearings, very little analysis and discussion, and in the end turning over full authority to the cabinet at the expense of the democratic process.

Mr Minister, in view of your statement on the weekend, your admission that, "There have been some individual circumstances that probably we didn't think all the way through, if you want me to be frank," why are you so determined to ram this massive bill through the Legislature before Christmas, when members of the opposition are prepared to sit in January, February and March to deal with the several bills which are encompassed within this massive budget?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The honourable member knows full well that there are some severe expenditure problems in the province of Ontario. He will also be aware of the fact that many of our transfer partners have asked for tools to enable them to deal with a lot of these expenditure problems. He will also know that there are certain actions that must be taken by the government to be able to implement some of the expenditure savings and reductions that we have outlined. We are committed to putting those tools into place and to following through with the measures we need to effect those expenditure reductions.

Mr Bradley: When I spoke to people, a good cross-section of people on the weekend, they all said, except those who are the real adherents -- most independent-minded people, many who had voted Tory, said, "Your government has made a big mistake when you're trying to ram through this massive bill."

We, the elected members, are the only people the voters of this province can get at directly, the only people they can influence. Why are you so determined to take away from the elected members of all parties in this House the jurisdiction and power that they have to deal with policy and legislation and turn it over to the few advisers, the unelected advisers, you have and to the cabinet? Why are you prepared to circumvent the democratic process and concentrate power in the hands of a few?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will know that this is not the first time a government has introduced an omnibus bill in the Legislature. He will also know that this is not nearly the largest omnibus bill that's been introduced in the Legislature. As a matter of fact, the previous government had a bill named Bill 175. It amended 139 different statutes. This bill affects 47 statutes, not 139. Bill 175 affected 14 different ministries. The Savings and Restructuring Act affects nine or 10.

What did the previous government do with respect to omnibus Bill 175? They permitted three days' second reading debate totalling about seven and a half hours. They time-allocated the bill in committee of the whole to give the Legislature 30 whole minutes to talk about amendments to that bill that amended 139 different statutes, and they gave us about 35 minutes' debate, I believe, in third reading debate.

The honourable member will know that this is not the only omnibus bill that's ever been passed, nor is it the largest, nor is it the one that affects the most statutes, but you will be given a lot more time than my predecessors gave to debate those bills.

Mr Bradley: Make no mistake about it. This bill is unprecedented. This is a massive budget bill. It does not compare to any other bill that's been introduced into this Legislature.

Mr Minister, no doubt your unelected political advisers -- and you've seen them for all parties that have been in power in this province. These are the whiz kids and the political geniuses who sit with smiles on their faces in the back rooms and give you advice. No doubt those people have told you that you can get away with this, that if only you will tough it out, you can get away with this, because we're getting near Christmas and people will forget about it and there will be other issues that will arise. I agree with them that you can get away with it, and they will give you and have given you that advice.

But you have a choice, Mr Minister: You can do either what's expedient, what you can get away with, or you can do what is right. Why don't you do what's right? Why don't you withdraw Bill 26, separate it into several bills, have a full debate on each bill, allow public hearings and follow the democratic and prudent process that you know in your own mind and your own heart is right and just?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will know that the province cannot continue to spend $1 million more an hour than it takes in in revenue. He will know that the spending practices of the previous two governments over the last 10 years have brought us to the position we're in today.

He will also know that they cannot be corrected without giving our transfer partners and the Ontario government the tools they need to correct the spending practices that now leave the Ontario taxpayer with $100 billion in debt, spending $9 billion in interest a year and, most importantly, spending $1 million more an hour, every hour of every day, 365 days a year, because their massive deficits don't take a holiday.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): A question for the Premier: Premier, the last few days we've seen some rather interesting statements being made by a number of your colleagues with respect to the status of the promises that are contained in the notorious document the Common Sense Revolution.

Your colleague sitting next to you said the other day: "There's no design for the tax cut plan. There's never been a design for the tax cut plan." That was on December 2, 1995. In contrast, the Common Sense Revolution is very precise. There's a plan that's only too detailed. In fact even the dollar amounts are set out, exactly how much each person will get. People are already banking on those things. You've recommitted to them.

Your colleague also said that you raise a good point with respect to the social assistance reductions, I think having watched some of the examples that are raised on a daily basis in the Legislature: "There have been some individual circumstances that probably we didn't think all the way through.... I think some of those things have to be adjusted." But you did think them all the way through. With respect to welfare, there's no ground for complaint on inconsistency. What you did was exactly what you set out to do in the Common Sense Revolution.

How are you going to stop this very dangerous backsliding that we see taking place among some of your colleagues, where the literal truth that surely is contained in the Common Sense Revolution, the fundamental truths that are contained in each sentence in each paragraph, is now being questioned by the more querulous among your colleagues, including the Deputy Premier? My question to the Premier is this: Which of the promises in the Common Sense Revolution precisely are we supposed to believe?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me deal very directly with the question, and if there are specifics by way of supplementary to a minister, I'll be happy to have them answered.

Very directly, the member had asked about the tax reductions. It's very specific in the Common Sense Revolution that, beginning with the 1996-97 budget, we will begin phasing in, over three years, a 30% tax reduction on the Ontario portion of the income tax rates.

Secondly, in the document as well there is a -- you could call it different things -- some have called it a clawback, some have called it other things, in the fair share health care levy, to income earners over $50,000. That's the fair share health care levy, and that's very progressive, as the member will know, and that would reduce the 30% figure for those with $50,000 a year or more.

I want to say very directly to the member that when the budget comes in in the spring you will clearly see that we have lived up to our commitment in the Common Sense Revolution.

The member also asked about specifics with the reductions that we announced to have our welfare reduced to 10% above the average of the other provinces. We think we have precisely done that, but certainly within that we've been prepared to say that if there is one area here, or if there is something that is affecting the disabled, or if there is another area as a result of that, we'd like to hear about that, and if it requires fine-tuning, we believe we should respond to that. We're happy to do that.

Mr Rae: There's a difference between fine-tuning and taking an axe to the piano, and I think that what we're seeing is far more of the latter than anything that would approach fine-tuning. What we're looking at is a Minister of Finance who on one day says that there is no tax cut plan and then you on this day say yes, there is a tax cut plan and it's exactly the plan you set out in the Common Sense Revolution.

We have a Minister of Finance who says, on television on Saturday night, that you've made a mistake with respect to your welfare cuts and things need to be changed and looked at again, and then we have a reiteration of the fundamentalist doctrine by you again, on Monday, saying that you stand by everything that's in the Common Sense Revolution.I think there's a significant problem with respect to your approach.

I'm asking the Premier today if perhaps you can clear up where we see these huge gaps between what you promised to do, what you are now setting out to do and the various statements that are being made by ministers with respect to their own commitments, given the realities they're having to confront. We all know the realities we have to confront. That's why we think the Common Sense Revolution was such a stupid document. But now we're having to confront your having to maintain that promise all the way through.

So I come right back to you: Do you still stand by all the promises you've made in the Common Sense Revolution?

Hon Mr Harris: I suppose the voters, according to the member's definition, were stupid in the last election, if that's what you're saying. We put before the people of Ontario a very straightforward, commonsense platform to undo the damage of the last 10 years. This was a document that we put out to the people with regard to the specifics that you've talked about today, with regard to the tax cut and welfare. We were very clear.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Cochrane South.

Hon Mr Harris: We will also be very clear with our workfare proposals to ensure that --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- people who are capable are given opportunities to work or train and break this cycle of dependency that your failed programs brought forward.

We've been very up front pre-election, during the election, post-election. We are working tirelessly, very hard day and night, to fix a huge problem that the Treasurer has announced of a million dollars an hour being spent on your programs, more than is coming in, even with all your massive tax increases.

We inherited an economy that used to be one of the best in the world, that had failed after 10 years of your policies, and we are moving quickly to correct those problems and put Ontario (

a) back on a sound footing, and (

b) give Ontarians today and tomorrow hope and opportunity for the future. That's what we said we'd do; that's what we're doing.

Mr Rae: In a debate in this House on November 30, 1993, the Premier said: "I've been calling for a full and open discussion on the issue of user fees. Let's be fair. A copayment is a user fee. Rationing leads to user fees. Parental contribution is a user fee." That was on November 30, 1993.

He then went on and said: "Why do you refuse to allow the taxpayers, the people who pay for it and the people who use our health care system, to participate in a debate over what should be and what should not be paid for by the public purse? Why do you continue to deny that access?"

With respect to health care and the Common Sense Revolution, this Premier promised two things: First of all, "We will not cut health care spending." Those are not my words; those are his words, page 7. "We will not cut health care spending." The other thing he said was, "There will be no user fees," and on November 30, by way of background, he said, "A copayment is a user fee." Those aren't my words; those are his words. Those are the words of the person who's now the Premier.

My question to the Premier would be this: Given the way in which you've twisted and turned on the Common Sense Revolution, in which you've turned it into a document which is going to become the laughingstock of your party and of your government over the next several years, why are you refusing to allow us to cut up Bill 26, to turn it into a series of measures that can now be turned over to the public for hearings and for discussion, instead of which you're arrogantly trying to take to yourself powers which no other government has had in the history of the province?

Hon Mr Harris: Now you want to cut. For the last five years, if you had cut out the ideological nonsense; for the last five years, if you'd had responsible spending; for the last five years, if you had been prepared to cut off those special-interest groups that got special favours and special privileges from the Bob Rae government -- the power to the union leaders, the power to the monopolies that you gave to segments in society -- if you had been prepared for the last five years to be more responsible, there would be less cutting out of this nonsense that we'd have to do today.

But yes, we must move quickly to stop the nonsense and stop the bleeding, to quickly get Ontario back on a solid footing; yes, although not nearly as quickly as the former government and the member who was Premier at the time of the government, with their draconian omnibus bills, with far less time for debate, amending far more pieces of legislation; yes, had the member shown one single, solitary modicum of common sense for the last five years, our job would be a lot easier today.

You did not, it is not an easy job, and we are asking all Ontarians to continue to help us fix the mess.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): If a public debate was good enough for the Premier on November 30, 1993, when we didn't introduce user fees, I don't know why a public debate in 1995, when you are introducing user fees -- that's exactly what you're doing -- it's what you promised you wouldn't do in the Common Sense Revolution, it's what you told the seniors of the province you wouldn't do, it's what you promised disabled people you wouldn't do.

Why wouldn't you now say you will divide up the bill so it's there in presentable packages and you will send it out for hearings so we can have a full public debate, the kind of debate that you called for? Why are you afraid of debate? Why are you afraid of the people? Why won't you let the people have their say with respect to this legislation? Why would you be afraid --

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

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You know, we consulted with the people for five years. We put a document before the people. The people had their debate. I recall being on television with the other two leaders where we had our debate, and the people decided they wanted a change of direction.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You lied to them.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, the election was on the basis of the Common Sense Revolution document, which said we're going to balance the books, said in health care we are going to find savings so we can reinvest in priority areas, and this is exactly what we are going to do. I might say to the member that people are responding. We're getting calls from seniors all across the province saying, "Right on."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You're lying, Mike.

The Speaker: No, no. The member for Cochrane South, would you withdraw?

Mr Bisson: I'll withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Rae: The problem is that this government's entire campaign was based on a document called the Common Sense Revolution, in which you said you wouldn't cut health care spending, in which you said you wouldn't bring in user fees and in which you said you had a very specific tax plan.

On Friday we were told by the Treasurer that there is no tax plan. Those are his words, not my words. He said: "There's no clear-cut plan. I have no plan." Then we find out on Wednesday that you are in fact going to cut health care spending by up to 20% in terms of hospitals over three years and that you're planning to bring in new powers, that you're planning to bring in new fees.

It's precisely because there's been such a change, it's because you've departed so dramatically from the truths and the verities of the Common Sense Revolution, that we're now saying to you, why would you be afraid of hearings? I say to the Premier, especially you, why would you be afraid of hearings and why would you be afraid of breaking up the bill when you were the first one over so many times in the past to say: "Let's be fair. A copayment is a user fee.... Parental contribution is a user fee." "I've been calling for a full and an open discussion on the issue of user fees."

If the Premier is so confident that the seniors of this province are going to rise up in grateful thanks for having user fees imposed on them, if the disabled and the handicapped are so thrilled with the fact that they're suddenly going to have to pay $2 a shot every time they pay for their drugs, will the Premier tell us, why is he afraid to send this particular measure off to a committee for a full discussion so that people can come out and do it?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member will know that I have never been afraid of public debate, of hearings, of talking to people, of travelling around the province and listening to what they said. In fact, as I indicated earlier, we had open houses, we had town hall meetings, we had hearings. We heard what people had to say.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: In addition, when it has come to restructuring and reductions that we have to find in the health care system in order to fund new priority areas of service, we've heard from people all across the province. Roger Macauley, president of the Council for London Seniors, called the fee plan reasonable, one that may even help reduce problems. "Our members were prepared for this." This is Roger Macauley, president of London Seniors. "Our members were prepared for this. I'd say the vast majority know this province has a debt problem and we all have to take

part in handling it."

We've been pretty straightforward and up front continually, pre-election, during the election, post-election. The member asked about this in September when the House came back: Were we considering having seniors participate, as they do all across the country, in the drug benefit plan? We said yes, we were; we think this makes sense, and so did seniors who have talked to us.

Mr Rae: Bill 26 would make Ontario the only province in Canada without the ability to regulate drug prices. It gives the Minister of Health more power over hospitals and doctors than any Health minister has in the rest of the country. It repeals existing laws giving preference to Canadian-owned, non-profit health care providers. It rolls back pay equity. It gives enormous power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to restructure municipalities. It guts the laws requiring cleanups at polluting mines.

It rewrites completely the rules for bargaining with police officers, firefighters, hospital workers and other workers in the broader public sector. It is a major measure, all in one bill. And that's not all it does; it does more than that. Those are just the highlights.

It signals a dramatic shift from all the town hall meetings you had. It was the town hall meetings that led you to say two things about health care. The first thing you said after the town hall meetings was that you wouldn't cut health care spending, that it's far too important. That's the first thing you said. The second thing you said was, "We will not cut aid to seniors and we will not cut aid to the disabled and we will not introduce any new user fees." The people already had your statement saying that a copayment is a user fee, so they can only assume that you meant it then in 1993 and you meant it today in 1995.

In that instance and in that regard, and given the total departure from the Common Sense Revolution, the complete and utter departure from it, why would you refuse now to have full hearings on every area in which you have so significantly given new powers to yourself and in which you've moved away from the teachings, the truths, the eternal verities, of the Common Sense Revolution?

Hon Mr Harris: The member indicates that Bill 26 indicates a significant departure from accepted practices. The member is quite right. We need a substantial difference from the last 10 years, where it was spend, spend, spend. It is a significant departure. Our election was a significant --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East.

Hon Mr Harris: The people of Ontario said, "We want a change. We want people who are capable to work for their benefits," and we said, "Yes, we agree with you."

We heard that in open town hall meetings, and we said that will be part of our platform. We heard people say, "We want you to pay your own way," both environmentally, by the way, and fiscally: a balanced budget. You can't keep spending money you don't have. In fact, to do so is in effect spending dollars and sending the bill to our children and to our grandchildren and to the next generation. The people said: "Stop that. We don't want that any more. We want a change."

Yes, we are offering a change, both in a budgetary sense, in balancing the books, and yes, we are responding to our transfer partners, who are excited and enthusiastic about seeing a balanced budget in Ontario for a change, one that will lead to jobs and growth and investment in their communities. They've asked us for some tools to help them, and yes, we responded with a bill to give them those tools.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the government House leader. Ernie, you know better --

Mr Rae: Yes, but Bert doesn't. That's the trouble.

Mr Conway: I say to the government House leader that he knows better than just about anyone here how unprecedented his Bill 26 is. He knows from long and distinguished years as a party House leader just how remarkable and how unprecedented is this particular bill. Yes, there have been other omnibus bills. He knows it and I know it. But I submit to you, sir, that there has never been in this chamber, in its long and distinguished history, a bill such as this Bill 26.

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr Conway: Mr Government House Leader, your friend the Premier and you yourself like to describe this as an innocent little toolbox for your transfer partners, when you and I both know that this bill is a Trojan Horse with a bellyful of unprecedented, sweeping and unilateral powers that, for the first time ever, seeks to give your colleagues like the Minister of Health, for but one example, dictatorial powers in the area of, for example, closing down any public hospital.

The Speaker: And the question is?

Mr Conway: Given the sweeping, unprecedented and dictatorial --

The Speaker: Order. Finance minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The honourable member points out that there are some powers in this bill that are unusual. I would say that having a $100-billion debt is very unusual. I would say that's never happened before in the province of Ontario either.

How did we get there? I would say that spending $9 billion a year on interest to service a public debt that his party and that party have been largely responsible for in the last 10 years; not being able to spend that $9 billion a year on people who need it for health care, on needy families, on children and essential services -- yes, that's unprecedented in the province of Ontario too. And getting to the point where you have to spend $1 million an hour more than you take in in revenue, due to policies of your government and your government -- that's unprecedented too.

Unprecedented circumstances call for some very decisive action to bring this spiralling debt we have in this province under control so that my children, your children and grandchildren will have a future in the province of Ontario instead of the legacy of debt that your two parties have left them.

Applause.

Mr Conway: If they want to clap, let them clap to this: Twenty years ago when I came here, Darcy McKeough presented this chamber with a budget in 1975 that offered a nearly $2-billion deficit on a $12-billion budget plan. In 1985, Jake La Motta there from Nipissing, with his friend Frank Miller, offered this chamber a budgetary deficit of $3.3 billion on a spending plan of $30 billion. How dare you talk about the last 10 years? That is your record.

To the government House leader, unprecedented is this bill -- not unusual; unprecedented, conferring sweeping dictatorial powers to ministers. A naked power play, a naked concentration of executive power in this government, this Bill 26 is a legislative pudding full of ground glass masquerading as common sense and fiscal restraint.

Will you, Minister, recognizing the unprecedented nature of this Bill 26, commit today to meeting at the earliest opportunity today with my colleague the Liberal House leader and the NDP House leader to do the honourable thing, to break this bill into several sections and work out a timetable that allows a reasonable and democratic debate on the several enormously important policies contained --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to the specific question he asked at the end of his question -- or the end of his theatrical performance, perhaps I should say -- if he talks to the member for St Catharines at all, he will know full well that at last Thursday's House leaders' meeting I said to both opposition House leaders that I would talk about the piece of legislation, I would get back to my cabinet colleagues and I would get back to them after your caucus, and your caucus, had had a chance to talk about the bill in caucus the following Tuesday, which is tomorrow.

You would know that process is already going on, so I'm somewhat surprised to find an open letter from the House leader of the third party today -- perhaps he thinks that scores more political points -- and I'm quite surprised to find your theatrical debate here today in questioning when you know full well that that process was under way, as it's always been under way.

I can make one commitment to the honourable member opposite: There will be more time for debate on this particular piece of legislation than was given by the previous government on its omnibus pieces of legislation.

The Speaker: The question has been answered. New question, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Cooke: The question is to the government House leader. This piece of legislation that the government slipped in last week is not parallelled in the history of the province, so the government House leader should stop with the misinformation in this place that there's some parallel with other omnibus bills. There's no other parallel in the history of this province.

The government House leader was a member of the Legislature when Bill Davis brought in extraordinary legislation in the beginning of the 1980s to deal with the so-called budget crisis of his own making at that time. At that particular time, the Legislature was called back, there was a long second reading debate, and he had the decency to consult the public through public hearings.

I'm asking the government House leader, is he prepared to divide this bill up and allow the public to participate, or is he going to ram this bill through and legalize dictatorship in this province?

Hon Mr Eves: What an objective question coming from the House leader of the third party. I will make a commitment to the member, the same as I just committed to the member for Renfrew North: You will have more debate time on this particular piece of legislation, more time in committee or committee of the whole and more time on third reading debate than you ever dreamt of giving the opposition on your omnibus bills, 175 and 160.

Mr Cooke: There is no parallel. This bill deregulates drug prices. It allows the government to decide where doctors and which doctors can practise in the province. It gives the government the power to close hospitals. It gives the government the unilateral power to amalgamate and annex municipalities. The list goes on and on. It deregulates drug prices.

Our caucus has met. The Liberal caucus agrees. We're prepared to stay here through Christmas and in January and February if the government is interested in proceeding in a democratic way. Are you prepared to split up the bill and have the Legislature sit?

We're not the only ones who are worried about participating; there are 11 million people in this province. Your government is trying to change the face of this province with no consultation. Are you prepared to have the Legislature sit and get these bills out so that the public can participate in a change in this province of this magnitude?

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Windsor-Riverside will know full well that there was consultation in this province leading up to and including June 8. The member for Windsor-Riverside will also know that we are quite prepared --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South.

Hon Mr Eves: We are quite prepared to have more discussion about this piece of legislation than you had the courtesy to extend to members of the opposition with respect to bills 175 and 160.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre, come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member protesting is the individual who dreamt up, as I recall, new rules for the House in the Ontario Legislature. He belongs to a party that invoked time allocation or closure some 21 or 22 times in the last five years, and now he's objecting because the government that was elected to fulfil a mandate of expenditure reduction in the province of Ontario and, yes, change the face of the province of Ontario, is doing exactly what it said it would do.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Here's the guy who was in favour of rent control.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Cochrane South has been continuously out of order and I won't warn him again.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): How about the member for London North, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: There are all kinds of them.

Mr Shea: The financial statement announced last Wednesday brings with it many changes for this province. In light of last Wednesday's statement by the Finance minister, will the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation share with this House what the government is doing to help some of its cultural agencies adjust to the new economic realities?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Before I answer the honourable member's question, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize the passing of one of Canada's great icons of literature. I know all the members of this House will share the sadness of Robertson Davies's passing.

Mr Shea: I'd like more elaboration on what the financial statement means for the organizations involved.

Hon Ms Mushinski: When I met with the chairs and the CEOs of our cultural agencies in September, each and every one of them asked us to remove the barriers for their opportunities to raise funds. Indeed the cultural agencies like the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Royal Botanical Gardens and the Royal Ontario Museum are most happy that we have established the opportunity for them to create crown foundations.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Premier and it regards Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act.

Premier, Bill 26 gives your Minister of Health the unilateral and unprecedented power to close hospitals; decide what services hospitals will provide; reduce, suspend, withhold or terminate funding to hospitals; force hospitals to merge and amalgamate; make regulations that would allow hospital boards to refuse applications for appointments and revoke existing appointments; revoke licences of private hospitals; unilaterally decide what services independent health facilities can deliver and which ones can exist; reduce or terminate any private hospital funding; determine what drugs and drug products will be covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan; determine what the dispensing fee will be for prescriptions, without negotiation; charge user fees -- "copayments," he calls them -- in the Ontario drug benefit plan which will mean payments by senior citizens, welfare recipients, including children on welfare, disabled persons on welfare.

He's going to bring in billing numbers for doctors, determine unilaterally what areas are oversupplied.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Will you put your question, please.

Mrs Caplan: As well, he will have the power to set levels of fees to decide what doctors and pharmacists and others will be paid.

Premier, do you agree that Bill 26 grants your Minister of Health these absolute and unprecedented sweeping powers in every aspect of the delivery of health services in the province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, I don't.

Mrs Caplan: Premier, in fact it does. You have made the argument very well for why there needs to be appropriate scrutiny of this bill. I believe that every one of the sections in this bill -- because, Premier, the powers that I have listed in the first part of my question are the powers, and potential powers, that can be abused by this Minister of Health, although I admit that you believe he is benevolent.

I am afraid of the abuse of power which is contained in this legislation, and I am also very concerned that no one will be able to give it the kind of scrutiny that it deserves. We know there has not been consultation. Frankly, I'm shocked and horrified that you are not aware of the powers that are contained in this bill. I'm asking you, on behalf of your government, to commit today to full public hearings on every aspect of the powers that I have outlined, public hearings that will allow the people of this province to understand the absolute and dictatorial powers. Will you commit to public hearings on this bill?

Hon Mr Harris: The House leader has indicated that there will be discussions with other House leaders on how we can provide significantly more time and debate on this piece of legislation certainly than we ever received. I want to also say that the question is coming from a member of the cabinet who brought us five successive 16% increases in spending that put this province into the mess that we have today.

Finally, what we are dealing with in the legislation is not at all the same representation that's being put forward by the member today. In those areas where it is taxpayers' dollars that are funding, what we are committing to do is to manage them far more effectively than you did.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I couldn't help but actually be amazed over the course of the weekend as I read a number of quotes from you, quotes like: "We haven't calculated, quite frankly, how much it would cost." "We haven't structured what the tax cut will be." "There's a little slack in there." "We haven't designed the tax reduction yet." "Depending on the design of the tax cut, the numbers in the CSR may be extremely accurate or extremely inaccurate." My all-time favourite: "Of course, there has never been a design for the tax cut plan, as I've found out in the few short weeks since being appointed on June 26."

Stunning, breathtaking, in their contrast to the surety of what's set out in the Common Sense Revolution where we see the numbers, where we know someone making $25,000 a year will get $425 in 1996-97, someone getting $50,000 a year in income will get back $934 -- accurate to the penny, Mr Minister, to the penny. And today we hear the Premier say, very clearly: "The CSR is what rules. This is what you will see in the budget."

Would you tell us, please, would you clear this up for us, because I think many of the people out in the public are quite confused, is there a plan? Will there be a 15% reduction in income tax in 1996-97? Will someone earning $25,000 a year get $425 back in a tax rebate? Please, clear this up for us, Mr Minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Is the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine actually suggesting that the member for Nickel Belt, for example, five months or six months or seven months prior to a budget being read, had the tax legislation designed, had all the specifics of the tax legislation outlined and had the budget already in place? Is that what the member's saying?

Ms Lankin: Absolutely not. I am not saying that, because the member for Nickel Belt, the former Minister of Finance, would never have put out so irresponsible a document as this, based on false numbers, based on inaccurate -- I was going to say untrue, but I want to be parliamentary here.

I've looked at these numbers. I've looked at the bottom line of the fiscal numbers that are there in the deficit. If you reinvest the health cuts, as your Premier has said, your deficit will go up. If you take the tax cut, as your Premier has said today, your deficit will go up. You haven't got those numbers calculated in there. Please tell us: Which is true? Which is right? Is it your deficit number, is it your commitment on the tax cuts, or is it your commitment to have every, every cent of health money reinvested next year? Tell us which one of those things you're going to do.

Hon Mr Eves: Talking about the member for Nickel Belt, the previous Minister of Finance, never putting out an irresponsible document, he put out five of them in a row. They were called budgets.

He also was irresponsible enough to suggest on April 27 of this year that his deficit would be in the neighbourhood of $5.8 billion, and when we assumed office, lo and behold, we found out it was $10.6 billion on a cash-modified system or $11.2 billion on an accrual system. So much for irresponsible documents and irresponsible statements.

The member knows full well that she will get the particulars of the first instalment of the 30% tax cut in the 1996 budget, and she knows full well that she'll have to wait until then to get the specifics of the same.

REPORT CARDS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

Interjections.

Mr Stewart: Quiet, please. Show a little respect.

Minister, many constituents in my riding have expressed their support of a standardized report card for all students in Ontario. They recognize the advantage associated with having a clear and consistent reporting system on student achievement and performance. Minister, will your ministry be moving ahead with this long-needed and essential reform to Ontario's education system?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Notwithstanding the comments and catcalls from the members opposite, I believe that the question is on the mind of many parents in the province of Ontario and that it's important to the people of the province of Ontario. It also speaks to this government's commitment to quality, accountability and affordability of education in the province of Ontario.

Let me read to you from the throne speech, where we said, "Within the classroom, the Harris government will ensure a demanding core curriculum, regular testing of students and standardized report cards."

I'm pleased to assure the member that this government will work towards a standardized report card across the province of Ontario that will make assessment of students clear to parents.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This is to the Legislature of Ontario. It says, "`No' to user fees on medication for seniors.

"Whereas the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jim Wilson, is imposing user fees on prescription medicine for seniors and people on social assistance;

"Whereas during the election, the Mike Harris Conservatives promised they would not impose new user fees for health care;

"Whereas seniors and people on social assistance are having a most difficult time paying for food and housing and paying taxes on their small pensions and incomes;

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

"Be it resolved that the Minister of Health, Honourable Jim Wilson, and Premier Mike Harris stop the user fees on prescription drugs for seniors and the people on social assistance and keep their promise of no new user fees for health care."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition and a letter from a large number of people in Hearst.

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas. We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the targets of cuts. Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

As I said before, there are a large number of people from Hearst, Cochrane and Kapuskasing and they're very much concerned. I've affixed my name to the petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, not to cut one cent from health care spending; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives cut more than $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas Mike Harris also promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut'; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives slapped a new user fee on the drugs seniors, the disabled and the poor are prescribed by their doctors when they are sick; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no new user fees; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives added $225 million worth of user fees on the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken every single promise he has made with respect to protecting health care; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives are now planning, through Bill 26, to bestow upon the Minister of Health new dictatorial powers which would allow him to singlehandedly close any hospital in the province with the stroke of a pen; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Minister of Health to close any hospital in the province without any public input whatsoever; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Premier and cabinet to usurp the rights and privileges of the elected members of this Legislature and thereby the rights of every person in this province;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reverse his policies, which will clearly jeopardize the future of quality health care in Ontario; and we further demand the Conservative government withdraw their heavy-handed, dictatorial budget bill, Bill 26."

I'm proud to sign my signature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see a prediction of only 253,000 jobs created over the next three years and an unemployment rate of 8.6% in two years, which is the same as it is today; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to create significant jobs in this province; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition from my community. In fact, this makes over 2,000 signatures that I've presented so far.

"Whereas the funding for social services in the centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara has been cut by 100%; and

"Whereas the French Language Services Act ensures the delivery of French-language social and health services to francophones in designated cities, such as Hamilton, Welland and Port Colborne; and

"Whereas the needs and feasibility studies carried out after the implementation of the French Language Services Act recommended the establishment of community health centres in the regions of Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara to ensure delivery of French-language services; and

"Whereas the health centres are the only organizations ensuring the delivery of social services in French, since there are no designated bilingual positions in the other organizations of these designated cities;

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

"We demand that the Legislative Assembly immediately stop its attack on French-language services in Ontario. The centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara are the only agencies offering French-language social services because there are no bilingual designated positions in the other agencies in our communities.

We expect the Legislative Assembly to demonstrate clearly that Franco-Ontarians are an integral part of the province of Ontario, to immediately review the cuts which have affected those health centres and to re-establish the funding of social services and ensure the future of social services and health services in French in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara community health centres."

I affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads:

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, not to cut one cent from health care spending; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives cut more than $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas Mike Harris also promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut'; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives slapped a new user fee on the drugs seniors, the disabled and the poor are prescribed by their doctors when they are sick; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no new user fees; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives added $225 million worth of user fees on the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken every single promise he has made with respect to protecting health care; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives are now planning, through Bill 26, to bestow upon the Minister of Health new dictatorial powers which would allow him to singlehandedly close any hospital in the province with the stroke of a pen; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Minister of Health to close any hospital in the province without any public input whatsoever; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Premier and cabinet to usurp the rights and privileges of the elected members of this Legislature and thereby the rights of every person in this province;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reverse his policies which will clearly jeopardize the future of quality health care in Ontario and we further demand the Conservative government drop their heavy-handed, dictatorial budget bill, Bill 26."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

SILVER SPRING FARM

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition from parents of developmentally disabled persons at Silver Spring Farm, and it reads:

"Whereas under a Niagara cultural program funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services there are 20 developmentally disabled persons presently working at the Silver Spring Farm in Nepean, Ontario; and

"Whereas during the spring provincial election the Progressive Conservative candidate declared that the developmentally disabled would not be affected by any future downsizing due to budget cuts; and

"Whereas the parents of the 20 developmentally disabled persons working at Silver Farm believe that the agricultural program has proven to be a great benefit and an excellent source of fulfilment for these workers with disabilities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the agricultural program for the developmentally disabled at Silver Spring Farm be maintained."

This petition has been signed by 2,720 people in the area of Nepean and I have signed the petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that the winter roads across the northern regions of this province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure safe passage of drivers."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition that I'm proudly presenting from the central part of my riding, places like Massey, Webbwood and Espanola.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the majority of Ontario senior citizens have contributed to the province through work and taxes all their lives and for many of those years had not the benefit of many of the social programs enjoyed today;

"Whereas recent and planned funding cuts to health care, including reduced hospital grants and hospital closures, elimination of many medications used by seniors from the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, reduction in the out-of-province ambulance cost-sharing program, reductions in the assistive devices and home oxygen programs, will have the greatest impact on senior citizens; and

"Whereas reductions to the non-profit housing access fund and long-term-care funding will further erode the deserved right of Ontario's senior citizens to participate in society and live safe, independent lives;

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

"To immediately review and reconsider all cost-cutting which impacts directly and indirectly on the health and wellbeing of Ontario's senior citizens."

I proudly affix my signature.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned of Elgin county, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That junior kindergarten as it stands in the current public school system remain as a level of education for our children, governed by the provincial government;

"Therefore, we, the people of Elgin county, request that the House refrain from cancelling junior kindergarten as proposed by the current Harris government. We request that junior kindergarten remain as part of the public school system."

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario and is signed by about 400 of the residents of my riding. It says:

"Whereas the following residents of Kingston and area do not support the current financial cutbacks to programs, including child care, counselling services, women's shelters, civil service jobs, social housing, halfway houses, youth programs and services, labour concerns, children's aid, children's mental health programs, hospitals and financial assistance programs such as welfare, mother's allowance and disability; and

"Whereas the citizens of Kingston and area believe that the Tory government is creating havoc, more poverty, especially child poverty, and paying the debts of the province on the backs of the poor and the powerless;

"We want this type of heartless, unplanned tyranny to stop."

I've affixed my signature to it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, not to cut one cent from health care spending; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives cut more than $1.3 billion from Ontario's hospitals; and

"Whereas Mike Harris also promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut'; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives slapped a new user fee on drugs for seniors, the disabled and the poor prescribed by their doctors when they are sick; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no new user fees; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives added $225 million worth of user fees on the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken every single promise he has made with respect to protecting health care; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives are now planning through Bill 26 to bestow upon the Minister of Health new, dictatorial powers that would allow him to singlehandedly close any hospital in the province with a stroke of a pen; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Minister of Health to close any hospital in the province without any public input whatsoever; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Premier and cabinet to usurp the rights and privileges of the elected members of the Legislature and thereby the rights of every person in this province;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reverse his policies which will clearly jeopardize the future of quality health care in Ontario and we further demand that the Conservative government withdraw their heavy-handed, dictatorial budget bill, Bill 26."

I affix my signature.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

REPLIES TO ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just so we all know what we're talking about, particularly me, we're dealing now with the fiscal and economic statement that was presented in the House last Wednesday by the Minister of Finance and beginning debate on it. I had an opportunity to begin this debate last Thursday and continue the debate now.

I believe this is, for the government, really the defining document for you. This is the document that sets the government's course. I think it fundamentally changes Ontario. It sets Ontario on a new course, frankly one that concerns us deeply.

Just so we all appreciate the magnitude of the cuts you are proposing, in the end about 25% of all government spending will be cut out. That's about $8 billion, and just so we all appreciate what that's being used for, it is the government's intention to cut $8 billion out of the budget and then, according to the documents we've been given by the government, it's the government's intention to use $5 billion of that for a tax cut, a 30% cut in personal income tax, and to use $3 billion of that cut to reduce the deficit, just so we know why we're going through the pain -- and it will be very painful in Ontario, make no mistake about that.

It is because the new government is committed to a 30% cut in personal income tax, and today the Premier once again confirmed that this is the government's firm intention. It will be done over the next three budgets, half of it in the budget that will be presented here in April or May 1996 and then a quarter and a quarter.

But when we talk to people in the community about why we must go through this incredible battle with the deficit, I think we have to be clear that much of the saving is not being used to reduce the deficit. In fact $5 billion of the $8 billion is being used to fund the tax cut, and I might add, for the people out there who are very worried about the deficit and the cost of funding the debt, that virtually all of this money for the tax cut has to be borrowed for the next four years. We're not going to balance this budget until March 31, 2001. By the way, that's about eight months after the next election.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): What a coincidence.

Mr Phillips: Well, it won't be before the election, because it won't be balanced until March 31, 2001.

We are going to go through an incredible amount of change in the province, there's no doubt -- the government itself points this out very clearly -- a dramatic reduction in the level of services, and for what? Partially to fight the deficit, but more importantly to fund a tax cut, a 30% tax cut on personal income tax. Clearly, the more you make, the bigger the cut.

The Finance critic for the NDP pointed out earlier today in the Legislature that it was crystal clear in the Common Sense Revolution -- crystal clear -- what the implications of that 30% tax cut were. There were several charts in the Common Sense Revolution. This one has the tax implications for people making $100,000 a year and it was calculated out to $2,540. During the campaign the now Premier, the then leader of the Conservative Party, pointed out in clear detail that this 30% tax cut applied to everyone. The more you make, the bigger the cut. If you make $150,000 a year, the cut is $5,000 a year.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): And the more you pay on the health premiums.

Mr Phillips: No. I always appreciate the heckles because --

Mr Wettlaufer: But you want to ignore that.

Mr Phillips: No. This is what infuriates me, for the viewers who can't hear. One of the Conservative members is heckling me and saying, "But you ignore the health cut." No, no, no, no. I've actually read the Common Sense Revolution. This is after the health levy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Address your remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I'm being provoked by members of the Conservative Party who don't understand the document they ran on. They don't understand the document they ran on, because the figures I give you are after the health levy.

So when we are asked to bear the pain -- if you're on social assistance, you're bearing the pain right now of a 21.5% cut in your social assistance. By the way, the Minister of Finance acknowledged last week maybe they made a few mistakes doing that, but so what? So what if some people have borne an enormous penalty for their mistakes over the last little while?

The people on social assistance are going to have to bear the pain, the people in the education system are, the people in the municipalities are going to have to bear the pain, and the hospitals and the seniors, all of the pain. We're being told it is to fight the deficit; we've got this death fight with the deficit. But I would just say, to us it is crystal clear that $5 billion of that deficit-fighting is going to fund the tax break.

I want to talk about what I regard as a serious breach of confidence with the people of Ontario in what was announced last week. I don't think it could have been clearer in the campaign that the Conservatives were running on a campaign of not touching one penny of health care. In the all-candidates debates I was at, that was the thing that I think perhaps gave the most reassurance to people: "Don't worry. We are not going to touch one penny of health care." It was repeated time and time again.

As a matter of fact, in all the documentation that was presented to us, it was clear -- this is the documentation for all of us on cost measures; in other words, what things were going to be cut -- health never shows up anywhere. It never shows up in 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99. It never shows up. It could not have been clearer that the commitment you made and you all ran on was to not touch a penny of health care.

None of you ran on the platform of saying, "We're going to cut it for a while. We're going to cut," and last week's announcement cuts $1.5 billion out of health care. None of you ran on that. I challenge any of you to show me a document that would indicate that you ever told anyone: "Here's our promise. We're going to cut the health care spending and then restore it in four years."

You provided direct assurance to the seniors, the people of this province who are worried about health care, which I guess is everyone, and certainly to the people in the health care field that your government would not touch a penny. Then what we heard last week in this statement, the fiscal and economic statement, was that the hospitals themselves were going to be cut by $1.3 billion. To put a perspective on that, that's about 20% of our hospitals funding.

I would say that for the hospital sector, that is going to be a tremendous strain on them. As I think we know, every hospital in the province is going through some challenging times. They all know they've got to restructure. They all know there has to be change made. They all know it's going to take some time and, frankly, some money to make those changes possible. But just when they're all wrestling with that, the government says, "We're going to cut 20% of funding for our hospitals."

It would perhaps be understandable if at the same time the government said last week, "But we're reinvesting that money in community-based care," which would allow beds to close, people to leave the hospital earlier. But no. We were told specifically that that cut from the hospitals wasn't being reinvested. We were told specifically it was clearly part of the money that's being cut out of the budget and used to reduce the deficit and used to fund the tax break.

I would say to the Conservative caucus, listen carefully, because you're all going to have to explain this. You're going to have to explain this over the next few weeks and certainly over the next few months. Listen carefully to the explanation, because the Premier implies this money is going to be put back into health care. That's not the case. It is being taken out of the budget. The government was getting lots of good pats on the back from the financial community last Wednesday for these great cuts in spending. These great cuts in spending included $1.3 billion in hospital funding.

The second thing I want to say on health is on the user fees. This wasn't a promise that somebody twisted your arms to make, but you all ran on a platform of no new user fees. You all ran on a platform that was very specific, because what you're now talking about are copayments outside of the Canada Health Act. The Minister of Health is trying to weasel off a firm commitment that all of you ran on.

People are going to hold this up and say, "Wait a minute," because what you said was: "We reject copayments. We reject user fees. We have a better way, a fairer way, and it's called our fair share health care levy." So all the seniors in the province said: "My gosh, the Conservatives are looking after me. The Conservatives aren't going to put a user fee on me or a copayment. They're going to do it through this fair share health care levy."

In fact you say: "In the last decade, user fees and copayments have kept rising and many health care services have been `delisted' and are no longer covered by OHIP.

"We looked at those kinds of options," -- copayments, user fees, delisting, no longer covering -- "but decided the most effective and fair method was to give the public and health professionals alike a true and full accounting of the costs of health care, and ask individuals to pay a fair share of those costs, based on income. We believe the new fair share health care levy, based on the ability to pay, meets the test of fairness and the requirements of the Canada Health Act."

As of last Wednesday, you have broken, clearly broken, that commitment that all of you made to all the people in this province, and particularly the seniors in the province.

I say to you that on this fiscal document, if I were in the Conservative caucus, I would be going to the cabinet and saying: "This isn't what I ran on. This isn't what I promised. I'm going to be asked some questions that I don't have answers for." I guarantee you that will happen.

The second thing I'd say that's extremely important to the people of Ontario and to all of us is that -- for those people who are watching, what happens around here is that we have what we call a "lockup," where the members of the opposition go into a meeting room, we are what's called "locked up," we stay in that room to be briefed on what's going to be in the financial statement, and then we're let out just as the statement's begun to be read.

Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Your choice.

Mr Phillips: Again, there we go, "Your choice."

Mr Preston: I was here.

Mr Phillips: Yes, there's the member saying, "I was here." I appreciate the fact that the Conservative member who's heckling and saying, "Too bad you were locked up," doesn't realize that it is our obligation to be in that lockup. That's what's expected of the opposition. That's why we're there. The member across -- whoever it might be; I'll find out eventually -- heckling, sitting in here, was party to the fact that tabled here on Wednesday was a bill that I guarantee you you will regret having introduced.

I'll just tell the people of Ontario what it is. It is a bill that is extremely far-reaching. It takes away from people some very fundamental rights. It impacts every single person in this province, and it is clear why it was done. The Minister of Finance made it very clear today, "We have a fiscal problem and we need this to deal with it."

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

Mr Phillips: And the Attorney General says, "Yes, that's right."

Hon Mr Harnick: An unprecedented problem.

Mr Phillips: To the Attorney General, sitting here, I would say as directly as I can, I think you should be embarrassed about this bill. I think it tramples on some fundamental rights of people. I don't know how you allowed it to be introduced when what it means --

Hon Mr Harnick: You're wrong.

Mr Phillips: The Attorney General says I'm wrong. I will tell you that eventually, as we all deal with this bill, it is a -- I hope it doesn't sound too dramatic. It's the War Measures Act. It's the Ontario equivalent of the War Measures Act, designed to fight your Common Sense Revolution.

What does it contain? The Minister of Health now has the unilateral right to tell any hospital in this province what it can and what it cannot do, what services it can offer, what services it can't offer -- any hospital in the province.

Frankly, I don't like that. I used to be chairman of a hospital board. We had some pride in trying to reflect the needs of our community. But now the Minister of Health will tell every hospital in this province what services they can and cannot offer. The Minister of Health has the right now to close any hospital that he so chooses. The Minister of Health now has the right to set user fees -- and you ran on a platform, Mr Attorney General, of no user fees. This bill: Why are you introducing it? To go exactly opposite to what you ran on and what you promised in your campaign.

Hon Mr Harnick: We promised we'd reinvest into health care --

Mr Phillips: No, no, no. The Attorney General says -- don't -- well, I wish I could say what I think, but I would be thrown out of the Legislature. You made a solemn promise to introduce no new user fees, no copayments, and that was your promise. No one forced you to make that but that was your promise.

So what we've got here is a bill that allows the Minister of Health -- and as I said before, I'm amazed that the Attorney General, whom I view as a civil libertarian, would allow this to go forward -- to have the most sweeping powers of any Minister of Health in this country. The Minister of Municipal Affairs can unilaterally restructure any municipality he wants -- sweeping powers introduced.

Why? Because they say we've got an enormous deficit problem. I say, if this deficit problem is so difficult, so immense, so overwhelming that we need these extraordinary powers, how can you at one and the same time afford a $5-billion tax cut then? If you need these sweeping powers, how can you afford that tax cut?

I have difficulty imagining that the government plans to proceed to pass this bill before Christmas. They often say there was another bill called Bill 175 that covered more statutes. The fact of the matter is that the Bill 175 introduced by the NDP I think had all-party agreement and it was a bill designed to clean up statutes that needed cleaning up and all parties agreed, "That's the best way to do it. Let's not introduce 30 bills," because it was essentially housekeeping.

As a matter of fact, when Bill 175 was first presented to us, we said, "We've got concerns in these two or three areas. We think they are more significant than you do," and they were taken out of the bill, which is not a bad idea. There should be some piece of legislation