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

May 26, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L015a - Tue 26 May 1998 / Mar 26 Mai 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

BANK MERGERS

DIABETES FUND-RAISING EVENT

TRAFFIC CONTROL

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

ST BENEDICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION LADIES' AUXILIARY

AVALON RETIREMENT CENTRE

EDWARD BIGELOW JOLLIFFE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TEXTBOOKS

PROPERTY TAXATION

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

TVONTARIO

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

RENT REGULATION

BEAR HUNTING

TVONTARIO

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE AND FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS DES PARTICULIERS ET DES PETITES ENTREPRISES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

AIR QUALITY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I've spoken many times in this Legislature about the health care needs in my community of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario. I've called on the minister to recognize that there is a mental health care crisis in our part of the province and asked her to take action. I've expressed grave concerns about the loss of acute care beds in our community and the need for the minister to provide adequate funding so that no more beds are lost.

Today I feel compelled to plead with the minister to deal with the long-term-care needs in our district, needs that are not being remotely met by her recent announcement of long-term-care funding. Specifically, the minister has allocated an additional 195 beds for our entire district over the next eight years. The fact that this number is woefully inadequate cannot be overstated. Right now, in 1998, we have a waiting list almost double that number. The fact that no new beds will be in place until at least the year 2000 is a grave concern.

Another reality increases our concern. Right now in Thunder Bay, Hogarth-Westmount Hospital is home to 130 residents of long-term care. But these 130 beds are only being funded on a temporary basis. These people will not be returning home; these beds are not temporary. The minister must recognize that and fund these beds on a permanent basis. People need to know they will not be removed from their home.

While I think you realize that these beds must be considered permanent, I only hope you do not view them as part of our new eight-year allotment. Minister, do the right thing: Fund these beds on a permanent basis and make it clear that they are not part of our future long-term-care allotment.

BANK MERGERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): This morning, my colleague MPP Rosario Marchese and I joined our federal counterpart, NDP banks critic Lorne Nystrom, in decrying the move that is continuing towards bank mergers here in this country. As Mr Nystrom said this morning: "Merger plans by four of the five big banks are nothing more than high-stakes wagers by the banks to play in the big leagues of global finance. The only certainty is that the losers in this game will be consumers and small businesses in cities like Toronto." That could be said throughout the whole country.

Indeed, we know that the bank mergers that are being discussed will mean less competition. That point was also made by a representative from the Toronto Small Business Support Association, vice-president John Anderson, who was there to indicate his opposition to the bank mergers and to say: "Small business has been at the mercy of the banks for years because of a lack of competition. The proposed mergers would only make a bad situation worse."

We continue to take that position, a position that has also been taken by such individuals as Henry N. R. Jackman, who both orally and in some of the writings that he's recently made has also made it clear that in his view the proposed bank mergers would do nothing to improve competition, but would in fact reduce competition. That is something that can only be bad for consumers.

DIABETES FUND-RAISING EVENT

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to announce that one of my constituents will be embarking on a most challenging and remarkable endeavour on June 1.

Ayden Byle, a 23-year-old resident of Inverhuron, is one of the roughly 1.6 million Canadians who suffer from diabetes. Ayden will be undertaking a run across Canada to raise funds for diabetes research. He will begin his run on June 1 from Vancouver and hopes to complete his run in Halifax on October 16. The Canada Challenge - Ayden Byle Run is endorsed by the Islet Foundation, a charity devoted to diabetic research and raising the awareness of the serious and widespread nature of this disease and how important it is to find a cure.

I would like to challenge all members of this Legislature to personally donate to Ayden's run. Donations can be made at any branch of the Bank of Montreal. Ayden's run is a tremendous challenge which takes a great deal of courage and fortitude. His task could be that much more difficult given that he too suffers from diabetes and must take five insulin shots per day.

Last Wednesday evening an official sendoff was hosted by Ayden's organizers in the town of Kincardine. Funds have been raised locally to offset his run expenses and corporate donors have also come forward with in-kind contributions.

In Ayden's own words: "I might start out alone, but by the time I get to Halifax, there will be 1.6 million people with me. We are the cure. You have to get involved."

I would like, therefore, to ask all members of this Legislature to join with me in wishing Ayden and his team a safe and successful journey.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise to recognize the achievements of my constituents in the Meadoways community. This community is an inspiring example of a group of citizens who forced this government to hold to its promises. After the tragic death of Kim Wong in her home in August 1996, residents united to demand protection from the traffic on Highway 404.

Mrs Wong's neighbours, such as Mary-Jane Rose, Dave Slotnick and Karen Cassel, have worked tirelessly for this cause. Following the accident, they called on the Minister of Transportation to build a barrier to protect residents from further harm, which he promised to do. With no action after one year, they organized a community memorial at which ribbons were tied to the fence around this accident site as a symbol that the promise remained unfulfilled. Fortunately this finally forced then-Minister Palladini to act.

Last night I was honoured to attend a ribbon rally reunion to celebrate the recent completion of the new earth barrier. I had the pleasure of joining these neighbours when they untied the many yellow ribbons attached to the fence of the accident site. Their dreams were finally realized and they could now sleep at night knowing that their homes were no longer the traffic barriers for the entire community.

I want to personally extend my thanks to the residents of the Meadoways for their dedication. It was inspiring to watch the friends and neighbours of the Wong family in their efforts to make the community safe and an honour for me to be a part of their efforts. I congratulate them and thank them for their perseverance.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on health care for northern Ontario. Why is the Mike Harris government dragging its feet on health care in northern Ontario?

In my riding of Cochrane North we have a critical situation with the shortage of doctors. In Kapuskasing, at Sensenbrenner Hospital, the only anaesthesiologist has left. As we all know, a hospital cannot function without a full-time anaesthesiologist. As a result, the hospital is now unable to provide emergency procedures in obstetrics on an around-the-clock basis.

Many people in our community are working together to attract doctors and specialists to our community. But we need the proper tools and incentives and we need the help of the Conservative government. Why then did this government break its $36.4-million promise to help underserviced northern communities to attract doctors and specialists?

In December 1996, as part of an agreement with the OMA, the Harris government announced funding of $36.4 million to help underserviced communities in northern and rural Ontario to attract doctors and specialists. To date, two years after the announcement, not one of those designated communities, including Kapuskasing, Hearst, Cochrane or Moosonee, has received a penny of the funding from this government.

The Minister of Agriculture and francophone affairs was in Kapuskasing recently and met with the members of the health care recruitment and retention committee. The minister indicated that he will speak with the Minister of Health about this issue. What good is talk if we don't get action? We need action now. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to tell the Minister of Health that we need proper resources to attract doctors and specialists to communities like Kapuskasing. We need the action now, not two years from now.

ST BENEDICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Recently I had the honour and privilege to attend the St Benedict Elementary School's math, science and technology week, May 4 to 8, which focused on the history of transportation. The purpose of the week was to expose students to the history and evolution of transportation and how it will shape their future. St Benedict's students had the opportunity to witness at first hand various modes of transportation from classic cars, like a 1967 MGB, to the latest in today's transportation technology.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank St Benedict Elementary School for inviting me to this wonderful learning experience. I would also like to recognize the extremely hard work put in by principal Philip Riddell, Susan Gonzales, Cathy Waddell, Carrie Hogan, Raffi Suppon and Tony Di Angelo, as well as the many hundreds of students who helped to make this an excellent learning experience not only for the students of St Benedict's but also for the community that supports this excellent school.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Three years ago to the day, Mike Harris preached simple math principles like two plus four equals six, and $6 billion would be all it would take to balance the budget. Like everything else, this too has proven to be a hollow promise. The budget still isn't balanced. Mike Harris is way behind on his job creation promise.

Our debt continues to grow at a rate only matched by the NDP between 1990 and 1995. As a result, the American credit rating agency Standard and Poor's has given Mike Harris's Ontario the same credit rating it gave to the NDP's Ontario: a bad one. Gone are the good credit rating days of the last Liberal provincial government, and gone too is the confidence Ontarians, Canadians and the world had in Ontario. This poor credit rating signals to the international banking community that Ontario's fiscal policy - Mike Harris's financial plan for Ontario - is less than a desirable one, and the Bank of Montreal says that further tax cuts aren't the way to go.

Why doesn't Mike Harris listen to what the experts are saying? Less debt, a balanced budget: That's what Mike Harris promised and that's what Ontarians want now. Why doesn't Mike Harris do what he said he was going to do three years ago when he said, "The basic arithmetic of two plus four equals six means that you can balance the budget and create jobs"? I'm sorry, I say to Mike Harris: a promise made, a promise broken.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION LADIES' AUXILIARY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to rise today to signify a very important milestone in the riding of Cochrane South. The ladies' auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Legion, South Porcupine Branch 287, had the opportunity last Saturday evening to celebrate 60 years of activity on the part of the ladies' auxiliary within the community of South Porcupine.

I think we all know, as members, the work that the Legion does within our communities in supporting various sports organizations and other worthy causes. The work of people like Sharon Lajeunesse, Lil McCord and a whole bunch of other people I can name often goes unrewarded in the sense of people acknowledging the work they do and how important they are to our community, and I want to take this opportunity to give them the credit they are due.

Unfortunately, last Saturday night I was unable to be with them at their 60th anniversary as we had our provincial convention in Hamilton and obviously I had to be there. So I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the members of the Legion and the ladies' auxiliary for their 60th anniversary and to wish them well. I look forward to being invited in the next 60 years when they have their 120th anniversary.

AVALON RETIREMENT CENTRE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to acknowledge and congratulate the Avalon Retirement Centre in Orangeville on the occasion of its 15th anniversary. The Avalon was one of the first continuum-of-care facilities in Ontario and has cared for over 1,000 residents in its 15-year history.

At the core of Avalon's success are the many dedicated staff members, led by Dave and Donna Holwell, who care for the residents. Volunteers have also enhanced the quality of life at the centre by providing over 37,000 hours of service to the facility in a variety of ways, including visits, pet therapy and the operation of the Tuck Shoppe. Life at the Avalon is a true reflection of its motto, "We Care...And it Shows."

To add to the excitement of this 15th anniversary celebration, Orangeville's newest seniors' residence, the Lord Dufferin Centre, is slated to open its doors this summer. The residence will comprise 78 suites and include a spa, an exercise room, a chapel and many other exciting facilities.

Both the Avalon and the Lord Dufferin Centre allow seniors to live independently and among friends while enjoying the comfort of housekeeping services and prepared meals.

The Avalon Retirement Centre sets an example of standards to be achieved. I wholeheartedly congratulate them for their drive and dedication, which have given them 15 successful years. We look forward to the Lord Dufferin Centre continuing on with this tradition of excellence.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have a distinguished guest from the city of Elliot Lake. Councillor Fred Mann is here with us today in the west members' gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's out of order, but welcome.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On that note, I have a point of order: I'd like to signify that there are two people from Timmins. Dale Tonelli is here, from Telemedia radio; and Brian Dougherty, a good constituent from the city of Timmins.

The Speaker: Welcome. I just want to say that that's it; we're not going to go down this road any more. Tomorrow and the next day as well, there are no more introductions.

EDWARD BIGELOW JOLLIFFE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to ask unanimous consent to note the passing of a former Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Wildman: Edward (Ted) Bigelow Jolliffe died recently at his home in British Columbia. I want to pay tribute to him today.

Ted Jolliffe was born in Luchow, China, to missionary parents in 1909. He was educated in China, at Victoria College at the University of Toronto and was a Rhodes Scholar at Christchurch, Oxford.

His family roots in old Ontario gave him the connections and the confidence to campaign enthusiastically in villages and towns throughout the province for democratic socialism, in which he believed and which he believed wholeheartedly would bring a better life to all the people of Ontario.

Mr Jolliffe was a quiet intellectual not noted for being a politician who used extreme rhetoric or, for that matter, even the stirring oratory of the style of Tommy Douglas or David Lewis, his contemporaries. His manner was straightforward, leaving listeners to feel that they were being addressed as intelligent adults. He was a politician who embodied faith, intellect and idealism, combining all of these to the best of his ability. Ted Jolliffe once said, "Democracy is not just a babble of voices." I think that's something that many in this House would do well to remember in the future.

Ted Jolliffe might have been Ontario's first socialist Premier. His association with the CCF began in the 1930s, not long after the party was formed. He soon became the provincial leader in 1942, a position he held until 1953. In 1953, Ted Jolliffe led the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation to within five seats of forming a government here at Queen's Park. The CCF became the official opposition, winning 34 seats, just four short of the Progressive Conservatives.

Ted Jolliffe was the provincial leader of the CCF, our party, at a crucial time in the development of social democracy in Canada. He came within just a few thousand votes of forming a government in 1943.

In the 1945 provincial election, Mr Jolliffe told the public in a radio broadcast late in the campaign that he feared that the Conservative Premier, George Drew, was maintaining a secret police force to spy on political opponents and the media. This led to a significant drop in support for Mr Jolliffe in that election campaign, because I think the public in Ontario did not like the tone of his comments and didn't really believe that what he was saying could be true. Almost 30 years later, though, during the work for the autobiography of David Lewis, documents were discovered from the Premier's office which showed that Mr Jolliffe's charges were indeed true.

Mr Jolliffe was again Leader of the Opposition from 1948 to 1951. After he retired from politics, he went on to a distinguished career in labour law and was appointed the first chief adjudicator for the federal public service staff relations board.

Ted Jolliffe pulled Ontario politics to the left. He forced George Drew and the Conservatives to run on a more progressive platform, causing major reforms in health, education and public enterprise.

The law firm Jolliffe, Lewis and Osler became known as a powerhouse for labour causes and labour cases and was credited for helping bring Canadian unions together in the 1950s. Our party certainly, and all the politics of Ontario, owe a great debt to the work of Ted Jolliffe, and we mourn his passing and express our condolences to his family.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It's indeed a privilege to take

part in today's remembrance of Ted Jolliffe, who passed away in March. His talent and dedication to his political beliefs had a significant impact on the birth of the Ontario New Democratic Party.

While no member of this Legislature served with Mr Jolliffe, we should not discount the impact of his years as an MPP, which included an impressive provincial election campaign as leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Mr Jolliffe was a force to be reckoned with. Under his leadership the CCF came within five seats of forming the provincial government in 1943.

The greatest strength of our parliamentary system is that the viewpoints of various segments of society can find a home within our mainstream political parties, their caucuses and their leaders. Mr Jolliffe's inspired leadership and the ideals he stood for no doubt influenced political thought and government policy, especially during the minority Conservative government of George Drew. His work for the CCF and later his impressive legal career were instrumental in the formation of the Ontario New Democratic Party.

When I was first elected in 1990, Mr Jolliffe lived in Rockwood, in Wellington county. I regret that I never had the opportunity to meet him, although I suspect he wasn't my strongest supporter.

Dale Hamilton, who is a resident of the Rockwood area, has fond memories of Mr Jolliffe. Ms Hamilton got to know Mr Jolliffe and his wife when they lived in Rockwood before their retirement in British Columbia.

It's important to remember Mr Jolliffe not only for his accomplishments and the impact he had on our political landscape, but also on a more personal level, through the impressions of people who were his friends. Ms Hamilton's memories, printed recently in the Guelph Mercury, give us a better understanding of the man behind the public figure. Of the Jolliffes, Ms Hamilton said: "Ted and Ruth cared deeply about people and they acted upon it. Their generosity of spirit guided their choices and priorities in life."

One of Ms Hamilton's more vivid memories was of Mr Jolliffe "surrounded by stacks of important-looking papers, his pipe smoke circling his head, sitting on the rickety sunporch at the white house on the hill in Rockwood. Mrs Jolliffe was in the background, offering up tea and her own welcome insights."

To the people who were the closest to Ted Jolliffe, his children and his family, I offer our sincere condolences on behalf of the provincial government. May his life and record of public service continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to extend the sympathy of all of us upon the passing of Edward Bigelow Jolliffe. Even though it happened some period of time ago, in March of this year, we haven't had an opportunity in this Legislature to pay tribute to him.

He had a significant impact, of course, on Ontario politics, because previous to his ascension to a position of significance within the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario, many people viewed the CCF as essentially a western party, and some as a western protest party, certainly a party that gathered together a group of people who had a very strong social conscience, who believed in what we would call the social democratic agenda for that day. Some of those policies grew out of the difficulties which were encountered in our country in the 1930s and Ted Jolliffe was able to translate that into political action in the 1940s.

As my colleague from Algoma has appropriately pointed out, a lot of people in the province today would probably not recognize that Ted Jolliffe came quite close to being the Premier of the province of Ontario. If you look at straight statistics, during the early and mid-1940s you would see that the CCF came up considerably in the polls and that was reflected in the numbers of seats won in the Legislative Assembly at that time. Much of that credit must go to Ted Jolliffe, who was an articulate and eloquent individual who brought to the debates in the House the kind of respect we like to think of in parliamentarians.

My colleague from Renfrew North, one of the historians of this House, who knows these things well, was just telling me before I rose that there was a speech given on CFRB, about that time, what, 40 years ago?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In 1945.

Mr Bradley: It was 1945, says my colleague. It was a speech which dealt with an allegation that there was some political surveillance of certain people in the province, directed, it was alleged, by the government of the day. It was quite a stunning speech, one of the better speeches given in this century by a provincial politician. I'm told, again by my irrefutable and impeccable source, that it was actually written by Lister Sinclair and delivered by Ted Jolliffe.

He had a significant impact on this province. In addition to that, he went on, after his life in politics, to continue to make a contribution to public service. He retired to Saltspring Island in British Columbia. There are just a few socialists on that island, I'm told, because a friend of mine, Ken Lee, a former St Catharines Collegiate principal, has retired to Saltspring Island. He is well known for his views, which are of a socialist nature, and he mentioned that one of the famous people on Saltspring Island was Ted Jolliffe.

He was a labour lawyer, so he played a significant role not only in this court, which is a parliamentary court, but also in the courts of justice and the civil courts of Ontario.

Those of us who are in this Legislature - and I can say this on behalf of the Liberal caucus - extend our deepest sympathy to the family of Ted Jolliffe and pay tribute to him for his years of service to the people of Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 12.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today the government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association unveiled a new model of enhanced primary care in five communities. Those five communities are Hamilton, Chatham, Paris, Wawa, and the villages of Sydenham, Verona and Sharbot Lake in the Kingston area.

"Primary care" is a term that refers to a person's first point of contact with a health provider. The new model announced today is the result of two years of consultation with physicians and other health care providers that will allow for quality care that is more accessible, comprehensive, coordinated and continuous. It is based on the concept of a network of providers, including physicians at one or more locations who will roster or enrol patients for the purposes of providing primary care services.

Discussions about creating this new model of primary care began under my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Wilson, with the creation of a steering committee, chaired by Dr Graham, made up of physicians, academics, a hospital CEO, a nurse and consumers. Our new model of care reflects the advice of this committee and the input of other health care providers, as well as the direct involvement of the Ontario Medical Association. It illustrates our shared commitment to exploring more accessible and innovative ways of delivering health services to Ontarians.

Under this new model of care, there will be expanded access to on-call services, enhanced prevention services for patients, evening and weekend hours, after-hours telephone advice from a registered nurse and improved use of technology, including computerized patient files.

We will be evaluating the five new primary care pilots and making changes as required. These first sites should be seen as an opportunity to learn more about what will work and what will not, and to make changes as needed.

Under our primary care pilots, physicians will have two options as to how they are paid: either capitation or reformed fee for service. Capitation means that funding is attached to each patient and is calculated on factors including their age and gender. This model is already used by 77 health service organizations across Ontario. The second model involves physicians billing a reformed fee for service. Regardless of the payment method, the funding formula will encourage home care supervision and preventive medicine.

It is also important to emphasize that patients will be invited by their physicians to participate in the pilots. Primary care reform will be voluntary for both physicians and patients in the pilot communities.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is indeed an exciting day when this government actually recognizes that "primary" care means "first." Unfortunately for the people of Ontario, it's three years too late that this government finally gets the idea that if you're going to renew the health system, you start with the first part of it, the contact the patient has with doctors and other providers. What we had was the previous Minister of Health announcing that there would be these pilot projects by December 1996. Instead we're here today looking at their very late arrival.

That represents something important. It represents a certain lack of commitment on the part of this government to actually making the health care system work. Why did this government go after hospitals in such a random and reckless way? Why did it take away 12% of their budget, some $1.3 billion? Why did it put patients into the hallways of those hospitals, waiting for three days or as many as eight days for basic services when it could and should have been looking at how to deal with doctors, how to make services more available and not less available.

We have finally from this government the announcement of intention to do something about primary care reform. Not only is it way overdue, but it comes in a different kind of circumstance. It comes after the people of Ontario, the nurses of Ontario and probably many of the doctors of Ontario have been worn down by a system of an uncaring government unable to manage the basic prerequisites of health care. So when we talk about the takeup of change, the ability to get people to deal with a new part of the system, it's probably not a very exciting day for most people out there.

It probably is simply one of resignation that this government might finally, in advance of election year, be touching on some of the things they were elected to do in the first place, which was to deal with the needs of the health care system.

We're pleased to see the government at least acknowledge that there are some possibilities in terms of rostering, in terms of bringing patients together. We're also pleased to acknowledge that it's very important to try to look at different ways that doctors can get into preventive care. But this is three years later. This is three years after this government started creating messes in the health care system.

While the minister says and would like us to believe that the government is serious about preventive care, it's the same government that has dumped public health down on to the municipalities, that has made many communities face the prospect of losing their preventive health care. We have sexual health clinics being cut back in their hours, and other clinics that provide basic care, the same kind of care the minister is trying to announce as something new today, are being taken away from them in communities across Ontario.

We have also the same kind of thing, where we don't know how this will be paid for. The government would have us believe this is something exciting and new, and in fact there's no mention of the details of where this money will come from. If these are doctors being taken out of fee for service, will the fee-for-service budgets be affected? How will this be paid for? How will it actually encourage the doctors to take this on?

The kinds of things that the minister is depending on for this to work, for example computerization, information technology, hasn't even been touched by this government. They haven't set up any of the infrastructure to actually make some of these systems work. The government talks about primary care as if they invented it, when all previous governments have worked hard to try and understand it. It's only this government that has done nothing with this file until today.

The 77 health service organizations are already out there, have been providing service, yet this government doesn't bring forward one iota of information about what has been accomplished. They say they're going to use capitation - pay by the number of people served per doctor - yet there's nothing about what we've learned from health service organizations. There are already more people involved in them than the government purports to put into this pilot project. Why don't we have some information? Why is the government going slow on this project in terms of being able to tell us what they're going to do about it?

I think the answer is that this is simply a public relations move on the part of the government. They're bringing it in, very late in their term, because they're afraid to really do what primary health care would require, what Duncan Sinclair said should have been done at the beginning of the whole project, and that is to care for patients. They'll find out that a system that has been bankrupted, with money taken out of the system for patients, can't deliver the care that primary care reform needs.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The minister knows very well that the people of Ontario have been waiting for this announcement not just for two years but for many years. When the member for Beaches-Woodbine was Minister of Health, she began the process, with the OMA, of looking at real reform of primary care. It is a very difficult issue that all those we've talked to all across the province have identified as key to reforming the health care system, and that is: "What is the first step? How do I first get access to appropriate medical care?"

Real primary care reform means more access to not only a physician, which is all this is, but to a range of health care professionals. There's nothing in this announcement that does anything to lessen the gate-keeping effect that the medical profession currently has on access to medical care. There is nothing in this announcement that requires those physicians within this network of physicians to share some of those resources with the other health care professionals who are essential to a broad range of care within the province.

The minister claims that there is a list of so-called enhanced services, and I'd like us to take a quick look at those.

Patient education and preventive care: But when you look at her announcement, it talks about printed leaflets. Printed leaflets? Those are available in my doctor's office, I don't know about anybody else. That's her idea of enhanced care?

Primary mental health care, including referral to an appropriate community service: Doesn't that happen already? What's new here?

Referral to other specialists: What's new about that? Doesn't every family physician do referrals to specialists as required?

Access to hospital care: Just imagine. Doesn't your primary care physician have to have hospital privileges to practise? Under Bill 26, he or she does.

So where's something new? There's nothing new in these so-called enhanced services, and there is much that has been identified as necessary if we are going to have primary care reform.

Even the minister says this is not that new, because there are already 77 different organizations around the province, only those community health centres and those group health practices like the one in Sault Ste Marie offer a far broader range of services than the minister is announcing today. She had a model, she had two or three models, that really offered enhanced care, that offered a range of services by professionals.

She talks about evaluation of this system. Why hasn't she initiated a thorough evaluation of the really reformed primary care systems that already exist to show how that kind of continuity of care offered by physicians in conjunction with psychologists, nurse practitioners, chiropractors - the whole range of professionals who can offer to clients the kind of care that people all over this province are demanding. Oh no, that's not what's here.

What this is is another cosy little deal with the OMA, another way of putting off real reform of primary care, another way of preventing the sharing of resources with other health care professionals. This is just part of the cosy deal that this government signed with physicians that they can't get out of and that they have been trying very hard to at least make some cracks in.

We want to know what the evaluation process is going to be. Is it going to involve the patients? Is it going to look at utilization rates? Is it going to look, over the long term, at whether this model actually has a preventive component to it? Is it really going to see whether this makes physicians willing to participate in community-based care in a more thorough way than before? Is it going to talk about patient satisfaction and families of patients and their satisfaction with the kind of service?

Is it going to survey the other professionals in the community to see whether there is really a willingness on the part of the physicians participating to refer to other health care professionals who can offer the wide range of services? I would be surprised, because if that were so, I think the minister would be saying so.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today some interns from the province of British Columbia. I'd like you to join me in welcoming them here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I have in my hands a letter from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, dated yesterday, May 25, in which they are very critical of Bill 16 and have some grave concerns about it. Let me just read you only one little paragraph. It says:

"This bill is complicated, cumbersome, confusing and, too often, badly drafted. It serves to perpetuate the bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating. The end product is a political and administrative nightmare."

I would like to know, Minister, where were you in this process? This act, as you know, makes a number of changes to the Municipal Act. Where were you to fight on behalf of municipalities? Where were you to fight on behalf of the property taxpayers, both residential property taxpayers and the commercial and industrial taxpayers in this province? Where were you? How could you allow this to happen?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can tell the member opposite where I was: I was in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Finance, and agree 100% with the bill.

The bill is going to protect the taxpayer. It allows for caps. It gives municipalities all the options and all the ability they need to deal with matters of municipal concern. I am fully supportive of the bill, and I honestly believe the opposition should also be supporting this bill.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, you know that the municipal clerks and treasurers are the people who deal on a day-to-day basis with the property taxpayers in Ontario. Let me quote another section: "If commercial and industrial classes are limited to 2.5% increases, municipalities will not be able to levy sufficient funds in 1998, 1999 and 2000 to pay for operational costs" etc.

They further go on to say: "Major priority services such as roads, sewers, water and fire departments will be threatened. Quality of life services such as recreation, libraries, community support, public health, tourism, economic development will be cut to the core or eliminated."

They are the concerns of our municipal taxpayers, whether they're residential taxpayers or commercial and industrial taxpayers. Where were you in all this?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Gerretsen: There's also a section, as you well know, subsection 8(2), which states that if a change event takes place, the assessor isn't even obligated to allow the change to take place so that taxes will actually be lower, which is exactly what the -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Leach: Again to the member of the official opposition, these are options that are available to the municipality. If the municipality doesn't want to put the cap on, that's a decision the municipality makes.

We've given the municipalities the autonomy to make the decisions that best suit their municipality. The municipalities have the best of both worlds here. If they want to protect small business, as the city of Toronto indicated it did, they have the ability to put on a 2.5% cap for the next three years. If they choose not to do that, they don't have to do that. They can raise taxes; they can hold taxes; they can do whatever they want. These are decisions that those directly elected municipal councillors have the ability to do.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, it's like a trap for the municipalities in the same way that your downloading of over half a billion dollars on municipalities was.

Let me just read to you the

summary paragraph of what they're saying: "This bill, if passed as drafted, will embroil municipal councils in complex, confusing and inefficient systems of taxation. Administrative costs will increase. So complex is the application of Bill 106, Bill 149 and Bill 16, that few municipalities in Ontario will be able to fully bill taxes before the year is ended with any degree of success...."

How could you, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, allow this to happen? Why didn't you protect the municipalities and the taxpayers who pay the taxes into those municipalities?

Hon Mr Leach: I can see that the member opposite has some problem with giving municipalities the autonomy to make decisions that best suit that municipality.

As far as the clerks and treasurers are concerned, we had consultations with them. We will have further consultations with them. As a matter of fact, I'm going to be speaking to them a week Monday and I'll be glad to answer all of their concerns at that point in time.

Our whole purpose behind this bill was to ensure that the municipalities had an opportunity to protect their taxpayers, whether it's residential or commercial and industrial. But if they choose not to put a cap on commercial and industrial, if they choose to go another way, that's their decision. That's what they're elected to do. You should understand that the municipality is the level of government that sets property taxes, and what this government has done is given them the opportunity to make decisions that best suit their individual circumstances.

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about your announcement today. In fact, if anyone is trying to understand it better, they might like to look at another announcement that's entitled "Government Announces New Decisions for Primary Care," except that announcement was made on July 18, 1996. This announcement talks about 25 reports having been done on primary care. It talks about 430 physicians already engaged in primary care.

Minister, why did you wait so long to begin anything in terms of a new primary care initiative? Are you serious about doing primary care? How can the public believe you when it has taken your ministry three years to get to the same point we were at in July 1996?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Today we had the opportunity to officially announce the five communities that were going to be the initial participants in the pilot project.

Our announcement today is to acknowledge and recognize those communities that have indicated a willingness to participate.

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just again announce that those five will be in Hamilton, Paris, Wawa, Chatham, and there will be some small communities around Kingston, that have all indicated -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Kennedy: You can barely shake the cobwebs off the minister's announcement for how similar it is to the old announcement that's almost two years old. It was building on what was supposed to be the progress to that point.

Minister, you haven't done anything about real preventive care. You've still downloaded public health. In Hamilton there's a Bagshaw clinic that's been cut down to 15 hours, where it used to have 40 hours of operation. You've taken that preventive care away from the people of Hamilton. There are no evenings and no weekends. It was the longest-running sexual health clinic in North America, but it's not able to operate. An Ottawa clinic is $20,000 short; they're going to have to get sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies to keep going, because you, Minister, aren't doing your job in preventive care.

You also aren't doing anything about underserviced areas. You haven't done anything in this model to make sure that communities can attract more physicians. You promised, or your predecessor did and you failed to follow through on it, $36 million worth of funding.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, are you going to do something about underserviced areas as part of primary care, or are the people in those communities not going to get doctors -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know the member has some problem recognizing when progress is being made, and certainly today in the province of Ontario -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Today we have taken a very significant step forward. We have done so in cooperation with the other health care providers. The announcement today was done in cooperation with the Ontario Medical Association. We wanted to ensure that as we move forward we would have a system that was going to be responsive to the needs of people in this province.

This is a new system of service, and there will be an emphasis on prevention. In fact, we have spent more money on prevention than any other government. A few months ago I indicated that we were spending $17 million on prevention of cardiac disease. We have made commitments, all new money, and we have continued to indicate that we are shifting the focus at the Ministry of Health from illness to wellness. We are concentrating now on the promotion of health.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Minister, you're missing the point. My colleague from York South asked you about underserviced areas. Your colleague the Minister of Education has deregulated tuitions. What that has done, Minister, is that in effect you're forcing graduating students to place a greater emphasis on income potential than on meeting community need. In the United States, when they did this, students went into specialties, not into becoming general practitioners, which are needed in underserviced areas.

You speak about working with medical establishments. I'll quote from John Gray, the president of the OMA. He said: "It is clear that with spiralling tuition and fixed resources, medical school will place a growing proportion of students in a position of extreme financial burden or will be altogether prohibitive in cost. If we are to encourage young minds to enter into the study and practice of medicine, we must not make these barriers so extreme as to deny access to any individual." That's what you're doing, Minister. Will you stand up and make sure that all students have access to medical school?

The Speaker: I just remind members that supplementaries relate to the question to begin with.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm not going to debate that. I would just remind members that supplementaries should follow up on original questions.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would like to go back to the original questions, which focused on the enhancement of primary care services, the announcement that we made today, and also there was some indication that certainly there are populations within the province that are underserviced. I would just like to quote Dr Brian Gamble, chief of medical staff of three hospitals in Chatham and Wallaceburg, who indicated on May 26, 1998, in the London Free Press, "This program" - meaning our new primary care program - "will mean more doctors in underserviced areas." I couldn't have said it any better.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I also have a question about the so-called primary care reform, and I wonder where the reform is. We listened to the minister's announcement today, and she tried to say that under her primary care pilot projects people can expect newborn care. I thought you could already get newborn care. Then she said that people can expect printed educational material on smoking hazards. You can already get that. Then she said people can expect that their doctor will admit them to hospital when they need it. As far as I know, Ontario's health care system used to deliver that.

Primary care is about providing wider ranges of health care and wider ranges of health care practitioners; it's about preventive care; it's about allowing physicians or at least enhancing the ability of physicians to do care in the home. Why aren't any of these things in your so-called primary care paper?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's obvious that the leader of the third party missed where I indicated in my comments that we would be encouraging, and this funding formula would be supporting, home care supervision and also preventive medicine.

Mr Hampton: Minister, that's what you say, but physicians are already writing to you and they're already saying that it's not going to do the job. For example, this is a letter from a Dr Alan Fegelman, who practises here in Toronto. Many of his patients are elderly, and he writes:

"I am a family doctor in Ontario.... I am deeply concerned about the change in the new

schedule of benefits, that drastically reduces the fee for house calls....

"I do not know why the OMA and your government want to discourage house calls, and I am especially surprised that with primary care reform and hospital restructuring" - in other words, pushing people out of the hospital, sending them home - "where there will be much more emphasis on treating people at home...."

One would think that real primary care would provide some incentives for physicians to actually do those house calls, since those very same people have been pushed out of hospital, but the incentives are not here. How do you square that with your so-called primary care reform?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to just quote Dr Orovan, who indicated, as a result of the announcement today, that this is particularly significant, because at a time when the population is growing and aging, this is an important step in looking at new ways of improving access to services. In fact, it is the elderly and it is others who will be involved in home care who will now have the opportunity to have access to those services as they have never, ever had access before.

I also want to emphasize the fact that the reason these five communities are participating is because these communities have indicated an interest in these programs. These are all voluntary and for the physicians who are going to be involved and the patients who are going to be involved, it's a voluntary commitment. I don't know why you would be opposed to the Wawa community wanting to be involved in the primary care pilot project.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): There are some very real reasons why we are saying this falls far short of your glitzy little statement about what it does. This doesn't reform primary care. All it does is set up a rostering measure with no controls. People in Ontario don't want a rostering system that is going to lead to creaming. In other words, those who are most ill and most difficult for physicians to deal with may voluntarily not be part of this experiment.

You have set this up in such a way that all the worst problems around rostering can occur here with no limits at all. Your reform announcement doesn't reform anything. What you are simply doing is recycling a bunch of primary care measures that are already practised in other places, but without some of the controls that those community-based measures have.

It is not a reform and the biggest question is: Where is the funding mechanism that is really going to lead to primary care reform?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The initiative that was announced today, the five communities that were announced today, there were indications that we are actually leaders when it comes to providing this enhanced model of primary care services to people. We are leaders, not only in this province but we are leaders in Canada.

In fact, it means that when individuals make a commitment, they will have the access to the services of the physician and the other members of the health team. This is a tremendous step forward and it will certainly ensure that we are able to provide people in this province with high-quality, accessible services 24 hours a day.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question today is to the Chair of Management Board. Yesterday, we asked the Premier about how some of the Conservative Party's friends are benefiting from a great deal of public money.

We wanted to know how a third-ranked casino bid by the Falls Management team got bumped up to become the successful bidder. The bid doesn't contain a substantial convention facility, it's not what the people of the Niagara region want and it doesn't recognize the importance of tourism to the Niagara region. However, the part-owners of Falls Management are the Latner family, who gave $48,000 to your party in the last election. This has the appearance of influence-buying.

Minister, can you tell us how an inadequate, third-ranked bid by Conservative Party fund-raisers got bumped up to the top of the list to become the successful bid for the Niagara casino?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): To the Leader of the Opposition, I am told his facts are wrong, that this process was similar to a process used by the NDP in how they awarded casinos, and this was the best proponent viewed by the selection committee and by the review panel that looked at it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Who's on the take?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's unparliamentary, the heckle. I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw, "Who's on the take?"

Mr Hampton: Minister, if you are so sure this is a fair and open process, who don't you open up the books and let the public see all of the process? While you're at it, maybe you could explain how another Latner company, a company called Gamma-Dynacare, got a very sweetheart deal from your government in terms of health labs.

Earlier this year, you changed the regulations as to how privately funded health labs in this province are paid. You put a cap on the individual labs, where there used to be a cap on the industry. When you put the cap on the smaller labs, you took away their business and you gave it to Gamma-Dynacare, which is owned by the same Latner family, the same family that gave you $48,000 in the last election.

Can you tell us, Minister, why it is that you gave such a sweetheart deal there to your Conservative Party fund-raisers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll refer this question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We dealt with this issue yesterday. I want to indicate again that first of all, the industry cap that was brought forward on lab billings was introduced during the time of the NDP. They worked with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, and we have continued to work with them and have brought forward a corporate cap proposal that was the initiative of the association. We are continuing to cooperate with that association, as the two previous governments did.

Mr Hampton: That was an attempt at an explanation, but it was no answer. The fact remains that the Latner family gave $48,000 to the Conservative government. They are now getting a big chunk of the Niagara casino, you changed the health lab regulation to reward them as well, and it doesn't end there. We discovered that in terms of charity gaming casinos, Gaming Venture Group will be one of the permanent charity gaming clubs. Who owns Gaming Venture Group? It's owned by Greenwin/Shiplake, which is controlled by Greenwin Property Management, which is controlled by the Latner family.

The people of Ontario need to know: Give $48,000 to the Conservative Party at election time and you don't get one contract, you don't get two - you get three times at the public trough.

It looks like corporate influence peddling and it smells like corporate influence peddling. When are you going to stop rewarding your Conservative Party friends with public money?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would refer that to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's my turn.

As the third-party members know full well, this was an arm's-length process that went through the Ontario gaming commission.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This is not the first time this has come up, obviously. We've answered this question several times before. The answer is going to be the same as it was last time. The selection process was carried out by a committee independent of political involvement. It was an arm's-length process. It was through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. The technical evaluation committee reviewed and scored the bids. The committee consisted of representatives from the Gaming Control Commission, the Attorney General's -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Brant-Haldimand, if you stand on a point of order, I'll be very interested in hearing from you.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): If I say one word, I get blasted

The Speaker: No, I'm not -

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll guarantee you that was not me dinging you. I was not dinging you. I just thought you wanted a point of order. I thought you were up on a serious point of order.

Mr Preston: No, I would have stood up for that.

The Speaker: It wasn't a serious one? Okay.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Now it sounds to me like you're having a debate with me. I don't want to have a debate.

Minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I was saying, the technical evaluation committee reviewed and scored the bids. The committee consisted of representatives from the Gaming Control Commission, the Attorney General's office, the OPP and outside experts from auditors. A member of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission board reviewed the committee's process and procedures. The outside experts were satisfied the process was fair and objective.

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. No one has been able to understand why you put in place such a bizarre and unworkable process for buying our elementary schools their textbooks. The publishers don't understand how they can produce good books with the timelines you've given, the boards don't understand how they can make good choices for their students, and teachers have no idea what they're going to be teaching with come September.

But now we know why you are in such an incredible hurry to spend your $100 million. You want to make sure there is a photo opportunity for your members for back-to-school time in September. This memo from the Upper Grand District School Board to its elementary school principals says it all. "Schools will

schedule photo ops with their local MPPs on September 7 to present the new textbooks."

Minister, why are you forcing school boards to purchase less than adequate textbooks so that your Tory MPPs can have a photo opportunity in September?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): We simply want to ensure that our students in Ontario at the elementary level have the best possible books in time for a September startup for classes this fall.

This is a good-news story, in that we are investing $100 million. I don't know why the Liberals are opposed to us investing $100 million in our elementary schools, in textbooks and resources for our elementary students.

Mrs McLeod: So a scandal will once again expose the Harris government. Minister, your real interest is not in education; your government's only interested in public relations. This is all about marketing your government's agenda. You are a whole lot -

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the minister that it is clear you are a whole lot more concerned about having the trillium logo stamped on every one of your new shiny textbooks than you are about the content of the textbooks. This also makes clear that all textbooks purchased will have the trillium stamped on them, presumably to try and convince people -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister for Management Board, minister for social services, will you please come to order. Member for Hamilton West, come to order, please, and Scarborough East.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I want to ask you, in the name of quality education - you know that the timelines you've put in place do not allow boards to choose the best quality books for students. You know that boards aren't even going to have a list of the books in time to make those choices.

I'm going to ask you: What will happen to the $100 million if boards simply cannot meet your deadlines? I want you to give an absolute assurance today that boards can take whatever time they need to choose the best books for the students in the classroom, even if they miss the deadline for your photo op in September.

Hon David Johnson: This government is going to ensure that the best possible investment will be made in our elementary students, that the best possible books, in line with the new curriculum, will be invested in our classrooms at the earliest opportunity. I think that can be arranged for September when our students go back to school.

We can always rely on the Liberals for the facts. A few weeks ago they were saying the Americans were going to write the secondary school curriculum. Wrong. A week ago they said the Americans were going to be the publishers of all the textbooks. Wrong again. No American publishers are involved. Now apparently they're against the trillium and are against buying books for elementary students.

This government is going to ensure a proper and excellent investment in our elementary students in the fall in Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the acting Premier. It's regarding Bill 16, the property tax bill. Minister, we have tried to point out to you a couple of times in the House the problems this bill is going to cause both for homeowners and for small businesses.

We now have the city of Toronto asking for public hearings because this bill is going to mean a big tax hike for homeowners. We have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario also asking for hearings.

As I'm sure you know, we have also the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers - these are not politicians, but the people who actually have to administer this piece of legislation - saying to you that this piece of legislation is unworkable. They have in fact sent your government 12 pages in which they outline legislative mistakes that have been made where references should be to some bills and to others.

We understand that you don't intend to have this bill go to committee. Will you, on the face of the advice that you're getting from the people who are going to have to administer this, reconsider and see the wisdom in sending this bill at least to committee for a short period of time?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Of course we'll listen and take your concerns and the concerns of Metro Toronto to the Minister of Finance. But I can tell you that we both have been listening to small business owners. That's the reason why we've allowed, through the Legislature, that municipalities can choose to cap the increases at 2.5% for whatever reason.

You're saying that will squeeze out an increase on the residential side, but I can tell you that Toronto has already announced no increase in their budget for this year. They've already said they see no reason why they cannot hold the line and not raise taxes in the next two years. So it shouldn't be a problem if they choose to do this.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that the acting Premier may not have the detailed knowledge that the Minister of Finance would were he here, but I have to say to him and ask him to convey back to the Minister of Finance the fact that this is not about whether municipalities have the choice or not. Yes, we understand that they have the choice. This is about the fact that even if they exercise that choice, the legislation as drafted is unworkable. That's not my opinion, Minister; that's the opinion of the administrators in the local municipalities who have to administer this.

They have said that committee hearings are absolutely necessary if this bill is to be fixed. They say that the bill as drafted is in some respects unworkable and will lead to a "political and administrative nightmare." That's what they're saying.

I want to say again to the minister, we understand the time pressures; quite frankly, time pressures that you have caused yourselves. But for a few more weeks you could have this bill in committee where it belongs and we could fix the problems we now are seeing in this bill so that you don't have to bring in a fifth bill some time in the fall to fix the problems in the property tax system. Will you reconsider and do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We had consultations on Bill 106 and Bill 149, which this letter that you refer to addresses. They have had consultations on that. The specific cap to try to keep small business owners' increases, for whatever reason, below 2.5% is the concern we heard from small business owners across Ontario and particularly in Metropolitan Toronto.

I recall looking through the glass like Alice in Wonderland when your leader was out there pretending he represented small business owners. We listened to that. It's our government that doesn't believe in tax hikes; we believe in tax decreases. What Metro is saying is that if they choose to implement the 2.5% and they don't raise their spending, they should be able to live with it. If there are technical problems, I will pass it on to the Minister of Finance and he will consider that.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the last few years there have been ongoing negotiations between Ottawa and Ontario regarding a new proposed agreement for settlement costs for newcomers, for training and retraining costs related to those new people coming to the greater Toronto region. It seems to me this has been going on for a long time. When are we going to get to the state of having an actual negotiated outcome on these vital issues?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale because this has been something of considerable concern to this government.

All other provinces across Canada have had the opportunity to negotiate with the federal government a labour market and training agreement, and for some reason the federal government has left Ontario to the very tail end. I don't know why the federal government has taken that attitude but I am pleased to say that now we have been able to get the attention of the federal government and get them back to the table.

I hope that over the next short while we will be able to reach an agreement to address the skills shortages in Ontario, to reduce the overlap that exists between federal and provincial programs and to help more people in Ontario get back to work.

Mr Hastings: My supplementary revolves around the very point the minister is making. Ontario and the greater Toronto region is probably the most dynamic economic area in terms of being a magnet for newcomers to this country, yet we have a federal government which is still not dealing with the upfront vital issues of costs and getting a resolution to this particular dilemma.

Hon David Johnson: It can't happen soon enough as far as I'm concerned. I can only pledge to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and members of this House that I will be in there pitching for Ontario because the unemployed in the province deserve the same consideration as citizens across the rest of this country of Canada. In the other provinces, they've been able to negotiate with the federal government. Now we have the attention of the federal government.

We would like, for example, to double the number of entrances into the apprenticeship program. We think if we can coordinate this program, bring it into the province of Ontario, focus on the needs of the people of Ontario, then we can double the number of entrants into the apprenticeship program, we can reduce the overlap, reduce the cost of the coordinated program. We think we can assist 30,000 more people to gain training and skills and assist them to get back to work in Ontario.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the minister responsible for privatization. Minister, on the matter of TVOntario privatization, your government continues to show absolute disregard for the voice of the public. Yesterday, during a speech outside the Legislature, you dismissed the report by the TVO community panel which showed overwhelming public support for TVO by musing publicly about your government's move to privatize TVOntario. The headline in today's paper says it all: "TVO Up for Sale."

It has been almost four months since the report by Sheldon Levy showed massive opposition to selling off TVOntario. It has been almost a year since your government began its privatization review, yet we continue to see a government making the rules as they go along in a so-called public process that doesn't reflect public opinion at all.

Minister, my question is this: Who is writing your government's policy on TVO, when will the public be told of your plans and when will you stop playing games with the future of TVOntario?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): First of all, the member opposite, and the people watching today, should be aware of the fact that we have not made a decision on TVO yet. In spite of what the headline may say, if you read the content of the speech I delivered, I was quite clear on that.

What the member should also know is that we are giving full consideration to all the views that are provided to us through the consultation process, and it has been an open process, where we've invited the panel and other Ontarians to provide their opinions, either directly to me or through other members of this Legislature to me or to the secretariat directly. We intend to listen to those opinions as we take a look at the options and decide exactly what the nature of TVO should be in the future. Clearly that's what we're trying to do.

Mr Gravelle: The people of Ontario have spoken very clearly. The only thing clear about your response is that your government is now just saying, "Forget public opinion; forget that millions of Ontarians support our public television network." This is all happening simply because your Tory government made an irresponsible election promise to sell off TVO. Minister, I, like supporters of public television all across Ontario, fear that you will impose change to TVO just for the sake of change; that it's not your intention to recognize the importance of a legacy built up by and for the people of Ontario for 27 years.

I'll repeat my questions to you; they're very important. But I want to ask you specifically this in my supplementary: Will you commit today to at least publicly, in this Legislature, not outside the Legislature, make your intentions very clear, not wait till the summertime, when we are out of session, to make any announcements, make your position clear in the Legislature and tell us what is going to happen to TVOntario in this province? Tell us now. Tell us publicly.

Hon Mr Sampson: Again, there have been no decisions made, so I can't clearly tell you what the decision will be. Even a member of your own caucus, and maybe you should caucus again to have a little discussion among yourselves, suggested quite publicly that all we're doing is delivering on our commitment to review the status of that particular asset. That came from one of the members of your very own caucus on a TV program not long ago. So you might want to get together and have a chat about this particular asset.

I should say to the honourable member across the floor, clearly when we make a decision, we'll do what we can to deliver it to the people of Ontario. At this point in time, we have not made a decision. We're taking our time so we get it right. That may not be what you would have done, but that's what we're going to do.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The funding formula no longer funds core French in grades 1 to 4. However, it maintains the same number of hours, 600 hours at the elementary level. So the net effect is that the boards have more flexibility in terms of how they provide it.

I must say that moneys in the classroom, whether used for French or mathematics or anything else, have actually increased, so boards have greater flexibility to establish the kind of programs that they feel would be necessary and, within that framework, they have an obligation for exactly the same number of hours of French at the elementary level.

Mr Wildman: Surely the minister knows that most studies indicate that the earlier a child has an opportunity to be exposed to a second language the better in terms of the individual's ability to learn. Wouldn't it make sense, particularly when we say that we are interested in preserving the linguistic duality of our country, that we should be doing everything possible to ensure as many Ontarians as possible have an opportunity to learn the second official language? Why is it that this government has determined that, at the very time when kids can learn another language more easily, it is no longer mandatory in grades 1 to 4 to have core French programs and is not prepared to fund them?

Hon David Johnson: To the contrary: The requirement for the number of hours of French at the elementary level is unchanged at 600. Classroom moneys have actually increased. Every board in Ontario will get more moneys to go into the classroom for various components such as teachers and textbooks and everything else that will help not only in a French program but any other program. Perhaps the third party doesn't have confidence in the local schools and the local school boards and the local trustees.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It is you we don't have confidence in.

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

Mr Pouliot: Minister for Lake Nipigon?

The Speaker: No, the member for Lake Nipigon. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I have confidence that within the parameters they are given, the 600 hours, which is exactly the same, and with the fact that they have more money than they've had in the past for the classroom, our school boards will make the best decisions for our students in Ontario.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, you announced the 1998 summer jobs plan on April 15, to help more than 3,000 rural young people find jobs this year. I'm interested in having an update as to where the program is, as I'm sure the opposition would be interested.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You're wrong.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Lambton for that question. Yes, there is good news on the employment front for students in spite of the fact that the member for Riverdale doesn't want to hear it.

Ms Lankin: Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Beaches-Woodbine, sorry.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I don't either, though.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Since April 15 more than 3,600 rural youth have found employment in the student employment program sponsored by the ministry. We have exceeded the target early and we are still under budget. Our rural youth are benefiting from our plan to reduce taxes, to reduce government spending, and indeed it's showing.

Shown here in the London Free Press: "Summer Jobs are Sprouting: Hot Economy Means More Work for More Students." There are more jobs in all areas.

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

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The economic recovery has inspired many younger students to look for work earlier when they might not even have bothered. We are the first government to recognize the importance of expanding -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Beaubien: The summer jobs plan certainly appears to be working. However, in rural Ontario we do have a unique situation -

Interjections.

Mr Beaubien: The opposition may think it is hilarious. It is difficult to maintain young people in rural Ontario because of a lack of job opportunities. Minister, what is your ministry doing to provide opportunity and job opportunities in the future for young people in rural Ontario?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I am very pleased to again remind the House that we've had the rural youth advisory program, which has provided not only good advice but indeed $35 million has gone to a rural youth employment program which will help keep our rural youth where they were born and raised, out in rural Ontario, instead of having them drift into the urban centres and maybe never return.

To quote the rural youth report, "Many rural students did not know the kind of skills they had which employers are looking for - initiative, loyalty, honesty, among others." That's the quality of rural youth that we have and certainly we're going to build on that to make sure that our rural roots in Ontario remain strong.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I want to go to the Deputy Premier. The destruction commission has rolled through Hamilton and has recommended the closure of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. What you have done through this recommendation is sold out 1,200 full-time and part-time psychiatric patients at this facility, you've abandoned 600 professional health care workers who are at risk of losing their jobs as a result of this. You are recommending a move to St Joseph's Hospital at an additional cost of $40 million.

Patients have told us that they are concerned about the lack of services, the loss of privileges, the loss of green space, the loss of beds and the loss of social programs. This decision is devastating to psychiatric patients in Hamilton. You are simply trying to save a few dollars on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Minister, the court ruling of April 18, 1997, gave the Minister of Health the full power to make reverse recommendations in regard to psychiatric hospitals. Will you live up to the commitment made by the Premier, who said, "Not one hospital closure in Ontario," and reverse the decision of the destruction commission and save Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I just wanted to say that I will pass on the member's specific concerns to the Minister of Health when she returns. I can say, though, that the health care restructuring commission, as you recall, is an arm's-length commission that's looking at modernizing our health system to meet the needs -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, order.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The health care restructuring commission's recommendations for this area have been generally well-received. It's good news. There are a lot of capital dollars to be reinvested in new MRI machines.

As everyone knows, Ontario has a large health system and we want to modernize it and move it from the acute care to the community care side and provide services to people when they need them, where they need them. It takes some time, and we've been very fortunate to have the assistance of the health care restructuring commission to take that on.

Mr Agostino: You don't understand the issue. Clearly, if you recall, the divisional court ruling of April 18, 1997, does not give the restructuring commission final power over psychiatric hospitals. That rests with you, your cabinet and your government. It is your responsibility. You can't pass this off to the restructuring commission. The courts have told you that.

Minister, you said it's good news. I can't understand why you would tell 1,200 patients who receive service at HPH that the fact you're going to close this first-class facility is good news. We're clearly moving to discount health care again here. You're trying to save a buck on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this province, in the city of Hamilton: psychiatric patients.

Clearly by the examples we have seen in northern Ontario and across Ontario, psychiatric patients end up in jail because there are no beds in facilities. You are now going to close even further beds with this move in Hamilton. Again, Minister, let me ask you one more time: Will you use the powers given to you by the courts last year, stand up to the word of the Premier and reverse the decision today to close Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, or are you going to abandon psychiatric patients -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think everyone realizes the member has some particular concerns about change. The good news here, and I don't know why he's opposed to this, is that the health care restructuring commission is recommending a $1.4-million reinvestment in mental health in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. That's 17 new paediatric and adolescent mental health beds. I don't know why he's against seven more acute mental health beds, going from 82 to 89. I'm not sure why he's against no reduction in the number of -

Mr Agostino: Why are you closing the hospital? You said you weren't going to, Jim.

The Speaker: Order, member for Hamilton East.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It is not closing.

Mr Agostino: It is not closing?

Hon Mr Wilson: Amalgamating services.

Mr Agostino: It is not closing?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will you people come to order as well. I'm sick of hearing that too. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I just want to add that I'm not clear why the member of the Liberal Party is against the recommendation to increase the reinvestment in mental health transfers to $3.5 million, the community-based programs. I will pass along to the Minister of Health that he's opposed to all this good news

TVONTARIO

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the minister of privatization. Today you have been quoted in the press as saying that TVOntario will be at least partially privatized. As we hear it, you were quoted by the Toronto Sun as saying this: "You need to find the right role for the private sector in these transactions." Clearly that leaves the door open, we fear, to privatization.

You say you're not saying that. You're saying, of course, that you haven't made a decision, that you're taking your time, yet you make statements of that nature that lead people to believe you are on that road to privatization. This committee that drafted this report on TVOntario, the Community Forum Panel, wrestled this issue to the ground. You're trying to resurrect it over and over again. They clearly said, "With few exceptions, we heard an endorsement of TVOntario as an entity serving the public good and worthy of continued support."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Marchese: You have a duty not to go on a personal privatization binge that runs contrary to the wishes of the people who spoke against the privatization of TVO. Give them -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): As I said earlier, we have not made a decision on TVO. The member may be musing about where he himself would take TVO and I would welcome his input on that, as I would welcome the input from people all over Ontario.

I say to him quite clearly, though, that if he were to take a look at TVO and understand its business as we have been trying to do over the last few months, he would see that TVO is partnering with the private sector in a number of ways; in fact the board itself struck a task force to review different ways to restructure its organization and suggested that we consider other options to expand the private sector's role in TVO. I don't hear the honourable member suggesting that perhaps the board was misguided, unless he would like to make that statement right now.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Speaking of TVO, I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas TVOntario is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold open and honest public consultations with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition with thousands and thousands of signatures addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario which is titled "Keep Our Young Offenders' Services Professional and Public." It reads:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services, Janet Ecker, has announced that she will sell the services and programs at Ontario's secure custody facilities for high-risk young offenders to the private sector; and

"Whereas this decision will move these important services away from the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the public, the young people in their charge and the workers who supervise and provide treatment to young offenders; and

"Whereas we believe strongly that elected officials should be directly accountable and responsible for all children and adults who are in custody as ordered by the courts of Ontario and that no private company should profit from crime;

"We urge the minister to keep our secure and treatment facilities for young offenders professional and public."

Signed by thousands of citizens of this province, and I've added my signature in full support of this most worthy petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 49 people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is currently engaged in a restructuring process across all communities in Ontario which will affect all people and their families supported by developmental services; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another, regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the MCSS `corporate agenda' is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas this corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and likely the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring project and provide adequate funding for quality services to the developmentally disabled."

This petition was signed by many people in Whitby and Oshawa, so I'm very happy to present that.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Nancy Hutchison, the health and safety coordinator for the United Steelworkers, District 6. It's signed by hundreds of steelworkers such as Darren Green from my home town of Hamilton and virtually across the entire province. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I proudly continue to support these petitioners by adding my name.

ABORTION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition here signed by nearly 100 people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to affix my signature in support of this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by over 100 of my constituents.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which essentially deals with the previous petitioner's about the health care system, urging the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers.

It has 15 signatures on it, and I affix my signature to it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition related to the need for long-term-care facilities in the province, especially in Thunder Bay and district:

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to the petition, signed by hundreds of people in my riding.

ABORTION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition that reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RENT REGULATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that `rent control will continue'; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today signed by approximately 57 of my constituents. In my usual fashion, I'll abide by the rules and simply summarize the petition by saying that it petitions for the protection of the right to hunt black bear in Ontario. I'd like to file that petition today.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario have made it very clear that they are opposed to the privatization of TVOntario. We have many petitions that are coming in, in relation to that. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any plans to privatize TVOntario and strongly support TVO's proposal to convert the agency to a not-for-profit corporation. We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to ensure continued access by Wahsa and Wawatay radio to TVO's distribution system. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and informational programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVO to commercial interests would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming, and Wahsa's distance education services, because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I'm pleased to sign this petition as well.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I'd like to present a petition from almost 200 citizens in the city of Guelph regarding chiropractic service. It reads as follows:

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

I submit this on their behalf.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, before I call the orders of the day, I'd like to indicate to members who might be interested in the Calgary framework that we will be calling government notice of motion number 10 this evening.

With respect to these proceedings, I believe we have unanimous consent to conduct them in this fashion: that the time will be divided equally among the three parties; that at 9:25 pm or at the conclusion of the debate, whichever is earliest, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate or amendment; and that, if a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes, and there shall be no deferral of the vote pursuant to standing order 28(h). I seek unanimous consent for that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE AND FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS DES PARTICULIERS ET DES PETITES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à réduire les impôts des particuliers et des petites entreprises et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures contenues dans le budget de 1998.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to have a chance to join in this debate. I want to indicate that I will be doing the leadoff on this, which was deferred on the first day, and that, further, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hamilton Centre.

I'm glad to have the chance to speak on Bill 15. I guess we will find out in due course what actually is going to happen with this bill. As we understand things now, we probably will get a chance to examine this bill in some greater detail in committee. It's ironic because this week we also will be debating another bill which was the subject of one piece of the government's budgetary framework, and that had to do with Bill 16, the property tax bill.

That bill is the one that I think you could argue that, between the two, is the one that should go to committee because of the problems - let alone the political differences - that there are on that, just the fundamental drafting errors and problems that the administrators in the municipalities who will have to implement that legislation are telling us are there.

The government is saying so far that they not only will not send that bill to committee, but we expect they will file a time allocation motion to close debate on that by the end of this week,

whereas on this bill it looks like we may actually get a chance to debate it further, not just here but in committee. If that's the case, then obviously we look forward to that discussion.

Today I want to set out some of our views on this bill. This is the bill that implements the major provisions of the budget: the remainder of the 30% income tax cut and the reductions in the business tax for small businesses. It does a couple of other interesting things that we actually support.

One important thing it does is that it repeals the video lottery terminal legislation, something we had advocated. I have to say that we have had, and still have, some concerns about why that particular piece is in this bill, which is after all a budget bill, unless the government has finally conceded that the only reason for the VLT legislation existing was to bring in the money to the provincial coffers. That's what they've admitted by putting that

section in this bill. That piece reflects the things we have been saying: that those provisions regarding the video lottery terminals should not proceed, given that the government has taken the position it has. We're happy to see that piece in the legislation.

There are a couple of other pieces in this bill that I find quite interesting. One is this whole issue of changing the Highway Traffic Act to raise the fine for failing to obey a red or amber light to $150 from the current $60. I suppose that on that particular point we don't have any problems; not only that, we think that may be a good idea.

But we continue to say to the government, and we wonder, how it is that's going to become a deterrent - that simple increase in the fine - when the government continues to refuse to seriously look at the changes that need to be made to catch people in the first place who go through red or yellow lights. That's where the attention should be, not just on this question of increasing the amount of fines.

One other thing - which I suppose, on the one hand, is almost a laughing matter but of course it's more than that because it is quite serious - is the implementation through this bill of one of the announcements made, with great fanfare we might say, in the budget, which was that the government is now going to exempt the 25-cent pay phone calls that we all make from time to time from sales tax; in other words, that sales tax will no longer apply as it does now to that 25-cent call.

The interesting question around this is, how is that money going to find its way back into the hands of consumers? I haven't heard anybody, including the government and the Minister of Finance, say that they're going to ask Bell to reduce phone calls down to 23 cents because the difference is about two cents. I don't think, quite frankly, anyone would seriously contemplate that possibility. On the other hand, we don't see any provisions to ensure that this is anything other than a windfall for Bell Canada.

This is something that we will want to pursue and will want to see the government try to do something to ensure that the money that Bell Canada now will no longer have to remit to the provincial government in the way of sales tax will somehow find its way back into the hands of the people who pay the phone bills, the consumers. That's something on which we are quite interested in seeing further action.

There are a number of other pieces that are in this bill, but of course we know, as I said earlier, that the two main pieces in the bill have to do with implementation of a cut in the corporate tax for small businesses, cutting the tax rate in half-point stages from the current 9.5% until it will reach 4.75% in January 2006, and I want to come back to that point in terms of what it means. The other issue is of course the final implementation of a 30% income tax cut.

To speak for a moment about the cut to the small business rate, again I have to say that in doing that, I for one look at that and say that I think that is a useful direction. What of course is troubling, is wrong, is inappropriate about what the government is doing is just the kind of slow way in which they're going about doing this.

If they were serious about reducing the burden on small businesses, the argument could be made that they could have done more on that front, but of course what we see in this announcement is something that we saw very often in many parts of the budget speech which, as I say, this bill now in large

part implements, and that is that the government made all sorts of announcements in which they tried to paint a more positive picture of themselves and their actions. They tried essentially to say through those actions, "Look, we've gone through bad times and now here are the good times rolling in and this is the way in which we're able to now give back to people some further support and provide some further assistance."

As a message I suppose that is not a bad one, except that it doesn't quite hold because in many cases such as this, what the government has tried to do is to take in effect a nine- or 10-year announcement and present it as if they were implementing that all in one fell swoop. They're trying to bank on the benefits that will come from what the situation will be like at the end of that eight-, nine- or 10-year period, depending on the initiative, but of course in terms of the impact that it will have on the provincial coffers that will be minimal.

We saw that here. We saw that certainly in the health care spending announcement, the big announcement that was made a couple of days before the budget and then reiterated in the budget speech, which was that they were investing millions of dollars in long-term care. When you looked at what that actually meant over the next year or two, it was a mere fraction of the money that is needed, particularly when you put that against, for example, the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government stopped in long-term care in the three years they have been the government and at the time they first became the government in 1995.

The sheer reality is that at the end of the day, by the time their term of office is over, they will not even have reinvested in long-term care anywhere near the amounts of money that not only should be there but, quite frankly, would have been there had they left the commitments to funding and increased investments in that area in place as per decisions that had been made by the previous NDP government that I was proud to be a member of.

That is typical of the way this government has acted. We know they froze or cut spending in a number of areas when they first came into office. What we are seeing in the latter part of their mandate is an attempt by them to try to sound as if now they're reinvesting.

If you look at the area of health care you just have to look at what is actually happening on a day-to-day basis for people to realize and for this government and its members to realize that they can spin the line all they want, but the reality out there is completely different. The reality out there is that people are hurting, the services aren't there, and what we are seeing is a government that is simply trying to carry its spin line and trying in effect to carry on as if things are now fine when they are not.

Even in an area in which all of us, I hope, want to be supportive, which is to say, "Yes, let's support small businesses," even and including by reducing the tax burden they have, let alone the whole red tape they have to go through - both actions that certainly, Madam Speaker, you will recall we took. In fact, I believe it was part of your direct responsibility as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to begin the process of reducing red tape for small business at the time, and certainly we don't have to take a back seat to anyone with respect to the approach that says small businesses need to be helped.

But we need only look at what this government has done to small businesses with respect to the whole property tax mess and to say to small businesses that certainly this government, while it continues to try to portray itself as a friend to small business, is far from being a friend to small business. Had they in fact been or were they in fact the friend of small business they purport to be, they would never have put small businesses in the kind of turmoil they did by letting things develop to the point where many of them would have actually gone out of business had the provisions continued.

Even now, as I said earlier, with the changes they have made and some of the improvements the government has finally made under Bill 16 on that front, we know there will be major problems in terms in implementing that which we will have to deal with. But, as I say, that is in the other bill and we will deal with that in whatever limited way we are able to.

But to come back to the issues that are directly here in Bill 15, the budget bill, let me come to what I think is the centrefold issue, and I think even the government members would say that this is their raison d'être. This is in fact the mainstay of their not only fiscal but political rationale for existing as a government. That is the 30% income tax cut, which they believe is at the heart of everything they are doing and everything that needs to be done.

Let's take a look at what that means. First of all, for the average family, it means very little in the way of a benefit. What it means is that when you look at the typical family - not even a typical family; it's higher than the average typical family - making, say, $60,000 with two family incomes, that family might at the end of the day see about $1,000 less in provincial taxes at the end of the year. That sounds like a nice round amount, and who would not want to have their tax burden reduced by that amount or even higher amounts?

But when that same family, as a result of the actions of this government, also has to pay out in an assortment of ways far, far more than that $1,000 they gain, then even that family will realize, and many more like them, that far from this being a benefit to them, it will actually end up costing them more. If they have children who are either going or aspiring to go to college or university, they are going to be paying thousands of dollars more just by the actions this government has taken now and will continue to take in tuition fees.

If they are seniors or have family members who are seniors, they are going to be paying more for basic medicines than they were paying before. If they are just a typical family living in a typical municipality, they are likely to be paying either more property taxes as municipalities have to deal with the downloading of many costs on to the property tax base, or they are going to be paying higher user fees in order to maintain those services, which is the other option that municipalities have or, quite frankly, they will find themselves with fewer services than they have now.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the member deserves to have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please?

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

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like to introduce, for those members in the House, somebody in the gallery today. Carol Keyes is here, the daughter of the former member Ken Keyes from Kingston and The Islands, and also the mother of one of our pages here, Lee. I think we should welcome her and her family.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, but I'd like to welcome you anyway.

Mr Silipo: I certainly join in welcoming members of the public, because if they have a chance to be here in person or even to listen to us on television, they might actually see what is going on in terms of this government.

As we were debating Bill 15, the budget bill, I was talking about the impact the tax cut, which is the mainstay of what this government is doing, will have on the typical family. I was using the example of a family making $60,000 and pointing out that at the end of the day that family will end up paying more, not less, for services, and probably at the end of the day even fewer services than they enjoy today.

While I talked about a family with an income of $60,000, the sheer reality is that half the taxpayers of the province earn less than $35,000. If we want to talk about the real impact of this, we need to take a look at that half of the taxpayers for whom the positive impact of the tax cut - that is, money in their pockets - is going to be far less than that $1,000 or $1,100 I was talking about with respect to a family earning $60,000.

If you think that a family at $60,000 is going to see no benefit from the tax cut, a family in a situation of $35,000, $40,000 or even less, and there we're talking about half the taxpayers of the province, are going to see not only no positive impact - not only are they not going to see any money in their pockets, but they are going to see a situation in which they are paying more.

And what are they paying more for? Well, they are paying more for all the services I outlined before, but they're also going to be paying so that a small fraction of taxpayers at the top end of the income scale will actually see the benefit of the income tax cut that this bill implements.

That's what the Mike Harris agenda is all about. It's not about redistributing wealth. It's not about creating jobs. It's about distributing the tax moneys from the middle class and the working class and the poorest families of our province to the richer citizens of our province. It is about redistributing wealth, but it's not about redistributing wealth in the sense that most people out there would think of when it comes to redistributing wealth. They usually think that if you're redistributing wealth, you're making things better for people of modest and low income; you're trying to bridge the gap between the richest and the poorest.

But no, the Mike Harris government is purposefully, consciously widening the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens of our province. It is so clear when you look at the impact of the tax cut.

Of course, the big line from the government is, "People will reinvest this money." Have we seen any real evidence that that's happening? No. I don't expect members opposite to take my word as a member of the opposition. I ask them to take a look at the many economists, those who appeared before the finance committee and others who have spoken out in a variety of forums, who have said, "The tax cut is not creating jobs." If it's not creating jobs, what's the point of it?

If you recall, in the Common Sense Revolution, somewhere on page 1 or page 2, the essential reason for this tax cut, as the government stated, was that they were going to create some 725,000 jobs. That was the reason they were doing it. That's not the reason they're doing it, in my view. The reason they're doing it is because they are a government that is ideologically bent in the wrong direction, to the right, a government that is -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Twisted, one might say.

Mr Silipo: Twisted, my colleague from Hamilton Centre says. Twisted in what direction? Certainly not in the interests of the average Ontario family, certainly not in the interests of those 50% of taxpayers who make less than $35,000, and not even in the interests of those Ontarians who might make $60,000 individually or as families, or even $70,000, because those aren't the families that are going to see any benefit from the actions of this government. They're the ones who are going to be paying for the shift in money and wealth from the average family into the hands of relatively few people in this province.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): They're the ones the NDP wants to tax more.

Mr Silipo: My colleague says, "They're the ones the NDP wants to tax." No, we don't. They're not. Let me be clear. Let me reassure the member that I'll talk about that. We have said very clearly that not only are we against this tax cut insanity that this government wants to implement, but we actually have gone one step further to the logica