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

April 2, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L051 - Tue 2 Apr 1996 / Mar 2 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEPATITIS A

BIRCHWOOD TERRACE

FOUR COUNTIES GENERAL HOSPITAL

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

DURHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL LABORATORY

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

LAW ENFORCEMENT

PUBLIC HOUSING

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

PUBLIC HOUSING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

TAX REFORM

PROVINCIAL PARKS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TAX REDUCTION

GOVERNMENT POLICY

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

BUS TRANSPORTATION

TAX REDUCTION

RENT REGULATION

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

BUS TRANSPORTATION

TRANSITION HOUSE

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

RENT REGULATION

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEPATITIS A

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to address a serious and preventable health concern. Hepatitis A is a viral infection which generally causes nausea, jaundice, fever, diarrhoea, fatigue, abdominal pain and liver failure, even death. Every year hundreds of Ontarians are infected by hepatitis A, receiving the virus from infected individuals who do not wash their hands after a bowel movement.

I'd like to urge this government to develop a strategy to deal with this potentially deadly disease. There are different approaches that will prove effective to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, people often get the virus from foodservice workers. The government could work together with the hospitality industry to create a new public awareness campaign to remind people of the importance of personal hygiene, particularly hand washing. Another option would be to require hepatitis A vaccinations for foodservice workers. The vaccine does exist and is a cost-effective way to deal with this problem in a preventive way.

Hepatitis A is a very serious issue. People have died from this disease. It is preventable. Cost-effective options do exist to deal with this potentially serious problem. It does not have to cost the government anything --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

BIRCHWOOD TERRACE

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The residents of Terrace Bay in my riding of Lake Nipigon are indeed very concerned about the future of Birchwood Terrace. Birchwood Terrace is the only long-term-care community in the township of Terrace Bay.

Today there are 417 senior citizens on waiting lists for homes for the aged in the district because of the Minister of Health; he will only allow 23 of Birchwood's 62 units to be occupied. Therefore, many of these residents, these seniors are forced to stay in local hospitals at a much greater cost. Our seniors and their children are being burdened simply because the minister will not snap out of it, and deliberately and systematically prefers the bottom line, the power of the purse, the power of a buck, and destroys vis-à-vis our seniors. We're hoping to be able to take care of our seniors in their own community.

FOUR COUNTIES GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Yesterday was a very important day for Four Counties General Hospital in Middlesex. As of yesterday, the emergency department at Four Counties is reopening and will offer 24-hour emergency care services.

As all members know, hospitals in small and rural communities have had great difficulty ensuring full coverage by physicians in their emergency departments over the last few years. At Four Counties General emergency care has been underserviced since May 1994, over two years. As a result, many small hospitals have had to dip into their operating budgets to top up pay for physicians, while others have had to limit hours of operation.

On December 4, 1995, as promised, our government acted in response to the concerns of rural residents by announcing the implementation of a small/rural hospital emergency coverage fee for physicians. On behalf of the many residents of Middlesex county and others within the Four Counties service area, I extend my thanks to Health Minister Wilson for his decisive action on physician coverage of small and rural hospital emergency departments, as recommended by the Graham Scott report.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Yesterday in the House the Minister of Economic Development and Trade sent a message to students in this province that sent chills throughout our colleges and universities. Students in my riding disagree with the minister and this government's disregard for the economic realities facing students. In a letter I received this morning, the president of Lakehead University Student Union, Adele Ritchie, spoke on behalf of her colleagues. I would like to read parts of Ms Ritchie's letter in the hope that the minister responsible for youth employment will listen to what students are really saying.

"This summer is a crucial one for students in Ontario. Not only are they facing an increased tuition hike in September of up to 20%, but they are no more ensured of a job than they have been in the last two years. I do not see the sense in freezing the minimum wage level as a means for creating jobs. That does not guarantee in any way that more young people will be hired. This does not guarantee that they will be able to afford the added tuition costs come September....

"Students in the northern regions of Ontario are particularly hard hit by the lack of jobs and are being forced to leave to try to find employment in the larger cities in order to support themselves....

"Ontario is not open for business, certainly not for the little people. For those who think that a student's education can be partially subsidized by parents, thay are sadly mistaken for we are not the only ones not able to find work."

Ms Ritchie urges the government "to recognize that education is common sense and to encourage small businesses and large corporations to give students a chance."

The government must stop cutting the education sector at all levels and give students a chance to live their lives.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The statement I'm going to make is directed at the Minister of Community and Social Services. I hope he'll listen to the dilemma one of my constituents finds herself in. This constituent has been on family benefits since 1987, since 1992 on the disability portion of family benefits. In 1995, in July, because she agrees that people should attempt to be self-sufficient, she decided to try working again, but unfortunately her condition only enabled her to work for about two and a half months. As a result of working over 30 days, that constituent then had to apply for GWA, and she is waiting to be fast-tracked on to FBA.

This woman has a 15-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old son. The 16-year-old son has been found by her doctor to be severely malnourished and in need of food supplements. My constituent has accessed all the available resources -- the food bank, the Salvation Army, the men's mission, Neighbour Link, LIFE*SPIN, all of those helping community agencies -- and still she is unable to provide adequately the kind of food that her child needs while she is waiting to get back on to the family allowance.

I urge the minister, when cases like this come forward, to encourage those of us who are members of the Legislature to bring those cases forward for special consideration. The long-term costs are extremely serious, and I urge the minister to pay attention to these issues.

DURHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to bring to the attention of the members of this House the tremendous work being done by the Durham Board of Education. The Durham Board of Education has been chosen as the North American nominee for an award given by Carl Bertelsmann Verlag, a major publisher of education and government texts in Germany. The board was nominated by a North American selection committee as a school system which represents the best framework for the development of schools.

Durham is the North American nominee and one of only seven public school authorities in the world vying for the prize, which is a grant of $312,000. Other nominees come from Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, New Zealand and Switzerland. Durham board officials will attend the awards ceremony at no expense to taxpayers.

I have written the interim director of the board to offer my congratulations. I am sure the other members of the House will join me in applauding the fine job being done by the Durham Board of Education and this international recognition of the board's excellence.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I want to read a letter that we received yesterday following statements by the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism on youth employment from Joel Lynn, president-elect of Wilfrid Laurier University Students Union.

He was so shocked by how out of touch the minister was on the issue that he wrote:

"I find it difficult for the government of Ontario to make `general comments' on the employment, particularly youth employment, when this same government has just recently increased the cost of education.

"The students of Wilfrid Laurier University are faced with a 16% increase in tuition fees and an even greater increase in student service fees. The need for summer employment will be greater than ever. As public support programs such as OSAP continue to diminish, students are relying more on summer employment to support the costs of their education.

"Mr Saunderson's commentary and evaluation of the current situation is disappointing and disheartening to students. In one of his closing statements, he discusses his government `freezing hydro rates, changing labour legislation...' rather than directly addressing the issue at hand. I would recommend to Mr Saunderson to outline specifically what his government's plans are for summer employment. Students of Wilfrid Laurier are about to embark on their summer plans to raise money for next year's education expenses. The cost of a full-time undergraduate program has surpassed the $10,000 per year mark, factoring in all cost-of-living expenses. Producing this" --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL LABORATORY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I wish to bring to the attention of the House an issue that is related to the government's overwhelming desire for privatization at any cost.

I refer to a proposal to the Ministry of Health that hospital laboratory services be privatized and tests performed by a lab jointly owned by MDS Laboratories and Sudbury General Hospital. This private enterprise will be making a profit from the funds the Ministry of Health pays to the lab to perform tests. This private lab will be making a profit from our tax dollars. This is not acceptable.

If this government feels there is a need to expand laboratory services in Sudbury, then the most logical place to expand would be the existing labs at Laurentian Hospital. This hospital lab was originally built to service a regional laboratory. It can be expanded with very little capital costs. The Laurentian Hospital lab is located in the same building as the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Treatment Centre. This allows for the highly specialized testing needed for proper diagnoses. An expanded lab at Laurentian Hospital will provide tests cheaper than the proposed MDS-Sudbury General laboratory, as much as 75% cheaper.

If this government is so concerned about the bottom line, then it should seriously examine why it wants to spend more money than is necessary to change the hospital lab system in Sudbury. The proposal makes no sense whatsoever and would cause good pathologists and lab technicians to leave Sudbury.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Mr Speaker, this afternoon I wish to inform you about how the Harris government is following through on its commitment to build a very important piece of infrastructure in the Hamilton-Wentworth area -- the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

The Harris government has committed $20 million a year over the next five years for the completion of the expressway. This is in addition to the $6.75 million we deferred in July and the approximately $45 million that the region expects to make from development fees. The total amount the province will be contributing is well over half of the $200 million it will cost to finish the expressway. This money is in addition to the $80 million that the province has already contributed.

It is also important to note that this commitment comes at a time when no other municipal roads are being funded directly by the province. In fact, many municipalities have seen significant reductions in their funding.

The Minister of Transportation, Al Palladini, met with Hamilton-Wentworth regional chair Terry Cooke last week and asked that the region immediately call for tenders so that the expressway can be built as soon as possible. The province is paying for half of this tender process as well.

Hamilton-Wentworth may wish to pursue new delivery techniques that saved up to 22% on the cost of Highway 407. Minister Palladini has made it clear that any savings Hamilton-Wentworth can realize through such an approach would reduce its share of the cost, not the province's. This is going to happen despite the public pronouncements of the member for Hamilton East not to build the expressway at all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, the people of Ontario continue to be more than a little dismayed by the attitude of you and of your cabinet to people who are less fortunate in life.

Just minutes from here, at St Paul's church at the corner of Bloor and Jarvis, the number of homeless people who take refuge there has doubled over this past winter. Over at Bloor and Bathurst at St Peter's church, they served 15% more people in their program for the homeless this winter. At St Andrew's church across from Roy Thomson Hall, the number of people who came in from the cold was up by 9% this winter.

Yesterday, you said on the radio that you think many people choose to be homeless. I wonder if you can tell me why so many more people chose to be homeless this winter than last winter.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me clearly acknowledge that one person homeless is a tragedy in the province of Ontario and something this government is concerned about and wants to address. What I had indicated when asked on the radio show was that those who are involved in the field, running the centres, running the shelters, had indicated a frustration that there were a few people who choose, in spite of the fact that programs are there, to be there.

I was repeating what the experts in the field are telling us, that in spite of the programs, in spite of welfare, in spite of the housing programs, in spite of the efforts and the shelters, there are some people who choose that. This is regrettable and unfortunate, and I share their concern and frustration.

Clearly, it's been a very difficult winter for a number of people and this is something that I think we all want to work hard to address. The sooner, I can tell you, we can turn the economy around and get more jobs, get more prosperity, more hope, which is what our agenda is all about, as to the failed agenda of the last 10 years, I think the more opportunity there will be for everybody.

Mrs McLeod: Let me suggest to you, Premier, that the three people who died on the streets this winter were not making a lifestyle choice.

When you refer to people in the field and what you've heard from them, let me tell you what people in the field are saying, in this case, Sheryl Lindsay from the Hostel Outreach Program:

"Many of the people that we deal with have lost their housing as a result of their cheques being reduced. They are not there by choice. They're there because they have so few supports in the community. Many have been discharged from psychiatric institutions without appropriate plans for their accommodations. Many have lost their income supports and cannot afford housing. They are not homeless by choice; they have no other options."

Premier, I suggest to you that the kind of ignorance that underlies the statement you made yesterday and that you reinforced with your statements today is an attitude that seems to permeate your government, and it's an attitude that says the disabled, the poor and the most vulnerable in our society just don't deserve your help.

We were shocked to realize that your government was even planning to cut winter clothes and back-to-school clothes allowances for poor children until somebody leaked that possibility, so I understand you've now retreated from your plan to cut winter clothing and back-to-school allowances, and I'm glad you've decided that even poor children deserve a warm winter jacket and shoes that fit.

Despite your promise, we understand that you're looking still at a 10% cut to programs for mentally and physically disabled children and adults. Which is it, Premier? Are the disabled going to see their programs cut, or are you going to keep your promise not to cut aid to the disabled?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me again repeat that I agree with Sheryl that many of the people they're dealing with, in fact most, are not there by choice, and it is very difficult. But over the years, the experts tell me that there were a number of people, when my government was in power in the 1960s and the 1970s, and the Liberals in the 1980s and the NDP in the early 1990s -- that there are some people, and the frustration that is -- in spite of the fact that the shelters are there, the help is there, for whatever reason, they are making a choice to live on the street. Perhaps more assistance in counselling and help and assistance can be there. But certainly, every individual is a concern of ours.

With regard to your silly allegations which you make, it ranks up there with saying you're going to cut health care; and we have not. You said we would reduce the funding for the number of child care spaces. We have 12,500 more permanent spaces than the Liberals and the NDP had. So a lot of your allegations are so silly that they're nonsense, and the recent ones you've made rank in that category.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I repeat to you, people are not suffering this winter because of some choice they are making to live on the streets. People are suffering because of the policies you have put in place. People are suffering because you have chosen to pay for your tax cut on the backs of the poorest and the most vulnerable people in this society, and that, Premier, is unconscionable.

The depth of your cuts are about one thing and one thing only, and you cannot put a better face on it. It is about financing a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this province. Premier, in order to do that you've even been prepared to consider cutting clothing allowances for the poorest children in the province to pay for a tax cut. You still have not retracted the cuts that you made to the parents who are on welfare and who are caring for disabled children.

As I understand your non-answer to my question, you won't rule out cutting benefits for disabled children and adults even though that was a promise you made to the disabled of this province. All I can ask you, Premier, is, why do you continue to trample shamelessly on the weakest members of our society for the sake of delivering your tax bonanza to the wealthiest members of our society?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess the premise of the question is what is so silly. I could take your comments in Hansard tomorrow -- you said, "People are not suffering this winter," stop there, and say that's what the Leader of the Opposition said, it's in the Hansard, and it will be there tomorrow.

So if you're determined to try and fearmonger and misrepresent the policies and scare people, then I guess I can't stop you from doing that. All I can do is to reassure you that we are trying to put our limited resources first and foremost at the most vulnerable, the needy, the elderly, the disabled and children. That is the whole focus of our campaign.

I say to the member, if she thinks that throwing more money at it works, let me quote you something, "Hostel use increased every year under the NDP government between 1990 and 1994 in spite of the fact welfare rates were raised each and every year." So obviously, it isn't the amount of money that's causing the problem; it is the whole system that is broken, and you have a government here prepared to have the courage to change the system to truly give people some hope in the future. That's what we're doing and we'll all be better for it, particularly the needy.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The Liberal Party has been trying to force this government to address the issue of youth unemployment for several months now and we've had a great deal of difficulty. We hope that after today we may get the message through that we believe it is an issue and it must be addressed.

Yesterday, in response to a question from our Leader of the Opposition on youth employment, Minister Saunderson implied that the government has been working on providing employment opportunities for youth by stating that 31,000 new jobs were created in the month of February. It was neglected to mention, though, that 7,000 jobs were also lost in that same month. He simply tried to imply that some of these new jobs were actually created for youth.

I wasn't the only person in Ontario who was shocked by his complete lack of understanding of the significance of the issue of youth unemployment. I've received comments in my office from students across the province who wrote to me after Minister Saunderson's comments in the Legislature to express their views. Michael Burns, executive director of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, wrote: "Youth today are acutely aware of the province's financial difficulties.... But we also know that job opportunities are essential to our future, both as individuals and as a society.

If youth in Ontario receive fewer opportunities; if we are squeezed out of the system by cuts to programs; we will be cheated out of something nothing else can ever replace."

I ask the minister, what is he prepared to do to help these students who are desperate to find jobs to fund their education?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very happy to respond to the question from the member for Windsor-Sandwich. As I indicated in my answer yesterday, and I believe last week as well, we will be making an announcement very shortly about youth summer employment. I am sure that when the honourable member receives this message and announcement, she will be pleased. I would ask her to be patient; it's coming very shortly.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, I have to tell you I'm somewhat surprised because he didn't indicate that there would be an announcement coming -- in fact, rumours have abounded that there would be cuts, and it's these cuts that are making the students afraid. The issue of youth employment is not just a student issue; it deals with youth and their opportunity to enter first jobs. So the issue is not just going to be addressed by some grand statement that you might throw together. I have to tell you that he must realize it's a youth employment crisis.

He has underestimated the unemployment rate. No one, other than the minister, believes the unemployment rate to be at 16%. It's the figures from the Ministry of Finance that we're looking at, the same as the minister has. They show a drop of 150,000 in the participation rate, and they must be counted in. In fact, the Scotiabank Global Economic Outlook counts in those that have been dropped out.

It says: "The severity of Canada's labour market problems is highlighted by the sharp drop in labour force participation...the plunge in labour force participation has been concentrated among young Canadians between 15 to 24 years of age. Putting the participation rate" back in "would push their jobless rates above 25%!" They can't deny that there is indeed a crisis.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mrs Pupatello: If there is indeed something to report, something to tell us that this government is going to do about it, I'd like the minister on his feet today to announce exactly what his intentions are, because there are people who are waiting for some leadership from the government.

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Saunderson: The member for Windsor-Sandwich asked me to be on my feet and make a statement, and I will make a statement to you. We are making the climate right in this province to create many, many new jobs. It's not only going to be permanent jobs, but it will be summer jobs as well for the students you were talking about. I see you roll your eyes. It's very hard for you to listen to this.

What we are doing in this province is getting the message out that we are attracting companies not only to come to Ontario from the United States but from all around the world. I've had the pleasure of meeting with companies in Europe and the United States and telling them what we are doing to make the climate right and to get the message out that we're open for business.

I'm happy to report that only three weeks ago a new company opened in Burlington, within the six months since we've been elected, and they came because of what we are doing in this province. We've opened their eyes to what you can do in this province.

We said we would create 725,000 new jobs; we are well on the way to doing that. I would suggest that you consider what we are doing and you will be satisfied that these jobs will be created in the long run.

Mrs Pupatello: I have to tell you that students across Ontario are listening avidly today to the kinds of responses we're getting in the House.

Heather Bishop, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students -- Ontario: "Mike Harris promised a hand up, not a handout, when he got elected. So far, all he has offered students is a slap in the face."

Adele Ritchie from Lakehead University: "Ontario is not open for business, not for little people. For those who think a student's education can be partially subsidized by parents, they are sadly mistaken, because they're not the only ones not able to find work."

From Carleton University in Ottawa: "As costs are rising, more and more students are finding it necessary to work full-time and go to school part-time. They're looking for help from Carleton."

A third-year student at Wilfrid Laurier University: "I realize we must all take our lumps and grin and bear it. However, if we increase the already dangerously high youth unemployment in Ontario, do we not destroy the very heart of our future real-world society?"

The people from Queen's University in Kingston: "Students must have opportunities to finance their education directly. While government is increasing student costs, opportunities are not being created for students to finance these increases."

The Speaker: Would you put your question.

Mrs Pupatello: The people from Guelph too have something to say.

My question: Clearly, we have an indication that students from across Ontario are responding to you and they're not interested in your junkets to Europe; they are interested in youth employment opportunities. If the minister has something to say today, we want to know it because we're not letting up on the question.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I first of all thank the member for Windsor-Sandwich for the tour she's taken us on of Ontario. I also think that was the longest question we've listened to, but perhaps I could just spend a few moments and put her at ease.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton East is out of order. The member for Windsor-Sandwich is out of order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Mr Speaker, I'm going to start again.

We on this side of the House are correcting 10 years of waste, abuse and mismanagement by you people first; 65 tax increases in the last 10 years; 33 by those fellows there; 32 by those there; 11 income tax increases. That is not the right climate for creating jobs, whether it's permanent jobs or summer jobs, and if you don't want to listen, you won't hear the good news. You obviously don't want to hear the good news. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I guess the students who are about to finish their programs this month are going to be able to take satisfaction from that response.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday in the House, and this morning I understand in talking to reporters outside of cabinet, the minister refused to respond to questions regarding cuts the government may be planning to the disabled. We know that plans about changing the definition of "disabled" will save the government approximately $70 million. Yesterday, in answer to my colleague from Rainy River, the minister refused to give an unequivocal answer one way or the other with regard to cuts to the disabled and to programs to assist them. Can the minister now make it very clear, yes or no, are you planning cuts to the disabled?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd just like to preface something first of all. Unfortunately, as we're coming up to budget time, I know the members of the third party are looking for some hints in terms of what might be in the budget. I know the member for Rainy River yesterday went upon a little duck-hunting mission with a 12-gauge shotgun, blindfolded, happy at just trying to hit something up there in the air and not caring what he really hit.

First of all, we are committed to delivering services to those most in need. If the leader of the third party wants a definitive answer, we have no intention of eliminating the winter clothing and back-to-school allowance for children. Clearly, any time some sort of rumour comes about, members on the floor opposite embark upon some sort of scaremongering mission.

On the second part of the question -- I will respond to that as well -- we are not going to reduce services to help children or disabled people. We are committed to making those programs better. If I could repeat part of the message from yesterday, we are embarking upon and we have been doing consulting with the people clearly affected. We are trying to find ways to make the system better, and that's what this is all about, making the system better. I know the members over there are saying something else, but once again we are not -- I hope that's very understandable -- we are not going to reduce services to help children or disabled people. We are committed to making those programs better.

Mr Wildman: I was not engaging in fearmongering. As a matter of fact, I was attempting to give the minister an opportunity to assure the people who are disabled that they will not lose any of the programs and services they have now and that there will not be cuts, and in his ramblings the minister left the vulnerable people feeling even more vulnerable.

In the so-called Common Sense Revolution, on page 10, the Tories said, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut." Can the minister clearly assure disabled people who are now in receipt of assistance and programs that all those people will not be faced with cuts, either directly or indirectly, through changes in the definition of "disabled"?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Maybe I should speak a little more slowly here. I will clearly indicate again that we are not -- not, not -- going to reduce services to help children or disabled people. We are looking for a way to make it better and that's why we've done this advisory committee. We're consulting with people to try to make the system better.

There's been clearly an opportunity before, and I can perhaps quote for you from the former minister again where he said, "If there's one thing that just about everyone agrees with, it is that Ontario's welfare system isn't working." He went on to say, "It's a confusing system."

Unlike the previous government, we are going to take the opportunity now to work with the disabled community to ensure the system becomes better. We need to take out the confusion in the system. We need to make sure access to the system is better. That's what we're committed to do and that's what we continue to do.

Mr Wildman: I'll speak as slowly as I can. Are you and your government intending to change the definition of "disability" in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We've made no decisions on that. We are consulting with the disabled community. This is really amazing because I suppose the leader of the third party wasn't expecting the answer he got, the fact that our government is not going to reduce services; I guess he was looking for something else. Unfortunately, that's the only answer I can give today, that we are not going to reduce services. I don't know how much of that he doesn't understand, but that's the answer I have to give today.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said that for many people homelessness is a choice. Well, the Metro Toronto Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons tells us that there was a 38% increase in eviction applications last November over the year before, but one month after this government's attack on the poorest in our society. In January of this year, 1996, evictions were 25% higher than they were in January of last year.

Dr Shah from the University of Toronto tells us that 50% of homeless people today in Toronto are women and children and that he doesn't know any child who would go out to be homeless by choice. How many people have died, how many more are going to die, because of this government's ruthless attack on poor children and their parents?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): None.

Mr Kormos: The Premier says none. The Premier spoke of his government and its commitment to the needy and the children and the disabled.

Stella Mae Williams was a constituent of mine. She was 48 years old in December 1995 and she had lived a lifetime of serious mental illness, in and out of hospitals and undergoing a succession of mental health treatments. At the age of 48, having raised her daughter with incredible difficulty -- and her daughter in her own right having two little kids, Stella Mae's grandkids -- Stella Mae Williams had finally started to get things together. Although still ill and still under treatment, she found a job, 10 to 15 hours a week working in a laundromat making minimum wage, to supplement the disability pension she had been receiving because of her disability under the Family Benefits Act.

Three weeks before Christmas of last year, Stella Mae Williams got a message from this government. It was a letter from this government's community and social services telling her that she was no longer eligible for a disability pension. She couldn't bear the prospect of being evicted, being among that 25% more people being evicted in January of this year.

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Kormos: I shall, Speaker. She couldn't stand the prospect of not being able to buy some modest gifts for her two grandkids. She chose not to be homeless though, because, you see, three days after receiving that letter she took her own life. She died a victim of this government as readily as had this government, this Premier, pulled the trigger on that assassin's gun.

What does the Premier say to Stella Mae Williams and her family and grandchildren? Don't tell us that nobody has died. Your policies took the life of Stella Mae Williams, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Personal, individual tragedies are something that concern us all. To suggest that it is the policies of this government that had led to this I think is beneath the dignity of this Legislature in any leadership campaign.

Mr Kormos: I'm going beyond suggesting that it's the policies of this government that took Stella Mae Williams away from her daughter and grandchildren and that have caused the deaths of homeless people on the streets of Toronto and other cities during this past winter, the coldest of many years; I'm stating quite directly that it's the policies. I tell you this: It's remarkable, because Stella Mae's daughter wrote to the Premier, outlining the tragic circumstances of Stella Mae Williams's death, her having been told that no, she no longer qualified for a modest disability pension in Mike Harris's Ontario. The letter in return says:

"I'm sorry to hear about your mother and understand this must be a very difficult time." What an understatement. "I would like to assure you that our government remains committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. Thanks for writing." Signed by the Premier.

Premier, I put to you, is that an adequate response to the tragic loss of a mother and grandmother that was relayed to you in a letter by her daughter in January of this year?

Hon Mr Harris: I very much doubt that anything would be an adequate response to any individual tragedy. We do the best that we can.

In pointing out the failure of past policies to help the homeless, and in fact the dramatic increase in the use of past policies, never once would I have imputed the motive of any individual, Premier or cabinet minister that that was the ultimate goal. It's what happened, but to impute that motive and to raise and elevate an individual case, which I would not comment on, and to suggest that there is some response from the Premier that would somehow be satisfactory, I don't think there is a satisfactory response in that case.

But I can tell you that we do the very best we possibly can to fix a rather intolerable situation for a number of people in the province of Ontario who are facing difficulty.

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

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Nevertheless, the unanswered question of whether funding for the disabled is to be cut is going to have to be answered.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will turn to the Attorney General with a question. Minister, the Common Sense Revolution promised that funding for law enforcement and justice would be guaranteed. You are now saying that there will be cuts to the criminal law division of your ministry. Which is it? Will you be guaranteeing funding for law enforcement, or will you be cutting the number of people whose job it is to ensure that criminals are prosecuted?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There will be no cuts in the criminal law division that will imperil front-line services.

In fact, we will continue the investment strategy that was commenced by the last government as a result of the Askov crisis, a crisis created as a result of the ignoring of a situation by the Liberal government during their time in office, where they had repeated warnings from the Supreme Court of Canada that they had to deal with a problem that they refused to deal with that was visited upon the last government, which properly began an investment strategy to deal with the intake and resolution of cases before the criminal courts.

You have my commitment that the investment strategy will continue, and it will be continued aggressively, so that we can break the back of the Askov crisis created during the time the Liberals were in government.

Mrs McLeod: That is absolutely meaningless bluster on the part of the Attorney General on an issue as serious as this.

Minister, you have said that there will be cuts to the criminal law division of your ministry, and you admitted this morning that your cuts could result in a drastic reduction in the number of crown attorneys, the very people who ensure that criminals are prosecuted. I say to you that not only is that a flagrant violation of the campaign promise to protect law enforcement, it is an outrage.

I do not understand how you could even be considering slashing the number of crown attorneys when Ontario already has the fewest number of prosecutors per capita in the country, and I certainly do not understand how you could be considering slashing the number of crown attorneys, as you admitted this morning you were looking at doing, when our courts are facing the largest backlog in cases they have seen since the Askov decision.

Minister, will you assure us today, when you tell us blithely that cuts to your ministry are not going to affect the front-line administration of justice, will you assure the victims of crime that your cuts will not result in a single drunk driver, wife abuser or drug dealer getting off because there was not a prosector available to handle the case?

Hon Mr Harnick: This question from the leader of a party that was the cause of 60,000 cases being jettisoned from our courts is absolutely irresponsible. That's number one.

Number two, the Leader of the Opposition, whose party was responsible for 60,000 cases being jettisoned from our courts, takes a very selective approach towards what I've said. What I have said is that there will be no cuts to crown attorneys until there is a reduction in caseload to warrant it. That's what I said and that's what she had better start to hear as opposed to the selective things she does hear. Further, I will tell you, as I said a moment ago, that I will continue the investment strategy; in fact, I will do that with new money.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I have a question for the Premier. As you know, your Common Sense Revolution commits your government to develop a plan to sell more than 84,000 units owned by the Ontario Housing Corp. Your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been going around this province assuring tenants that they will be fully consulted before any sell-off happens. Can the Premier share with us and table in the House all offers the government has received from the private sector for Ontario public housing stock so the public can know what offers you are considering?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We haven't even asked for a request for proposals. A number of people in Ontario, in Canada, have said, "If you're interested, we can do it, provide lower rents, provide better service and do that," so we've had interest of inquiry. The minister may have more information, but my understanding is that we're not anywhere close to even calling for a request for proposals. We wouldn't do so without talking to tenants, of course.

Mr Bisson: I find that quite amazing. I have here in my hands a submission from Citibank -- that is, Citibank Canada, a subsidiary of Citibank in the United States -- a 56-page proposal they sent to your government to give options about how you can privatize the Ontario Housing stock. They are saying within this particular proposal that rents would have to go up, not down. So you certainly have had offers. In their submission they note that the political nature of this issue is such that Citibank intends this report to be an internal government document only.

They don't want you sharing this with the public because even they recognize how devastating your policy would be to the tenants of this province.

I understand that you haven't accepted this offer, that you've rejected it, but I have to ask you, why don't you come clean? What are you hiding? Why don't you tell us and the tenants in this province what you're considering when it comes to the privatization of housing stock in the province? Come clean, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We have not had any requests for proposals. We have not, at this point in time, taken a position. There may be -- in fact I think there is a proposal. I read in the paper that Citibank had sent us some information, but it was unsolicited and it is part of correspondence. I don't know. If you have a copy of it, release it, if you think it doesn't conflict with any freedom of information to do so.

Let me assure you that we get unsolicited proposals all the time; we get correspondence all the time. What I can tell you is that when the minister is able to come forward, and with consultation with others in preparation of anything of this nature, we will consult with the tenants, we will consult with others and we'll make everything fully public.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as I'm sure you are aware, Oxford is a predominantly rural riding about two hours outside of Toronto and an hour outside of London. It's a wonderful area in which to live, but we have a shortage of doctors.

I know this issue has been of concern to you and I understand that in your discussions with the Ontario Medical Association, you have agreed to let doctors' organizations implement a plan to correct the situation. Can you tell me when this plan will be implemented?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to report to the House that the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association have sat down to discuss primary care reform. Prior to that discussion, though, all members will know, this government had extended new money above the $3.8-billion physician services pool, fee-for-service pool, in the province. That new money currently was used by some 67 communities to provide a $70-an-hour, on-call emergency fee for doctors in those communities, and we're now receiving letters from communities throughout rural and northern Ontario saying that for the first time in many years they have a full complement of doctors, thanks to that program.

As you know, it's a serious problem, and I'm sure it's a very serious issue in the member for Oxford's part of the province. We have over 70 communities currently enrolled in the underserviced area program, which provides tax-free allowances of up to $10,000 per year for four years, $40,000 tax-free on top of what physicians receive from the fee-for-service pool. That's a 30% increase since 1990, so the problem is getting worse.

Just after the vote tonight we'll be sitting down again with the OMA to try to come up with a plan for primary care reform which would finally put an end to the clawback, or the 10% recovery, and allow doctors a predictable income and a more stable life. That's what we're working towards.

Mr Hardeman: I also understand that if the plan does not work, through Bill 26 you have the powers to ensure more doctors practise in underserviced areas. If the OMA plan fails to reach the objective, will you step in and ensure that all Ontarians have equal access to health care? If this is required, how long will you allow before you implement the plan?

Hon Mr Wilson: That's a very good question from my colleague the member for Oxford. I will take this opportunity to clear the air with respect to Bill 26 and the billing number limits in there. It is a temporary moratorium. To date, we've not proclaimed that part. We've proclaimed all other sections, but I gave a commitment at a conference at the University of Western Ontario on Sunday, the day before the vote on Bill 26, to the undergraduate medical students who were representing all the medical schools and undergraduate medical students in the province that we would not implement a billing number moratorium in 1996.

However, if we don't have progress in primary care reform, if we don't get ourselves, along with the OMA, out of this situation of the 10% recoveries and the clawback, if we don't improve the health care system with respect to the delivery of primary care services and access to physicians' services in the province, then we will have to do what four other provinces have done, and that's bring in billing number restrictions.

This simply would say that in certain areas of the province -- there is only a handful right now -- we would not be providing a billing number for a new graduate to go into those areas. That's a better way than four other provinces that have dealt with this issue and it's something we don't want to have to do, but at the end of the day, if we don't come up with some other solutions -- we're actively working on those -- if we don't have something else come forward, we will implement those sections of Bill 26 which will help you to get doctors in Oxford.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Premier. You have pledged to get rid of rent control, and you have already reduced welfare by 22%, and now you want to sell off public housing. You say: "Trust us. We will increase the number of shelter allowances." But housing advocates are afraid you will do this by lowering the average subsidy that individuals receive.

Is it the intention of your government to reduce the shelter allowance housing subsidies given to individuals?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It's our intention -- and I understand that before a budget comes up and business plans come out that one of the strategies is to try to raise everything and get yeses or noes and then whatever's left will be in the budget.

Let me assure the member of this: It is the intention of this government to make sure that tenants, particularly those most vulnerable in the province of Ontario, are better off after any changes we make than before.

Mr Curling: Regardless of what the intention is, Mr Premier, the intention is to get an honest answer out of you. You haven't given an honest answer. You dodge around it. I asked you if you're going to reduce the subsidy allowance. You responded to a report that was done by Citibank, which is a New York firm, as you know -- you said you weren't quite aware of this -- but it gives detailed analysis of how to sell off public housing.

Will you explain to us why you'd like to sell off public housing, the homes of these people, to an American-based company? Will you make a commitment that if you intend to do this -- you have said in your Common Sense Revolution that you intend to sell off public housing -- not only will you involve the residents, but you'll involve the church groups, the municipalities and other non-profit agencies involved in public housing to partake in the discussions when you decide to sell off the homes of the most vulnerable in our society?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me give you the assurance that we'll even involve Alvin Curling.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the minister responsible for gutting the WCB. We know that you've had a great deal of trouble admitting that our reforms --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order and not in his seat.

Mr Christopherson: -- to turn around the finances of the WCB. In fact, you recently admitted in a newspaper

article that the unfunded liability dropped again by nearly half a billion dollars in 1995, and that would be the second straight year since our Bill 165 was passed. In fact, you said, "When you see the final numbers they are compelling." Well, it seems that you're keeping those figures a secret.

You have gone to great lengths in your discussion paper and in your comments to create a phoney fiscal crisis in the WCB, as your colleague in the Ministry of Education admitted he was going to do a short while ago, and the reason you're creating this phoney crisis is to give you the excuse that you want to slash benefits to injured workers and to allow private insurance companies to get their hands on parts of the WCB. The fact of the matter is that the unfunded liability started to soar in the 1980s under a previous Tory government, and now has begun to decline under changes our government made.

It seems as if you don't want the truth to get in the way of creating your phoney crisis. To dispel that, will you table the figures that you said are so compelling today in the House? Will you table those figures?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): I want to thank the member for his question. He is well aware, as a former member of Privy Council, that these figures are tabled by the WCB, and it is my understanding that they are either being tabled today or tomorrow, but the responsibility is vested with the current CEO. It is also my understanding that the member opposite has received a preliminary copy of it. He may not have.

However, I just want to assure the members of the House that his former government may have felt that an $11-billion, $12-billion, $13-billion, $14-billion unfunded liability was not a major concern in this province, but I want to assure the member opposite that an $11-billion unfunded liability with future prospects for growth -- and that unfunded liability may drop a little this year, go up again next year, but the prospect in the year 2014 is we'll still have a $13-billion or $14-billion unfunded liability in this province.

We believe for the safety and security of injured workers today and in the future that the unfunded liability is too high and must be reduced. That's a commitment of the Mike Harris government.

Mr Christopherson: The fact of the matter is that the unfunded liability also has with it $6 billion worth of assets that the WCB has, and indeed two years in a row now we're seeing the figures come down. You're creating a phoney crisis so you can go after injured workers. Injured workers are not fooled by this phoney crisis.

With regard to figures and what's true and what isn't, you make the statement in your document, among other things -- and I'm quoting from your document, Minister -- that, "Ontario's average rate is estimated to be over 40% higher than the average rate in neighbouring Great Lakes states," and yet a report commissioned by the federal government to show the competitiveness of Ontario -- the report was done by KPMG Peat Marwick management consultants -- shows that our WCB rates are lower than those in the States.

Since there's a discrepancy between what you state in your document and what the federal report shows, I want to know about the documentation you've used to justify the statements you've made in here. My staff, our research staff, have attempted to get that background material from your office. We have not been successful. Minister, I want to know if you will table all the background documentation that you used to justify the figures you put in your report. Will you table that material, Minister?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to reassure the member that in fact --

Mr Christopherson: Yes or no?

Hon Mr Jackson: You've raised questions about the size of the unfunded liability, you've raised questions about the performance of the WCB's bottom line for 1995, and you've referenced the fact that there may have been about half a billion dollars surface that wasn't necessarily budgeted for by the WCB.

I want the member to be apprised of the fact that the largest single component of that increase in income to the WCB in the last year, in 1995, was over $300 million directly attributed to private sector growth in payroll in the province of Ontario. I'm here to assure the member opposite that the major factor in the growth in that private sector employment and the assessment base on which there was a growth in revenue was a result of the policies of Mike Harris and the new opportunities and the hope that the private sector found in this province as of midpoint in 1995, and its manifestation is in a healthier bottom-line position for 1995 because of that growth.

TAX REFORM

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question today is directed to my colleague the Minister of Finance. Minister, recent statements in the paper reported that the Atlantic provinces are going to be signing a deal with the federal government to harmonize the provincial sales tax and the GST. Minister, what steps have you taken, if any, regarding this matter?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I might say that negotiations right now with the federal government are nowhere. As I have indicated several times, the most recent proposal to us from the federal government was simply to harmonize the two taxes at a rate of 15%, which would increase taxation in the province of Ontario approximately $2 billion a year and it would --

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Well, you're taking money from everybody else.

Hon Mr Eves: I might say to my Liberal colleague opposite that apparently he's in favour of this measure. It would be interesting to know exactly where his party stands on this important issue, so that Sheila Copps doesn't return to Queen's Park, so that she has to remain in Ottawa.

The reality is that we are not into increasing taxation by $2 billion a year, nor are we into transferring the onus from the business community to the consumers of the province to the tune of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.

Mr Spina: Minister, the concern I have is also from the point of view of the small businesses of this province. With our direction in attempting to reduce the amount of red tape, regulation and compliance procedures for our small businesses in this province, can you assure me that the real job creators of this province would not have to bear the burden of the cost of harmonization to these small businesses?

Hon Mr Eves: We have absolutely no intention of passing the cost of any type of harmonization on to the small business community. We are not in favour of increasing taxation in the province of Ontario. We have a firm belief to reduce taxation, regulation and red tape and that's what we're all about.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. For the past six years, residents and visitors to eastern Ontario have been deprived of one of our greatest natural wonders, the parks of the St Lawrence. Over the same period, I've been trying to convince your government and the previous administration that opening the parks would be good for tourism, good for the unemployed, good for students and good for neighbourhood restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores, service stations and business.

As the minister knows full well, a number of investors and projects have been brought to his attention, but still there is no word on when these parks can be opened. A business development plan was supposed to have been filed by the minister's office at the end of January, but I haven't seen it yet either. Can the minister tell the House when his government intends to act on a plan that will bring economic renewal to eastern Ontario and jobs for our students and the unemployed?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): To the honourable member for Cornwall, I'm very happy to say that we have every intention of making sure the parks of the St Lawrence are run properly so that they create jobs and economic development in eastern Ontario. I quite share the member's concerns. Our party is very concerned as well as you.

I come back to what we are trying to accomplish in this province. As you know, it's to have a proper economic climate that is going to produce jobs and economic activity. I think the honourable member is fully aware of our policy and I reiterated some of it earlier today. I think when the summer is finished, it's going to have been a very prosperous season for eastern Ontario, basically because of the excellent tourist facilities in that region.

Mr Cleary: Minister, how many times are you going to stand in the House and give the people of eastern Ontario the same old song and dance?

On October 26, 1995, I raised the matter in the House to the minister and he said: "The commission is undergoing an extensive business planning exercise. I plan to receive the results by the end of January 1996." Minister, do you know what this date is today? It's April 2.

During the hearings on the estimates committee in February the minister said something like he said again today: "...government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. In Ontario, we are getting government out of the face of business. At the same time, I am confident that business will take up the challenge as well as seize the opportunity to grow and provide jobs."

I know several individuals and groups that have submitted sound proposals that would see these parks open, but they haven't heard anything for months. I am waiting for the minister's response to setting up a meeting that was requested with the municipal council of Charlottenburgh township more than a month ago to discuss the Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks.

These investment opportunities are not going to wait forever for you and your government that isn't going to have the commission run the parks. When will you at least start forming the kind of partnership with municipalities and the private sector that you and your party have been so interested in talking about for months?

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

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm pleased to say to the honourable member for Cornwall that Mr Villeneuve and I had a very interesting and informative meeting with the people from the St Lawrence Parks Commission just in the last few days.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Why don't you tell us about the meeting you just had with Runciman?

Hon Mr Saunderson: If you'd let me talk, I'll tell you. The problem with you people over there is you don't like to hear the good news. What these people told us is that they have very innovative and creative ways to manage the facility, something that they were not encouraged to do when you were in power, and may I close by saying that it was your party that closed those parks down, and you should be ashamed of yourselves as well.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to

section 34(

a) of the standing orders, I intend to raise the subject matter of my question to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism on the adjournment of the House and I will give you written notice.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that Mrs Ross and Mr Tilson exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition signed by hundreds of people in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cut until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Like the member for Wellington, I have two petitions on the same subject, which read in part:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cut until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

Two of these petitions, from my electoral district.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I have two petitions signed by a number of constituents in my riding of Durham Centre. I disagree with the contents of the petitions, but present them at their request as my constituents:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the most vulnerable, the poor, the disabled, the battered and abused, the single parent with no child care, the unemployed, have suffered most in the recent cutbacks to our social safety net; and

"Whereas the cancelling of rules for the protection of the environment threatens such treasures as the Temagami wilderness, now open for commercial exploitation; and

"Whereas government action to trim the civil service by at least 13,000 jobs will deepen our unemployment problem and make us less able to be a caring community; and

"Whereas alternate plans to effectively control the deficit have received scant attention;

"Therefore, we petition the Parliament of Ontario to enact such measures as are necessary to provide employment, reduce the hardships of poverty, all the while preserving the environment through sustainable development."

I affix my name as required.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "We collectively, as residents of the city of Gloucester, in the area known specifically as Pineview are extremely concerned for the safety of our families and children. We strongly object to uses contained within the premises known municipally as 124-1449 Ridgebrook Drive. This unit is currently being used as a rooming house, which contravenes the city of Gloucester zoning bylaws and the bylaws of Condominium Corp no. 70, which stipulate single-family occupancy only.

In addition, this unit is known to house persons dangerous to public safety, as demonstrated by a recent murder attempt on the premises as well as numerous actions required by the police force.

"We, the undersigned, demand that the proper authorities empowered to deal with such matters ensure the immediate discontinuance of the illegal uses and activities contained within 124-1449 Ridgebrook Drive."

I affix my signature.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini is proposing legislation that will cost many towns their bus service. Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

This is signed by 15 individuals, and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition from approximately 20 of my constituents relating to the tax cuts. It appears to be in standard form, and I'm submitting it on their behalf today.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, believe that rent control abolition would lead to a steep rise in rent through the persistent shortage of affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth. Tenants, who are among the most affected by ongoing mass layoffs, wage cuts and hiring freezes, and senior citizens on fixed incomes will suffer greatly if rent controls are abolished. We are not in favour of the proposed abolition of rent controls by the provincial government."

I've assigned my signature to the petition.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition today signed by a number of residents from the city of Scarborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close inpatient paediatric beds, the special care nursery and the burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital resulting in significantly reduced access to paediatric, newborn and burn care for a large geographic area of Scarborough; and

"Whereas the paediatric unit, special care nursery and burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital provide very cost-efficient, quality care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to:

"

(1) Continue paediatric services including inpatient paediatric beds,

"

(2) Continue special care nursery services,

"

(3) Continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care

"At Scarborough General Hospital!"

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition that's addressed to Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas changes your government has suggested to the Ontario Building Code threaten to remove that right for thousands of Ontario voters;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature to reconsider your government's position on this issue."

I've affixed my signature to it.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by about 45 members of my community of London and environs:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini is proposing legislation that will cost many towns their bus services.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

I'm proud to affix my signature.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000, they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals;

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community;

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services have a definite impact on the statistics of children and youth in crisis;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham."

It's signed by a number of residents from Kent county and I affix my signature to it.

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of northwestern Ontario have spoken loud and clear regarding their support for the family support plan regional offices, and I've got a petition signed by 500 people here that states:

"We, being residents and taxpayers of Ontario, hereby wish to notify you that we oppose the centralization of the family support plan office and in particular the closure of the Thunder Bay branch of the family support plan for the following reasons:

"Whereas the regional offices are necessary for the timely enforcement of support orders agreements;

"Whereas the Thunder Bay regional office currently has 3,639 active files and a compliance rate of 67%; in 1995 the Thunder Bay regional office collected over $11 million, of which $1,743,769.09 was returned to the Treasurer of Ontario; the funds recovered from the Treasurer of Ontario more than pay for its annual operating cost of $609,000; should this compliance rate decrease, children will suffer and there will be an increase of enrolment for social assistance;

"Whereas the Thunder Bay branch region covers from White River to the Ontario-Manitoba border; regional staff has established excellent experience and contacts for tracing and locating delinquent support payers in the northwest due to their familiarity with the region;

"Whereas seasonal employment and variable support provisions are common to the northwest; consistent monitoring of these cases is essential to the proper enforcement of support orders agreements; delays on acting on these adjustments would result in increased enrolment for social assistance and increased court actions against FSP within an overworked court system;

"Whereas it is proposed that cases will not be assigned to a particular case worker; this will result in non-efficient, repetitive and time-consuming work as each time a file is actioned the file will have to be fully reviewed as the provisions of each court order are unique; difficulties will occur when staff interpret the support provisions differently and it is proposed staff will only act upon issue-driven cases, so not all cases in arrears will be reviewed; the regional employees are familiar with the cases and are available to meet with clients and act in a timely fashion;

"Therefore, we hereby respectfully request that you give consideration to our concerns and reject any proposal for the closure of the Thunder Bay branch family support plan."

I sign my name.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition from hundreds of people from the area of Timmins that reads as follows:

"Whereas security of tenure or the right to remain in our homes is a basic need of all humans; and

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in effect in this province."

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have several petitions from across the province concerning Hydro. These petitions read:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the matter of selling Ontario Hydro is likely to come before the Legislature in the near future; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, who have, through the payment of electricity rates, paid for Ontario Hydro, are concerned about privatization of Ontario Hydro, leading to higher rates, lower reliability and compromised nuclear safety,

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

"Please preserve the public ownership of Ontario Hydro and refuse to sell this important public asset."

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Windsor-Sandwich has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism concerning youth employment. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Want of confidence motion number 1: Mrs McLeod.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have all-party agreement to split the time equally between the parties.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): It's agreed? Agreed.

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mrs McLeod moved, pursuant to standing order 43(a), want of confidence motion number 1:

Whereas the Conservative government has clearly broken every single promise it made with respect to protecting health care; and

Whereas the government broke its promise not to cut "one cent" from health care spending when it cut more than $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals; and

Whereas the government broke its promise that, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut" when it introduced a new user fee on the drugs that sick seniors, disabled persons and the poor are prescribed by their doctors; and

Whereas the government broke its promise that there would be "no new user fees" when it introduced Bill 26, which will add $225 million worth of user fees to the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

Whereas the government is now planning, through Bill 26, to bestow upon the Minister of Health new unilateral powers which would allow him to close any hospital in the province without public input; and

Whereas the government is now planning, through Bill 26, to grant the Premier and cabinet new powers that will usurp the rights and privileges of the elected members of the Legislature and thereby the rights of every person in the province;

Therefore, pursuant to standing order 43(a), the House no longer has confidence in the government.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want particularly to note, in placing the motion, that the date on which this motion was placed before the House was December 5 of last year. You will recognize that it was placed immediately after the November financial statement had stripped $1.3 billion from hospital budgets. It was placed after the government had indicated it was prepared to find some $225 million to pay for its tax cut by unconscionably charging seniors and the disabled for their drugs.

It was after Bill 26, that infamous bully bill, was introduced on that same infamous day that Mike Harris broke his supposedly sacred promise not to cut health care. This motion was tabled before the government had been forced to debate Bill 26, forced against its will to subject Bill 26 to some public scrutiny.

Today we ask, as this motion is called, what have we seen since December 5, when this motion was originally introduced? I suggest to you that we have seen absolutely nothing that would restore any sense of confidence in this government and particularly in this government's commitment to health care.

What about the $1.3-billion cut to the budgets of our hospitals? That still stands. What we have seen since then are hundreds of nurses and other front-line health care workers losing their jobs as hospitals close beds and cut back services to find their share of the tax cut dollars.

It was just yesterday that Peel Memorial Hospital announced it was going to cut beds and would lose 200 jobs to pay for its $4.6-million budget shortfall. Sadly, Peel was not the first and it will certainly not be the last.

There are estimates of how many health care workers are going to lose their jobs in this province just because of the cuts this government announced last November: Metropolitan Toronto, 2,550 health care workers to be laid off; northeastern Ontario, 350; northwestern Ontario, 65; eastern Ontario, 820 people to lose their jobs in the health care sector; southwestern Ontario, 1,315 people are likely to lose their jobs as front-line health care workers; 460 people in central west; and another 175 people in central east. That's what we've seen since this motion was tabled on December 5.

What about the plan that was in place last December 5 to charge the sick elderly and the disabled for their drugs? Here again the government has decided that it's going to stick to its guns. They seem to have a sense that you've got to get tough with these privileged few, these disabled and the elderly sick, who somehow aren't carrying their fair share of the tax cut. You certainly wouldn't want a little human compassion or a little bit of concern to get in the way of finding a way to pay for the tax cut.

Then we had the debate around Bill 26, the bill that had been tabled when this motion was tabled, the bill that is now passed after almost every presenter in two weeks of hearings across this province expressed concerns about the bill, passed after a week of amendments which barely touched the first sections of the bill and passed after this government turned a deaf ear to any changes other than a few face-saving gestures, and we had to fight for hours to get those.

The only real changes this government was forced to accept to the health care sections of Bill 26 were amendments protecting the privacy of patient records. You'll remember what a contentious issue that was, because the Minister of Health insisted that there was absolutely no danger to patients' records or to the confidentiality of their most private personal medical information. Unfortunately, the privacy commissioner disagreed with the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Health was embarrassed enough that he had to take action to change that

section of the bill.

As we place this non-confidence motion today, let me ask whether anybody can have any confidence in a government that says it won't touch a penny of the health care budget and then takes $1.3 billion away from our hospitals; and whether anybody can have confidence in a government that says there are going to be no new user fees and then brings in user fees for drugs for seniors and the disabled. Can you trust a government that is so ready to disregard what it calls its most sacred commitment in order to deliver a completely irresponsible campaign promise of giving a tax cut to the wealthy?

Let me further ask whether you can have confidence in any government that is so desperate to make its cuts fast that it would ram through a bill giving itself unprecedented powers to control the health care system that it is already savaging with its spending cuts. Do you have any confidence in a government and a Minister of Health that won't admit they're wrong until they're simply embarrassed into it and who won't worry about who or what they hurt unless they think that they have at last crossed a line that will get them into real political trouble?

I submit to you that the public of Ontario does not trust the Tories on health care. Thousands have expressed their concerns to us in writing. Thousands have said that they agree with us that this Premier, Mike Harris, is hazardous to our health. Yet this government, a government that nobody trusts on health care, has given itself the power to control the health care system in this province. That's what we saw on January 29 when Bill 26 became law.

That's what Bill 26 did, because with the powers of that bill, this government can now determine which doctors will practise in our communities. They can decide what medical treatments and what medications will be given. The Minister of Health can shut down our hospitals, or he can step in and take them over, or he can tell somebody else to go in and do it for him. This government can deny payment for medical services it doesn't think were necessary even after the services were given. Can we trust Jim Wilson with these kinds of powers? In fact, should any Minister of Health have or want these kinds of powers?

I think somebody in Jim Wilson's office actually understood that the public doesn't want the Minister of Health, neither this Minister of Health nor any Minister of Health, or anyone but their doctor deciding what medical treatment they'll get. That's why they've tried to hide the fact that Bill 26 leaves the general manager of OHIP deciding what medical treatment is going to be paid for.

The ministry sent out a press release. The press release said that the decision to withhold payment for medical services to a patient would be made on the advice of a physician. The actual amendment says that the general manager of OHIP just has to check with a physician, any physician, not necessarily the patient's physician, and then the general manager of OHIP will act according to his own judgement of what was medically necessary.

The general manager of OHIP, the very man who has been challenged by this government and this minister to help them cut down on their OHIP billings, will be deciding how a doctor should treat a patient. The press release that day was deliberately misleading the public.

When the government wants to mislead the public on such an important issue as who decides what medical treatment will be given, I suggest it does not do a lot to build trust in how this government is going to use these enormous powers that it has given itself to manage our access to health care.

There's another strange thing about this government: It wants the power to do whatever it wants to do to control health care costs and to make the cuts that it needs fast, but it really doesn't want the responsibility for the decisions that are going to be made.

We saw Jim Wilson refusing to listen to the concerns of virtually every person who was concerned about the government's power to come in and close down hospitals. Everyone urged him not to delegate this responsibility to his new restructuring commission. It's bad enough to have unilateral decisions imposed on communities when their hospital's going to be shut down, but it's even worse when the person coming in to make that decision is an unelected person with no political accountability of any kind.

But Jim Wilson wants to wash his hands of any actual exercise of this new power that he has. He said publicly this week that he's actually afraid the public might blame him for the decisions that would be made, these tough decisions that they want to take pride in making. I find it passing strange that he wants the power and not the responsibility, even when Bill 26 protects him from any legal responsibility for any problems, but the minister thinks that he and Mike Harris are just getting far too much blame already.

So I quote the health minister when he said, "What happens to Mike Harris and company is that we get accused of being slash-and-burn and having to deliver bad news all the time." Mr Wilson was pleading for a little help from the hospitals, a little sense of partnership. I wonder where the sense of partnership was when that same minister cut the hospitals' budgets by $1.3 billion, when he decided to give himself the power to take over the hospital board if he didn't think they were acting in the public interest, and the only concession he made to partnership then was to finally agree to give them 14 days' notice before the takeovers happen.

There is no question that Mike Harris and Jim Wilson and this Conservative government are being accused of hurting health care, because they are hurting health care, and they will be blamed for closing down the hospitals of this province because they will be responsible for closing down the hospitals of this province.

This government made a huge, huge mistake with Bill 26. The Premier said that he thought they were losing the public relations battle. Well, they lost a lot more than that. They lost any shred of public confidence that this government was really concerned about health care. Bill 26 made it only too clear that it was cuts and not a concern for health care that was the priority for this government, and it will continue to lose public support if it continues to attack health care to pay for its foolish tax cut.

I find this week that even the government seems to have realized it still has a problem. It has tried very hard over and over again in answers to questions in this House and questions from the media to say: "No, no, we haven't broken our promise. We're not really cutting health care. We're going to put all the money back before the next election. We'll keep our promise somewhere in the future."

Well, I guess the line wasn't selling, because now they seem to be thinking of putting the money back this year. And the questions are still there: Where? Where is the money going to be? And why did the hospital budgets have to be cut if the government's not cutting health care? There's no restructuring yet. There's no savings realized. The minister hasn't come in with his heavy hammer and actually shut down the hospitals yet.

So if the government's not going to cut health care in this budget after all, will it put the money back in the hospital budgets so that we don't have to have the cutbacks in our front-line health care, which is where that care is needed most? Or is Jim Wilson going to have his little political pot of gold to dispense as he sees fit and where he sees the maximum political benefit?

I say to you that this really is politics at its cynical worst. If this government is not going to cut the health care budget in this year's budget, then let this government tell the Peel Memorial Hospital board right now that it doesn't need to close beds and it doesn't need to lay off 200 workers, because listen to what the Peel hospital is facing just to pay for its 5.6% cut.

They're going to reduce paediatric beds from 30 to 20. What happens if a 21st child in Peel gets sick and needs that hospital bed that's been cut?

They're going to reduce their obstetrics area from labour, delivery and post-deliveries to one single room. I don't know exactly how you achieve that, but I particularly don't know what that's going to mean to the care of women who are going to be delivering some 4,000 babies in the Peel hospital this year.

Peel hospital is going to reduce a medical care unit. They're going to close two beds in intensive care for another week. I wonder what happens if you have more intensive-care patients than you have beds, because it seems to me that heart attacks don't actually follow planning rules; they don't understand that there are efficiency guidelines in place in the hospital. But there is no question that those heart attack victims and their families will understand about budget cuts in health care when they cannot get the health care they need when and where they need it, and they will hold this government responsible for that.

The results in Peel: Longer waiting lists for emergency services, longer waits for a hospital bed, delays for people waiting for surgery; and people are already waiting seven weeks for surgery in Peel. This is not good patient care; this is desperate budget cutting and this is what is happening right across this province.

So I say to Jim Wilson, the Minister of Health, that he should tell us what assurance he can give to the people in Peel -- which incidentally is a growing area which has been facing health care pressures for years now -- what assurance will he give to the people in Peel that they can get the health care they need when and where they need it, and what assurance Jim Wilson and Mike Harris can give to people right across this province in any community that they can get the health care they need when and where they need it.

I say to the Minister of Health that he and Mike Harris and Ernie Eves are responsible for the attacks on our health care system. They are not making these cuts because of past overspending, as the finance minister wants to say; they are making them because they need to find at least $5 billion to pay for a tax cut. If this government has decided it won't fund its tax cut by taking money out of the health care budget this year, then let it put that money back into our front-line hospitals and let our front-line hospitals decide how best to provide health care in their communities.

If the Minister of Health would be prepared to do that, if he would just step back and realize that you can't cut before you've found the so-called efficiencies, you can't guarantee patient care will be there unless you've looked closely at how it can be delivered in a community, if he'll step back from that and put the $1.3 billion back into hospital budgets, then he can take the time he needs to work with hospitals, to work with communities, to see if there's a restructuring that really would work and that doesn't sacrifice health care.

But that kind of planning takes time. You can't just send somebody in, one of your restructuring commissioners, to do the job fast. I know for a fact, an indisputable fact, that starting a restructuring process with a cut of $1.3 billion is a guarantee of bad planning and a guarantee of a loss of health care service.

If this government is not going to cut health care in this budget after all, I know that it has time to put back into the budget the $225 million that it's planning to take away from the elderly and the disabled. It's not too late to stop the new user fee and I surely don't think that anybody in this government has ever believed that it was conscionable to make, for example, psychiatric patients pay as much as $40 a month for the drugs that they need just to function while this government gives $14 million a day back to the well-to-do.

Maybe while it's at it, the government would take another look at the deregulation of drug prices, another of those Bill 26 pieces, one of those parts of Bill 26 which ironically could end up costing the government money, because the government has no guarantee of what will happen to drug prices when it deregulates, yet it was determined to forge ahead. Who could have any confidence in a government that cares only about ideology? They wouldn't even take the time to look at the evidence that deregulation could lead to significant increases in the cost of prescription drugs.

The Minister of Health during that debate, I recall, still to my amazement, even suggested that people could go out and barter to get a better price for their drugs. I still contend that a parent of a sick child or somebody who's ill with a fever of 104 is not in a very good position to tromp around town trying to get the best prices they can for their drugs.

There is much more that this government is doing that it says is about the public interest and it's really just about cutting costs. The minister talked today about billing numbers, about the fact that they're not going to impose their billing numbers this year, they'll just keep the threat of imposing billing numbers for next year if somehow people don't respond to the big stick hanging over their head. But they're still talking about billing numbers, and they're still committed to government-imposed quotas on how many doctors can practise.

That is not really about making sure that northern and rural communities have enough doctors, and that concern is reaching crisis proportions literally week by week.

The kinds of proposals in Bill 26, the big-stick proposals of this government, are really making the problems of recruitment and retention in northern and rural communities even more difficult. Graduates are telling us that they will leave the province of Ontario rather than being told where they can practise -- 47% of the medical students in the University of Toronto have said they will leave the province rather than submit even to the threat of billing numbers.

What this government really wanted in Bill 26, and what they got in Bill 26, is the power to shut down physicians who are practising in oversupplied areas. That's one of the ways they see to cut OHIP costs, and that's really what this is all about. That's what this government cares most about: How do you cut costs?

Any positive incentive to meet the need of northern and rural communities for health care, like declaring Sudbury or Peterborough or Windsor underserviced areas so they can have an incentive to attract physicians to their communities, is not even going to be considered by this government, is not high on the priority list.

Expanding the northern residency program so that physicians will have training and will be encouraged to stay in northern Ontario communities, the most successful program supporting recruitment of physicians in the north that has ever been put in place, that's not on the priority list for this government either. The only things that are going to be on the priority list for this government will be the announcements that make the minister and the government look good.

I can acknowledge that as those announcements are made we will welcome them, because the need in health care is great. But I say cutting front-line service and putting new user fees in place is simply not the way to ensure that people in this province get good health care.

Taking the power to run the health care system while you refuse any responsibility for your decisions is dangerous. Keeping a pot of money for good-news announcements while you force hospitals to close their beds and lay off health care workers, increase the waiting times for emergency service and increase the waiting times for elective surgery, and reduce the numbers of intensive-care beds and the ability to care for pregnant mothers and newborn babies, jeopardizing the health of people of this province so you can keep a pot of money for good-news announcements, is just simply wrong. People will not get the health care they need when and where they need it.

Health care should be, as Mike Harris once said, "our first and most important commitment." It is frightening to know that this government can't be trusted to keep that commitment. It is frightening that the people in every community of this province will pay the price for that broken promise.

With that, we support non-confidence.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I intend to have a few remarks on the Liberal non-confidence motion, because I think it's an appropriate non-confidence motion and our caucus does intend to support this motion.

I find it ironic that yesterday was the end of the Canada assistance plan, as we've always known it in Canada, replaced by a health and services tax. That is linked, of course, to a reduction in transfer payments from Ottawa to the provinces. I would say to my Liberal friends in the Liberal caucus -- and everybody who's in the Liberal caucus now I believe is a real, true Liberal -- that what their federal cousins have done in Ottawa has really given licence to the provincial Tories to have their way with health and social services in all the provinces, not just in Ontario.

There's no question that what the federal Liberals are doing was certainly thought of a long time ago, when the Tories were in power, and the Liberals are now doing it. So there's no question that the provincial Liberals should be thinking about what the federal Liberals are doing to us at the same time.

I would say that when it comes to the present government and its intentions with health care, it's been an interesting scene that has unfolded before us if you go back to a year ago when all of the promises were made -- before that, as a matter of fact -- in the Common Sense Revolution, but also in a large number of press releases that were put out by the Tories, who were then of course in opposition, assuring everyone there would be no cuts to health care.

Then when they formed the government and they realized they wanted to keep the promises that were in the Common Sense Revolution, they started hedging on their commitment and saying, "Oh, no, no, the $17.4 billion that's being spent on health care in the province will be honoured" -- not necessarily day by day, and I think most people understood that -- but there was no commitment that even in any given year the $17.4-billion commitment would be maintained, until the last couple of days.

The last couple of days we have the Minister of Health coming forward and saying, "No, no, that $17.4 billion will be honoured year by year," which makes me wonder about some of the statements that were made. For example, just a few minutes ago the present Minister of Agriculture, sitting in his place and working away diligently on letters to the various chambers of commerce across the land, muttered or interjected that we had spent too much on health care.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Oh, no. You shut down 6,700 beds, is what I said.

Mr Laughren: That's sure what it sounded like to me, that the opposition, whether it was Liberals or NDP, had spent too much money on health care. Yet now they're not going to reduce spending on health care. You can't have it both ways.

I think that a lot of work was done, and without being too partisan about it, I think that more work was done in the last five years, in getting the increased costs of health care under control than had ever been done in this province. We understand in this caucus the need to control health care spending. We understand that.

We were the ones who set up the commission on hospital restructuring. We believe that needs to be done, and I have no problem with that. That does have to be done. We might have differences on the way in which it's implemented from time to time, but you have not heard us say that hospital restructuring is not necessary. And there needs to be a reinvestment from institutions into community-based care. I believe that all of us, and I suspect all three parties, believe that.

What's disturbing so far is that we have not seen any of that happen yet by the government. We haven't seen any of that. All we've seen are cuts that are being announced in the hospital system before the restructuring has even been done, not after. These cuts are not a result, presumably, of hospital restructuring, because that restructuring has not occurred. So where are the savings coming from?

The government's own figures, from what's known as HTAP, the Hospital Training and Adjustment Panel in the Ministry of Health, announce that there will be somewhere between 20,000 and 26,000 jobs lost in the hospital sector in the next couple of years, with no apparent plan on the part of the government to engage in any kind of retraining or placement or counselling of those people. If they have these plans, they are nowhere to be seen.

I would say to the government members that it's fine for you to talk about reinvesting every cut you make, but we want to see some of those plans. If you're not going to put the hospital restructuring savings back into community-based care, what are you going to do with them? The Minister of Finance would probably love to have it go towards reducing the deficit, but I think the commitment that's now been made is that that won't happen, all those savings will be reinvested in the health care system.

We have no idea when you're going to do that or how you're going to do that or where you're going to put it in the health care system, and I can tell you, we will be watching very carefully to see just how that happens.

We'll also be watching very carefully to make sure you don't play some kind of dishonest fiscal game by transferring responsibilities from other ministries into the Ministry of Health in order to keep that number up at $17.4 billion. It would be possible to transfer programs from the Ministry of Education and Training, from corrections, from the women's directorate, for example, into the health care ministry's budget and say, "Eureka, we're back up at $17.4 billion." Well, that would be too dishonest for words, and I wouldn't dare describe to you the names you would be called if you were to do that, because that's not what's meant by maintaining the health care budget at $17.4 billion.

The other issue I'd like to talk about for a moment is the whole question of user fees. I can remember the Tories said a year ago now, on May 3, 1995, in a press release: "Mike Harris and his caucus publicly rejected new user fees as an effective way to ensure adequate funding for our health care system." May 3, 1995.

Jim Wilson, the Minister of Health -- I know some of you will find it hard to believe that these particular words came from his particular lips, but this is what he said, a quote from him from Hansard, "Ask the seniors about $150 million in new user fees." He was being critical of our government, and these are his exact words, "Don't take any more crap from politicians." That's what Jim Wilson said about user fees when he was speaking to the seniors of this province. That's in Hansard of July 26, 1993. He's got a lot of nerve, given what he's done since then, and I hope members opposite will appreciate the fact that he has spoken with a forked tongue in this regard.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Hey, unparliamentary.

Mr Laughren: That's too bad.

When we talk about user fees, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. If you're a single senior and your income is less than $16,000 a year, each prescription will cost that single senior $2 -- each prescription. If you're a single senior with an income of more than $16,000 -- it could be just that much more -- then there'll be a $100 annual deductible, plus the dispensing fee. If you're a senior couple earning less than $24,000, you'll have a $2 prescription fee.

If you're a senior couple earning more than $24,000, there'll be a $100 annual deductible, plus the dispensing fee for every prescription. And if you're a social assistance recipient, of course, the favourite target of this government, there's a $2 prescription fee.

This is coming from a government that has stated over and over again that a copayment is a user fee, yet Jim Wilson, the minister, is on record as saying that they would never introduce user fees. Well, we've seen how firm that promise was.

There are some examples that one can use, because I know some people dismiss the $2 fee and say, "Oh, well, what's $2?" It can mean a lot to people who have to fill a lot of prescriptions.

People with mental health problems are given medication only for seven days -- seven days in advance is my understanding -- because of the concern, obviously, about overdosing for those folks. They would have to pay the $2 user fee every seven days, and that's assuming they only had one prescription, one drug that they required a prescription for.

We hear stories such as an 86-year-old patient who still lives in her home, has congestive heart failure and diabetes, and takes 11 types of medications. By renewing her prescription every three months, she will be paying at least an additional $22 for each renewal period: 11 prescriptions times $2. For people who have very little income, that is a financial blow to them. The same of course could be applied to parents who have severely disabled children who would require a lot of prescriptions.

For seniors and the disabled, there were promises. I quote again from the Common Sense Revolution, page 10, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut." How do you square that with user fees? On the technical argument that a user fee is not a cut in a program? I hope you wouldn't make that argument.

Then we have the Minister of Community and Social Services standing in his place this very day during question period and not dismissing the idea that there could be a change in the definition of "disability" in this province. Given the record of this government, if you change the definition of who is disabled in the province, we know who will get hurt by that; it will obviously be the disabled. Yet that's what the minister refused to stand in his place today and say: "No, we won't change the definition."

We've also heard that the government intends to cut $30 million from the budget of services for developmentally handicapped people in the province. The story goes on and on.

Let's for the moment assume that the government is going to stick to its promise not to cut health care. That means that there's $17.4 billion out of the total Ontario budget, which is in the neighbourhood of $50 billion. That's $17 billion you have to take out of that because no cuts to health care, no cuts to classroom education, no cuts to policing, no cuts to agriculture and, I heard the Premier say one time, no cuts to support for tourism either.

What does that leave and what kind of cuts will there be in all those remaining programs? Take out the classrooms, take out health care, take out policing, take out agriculture and take out tourism. What have you got left to find all these savings that must go towards providing the tax cut? Where are you going to get that money?

You're going to be the laughingstock of this province. That's what you're going to be because you've taken away such a huge proportion of the base for potential cuts. You got yourself into this quagmire. Nobody else put you there; you put yourselves there. It's going to be very interesting to see how you're going to pay for that tax cut, somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion a year; not the first year, because it's only 30%, but it's still a huge revenue loss.

Where do you make up that revenue loss? That's why I said a long time ago that if the Tories intend to deliver on their tax cut, they're going to have to take health care spending and apply it towards that cut in order to get the deficit down. Now they're saying no, they're not going to do that. I don't think the dollars are there. We'll see what happens, but I really believe that you've got yourself into a trap of your own setting by saying that you would not touch any of these other ministries, because you were in an election campaign. That's why you did it; it's very clear.

I can just imagine. You know, when you talk about not affecting the classroom, you're taking over $400 million out this year; that'll annualize to $1 billion a year. That's not going to touch the classrooms? Who are you kidding? Why are all the layoff notices going out by the school boards? Because you've cut that $400 million out, that's why. It'll be $1 billion when you annualize it over the next couple of years.

Then you look at agriculture and food. There's one we're going to be watching very, very closely, because the Premier was very, very firm that there would be no cuts to support for agriculture. Of course, there's already been $26 million taken out, as I read the numbers, and there's going to be a lot more taken out as well.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: How much did you take out, Floyd?

Mr Laughren: We're not talking about what we did; we're talking about what the promise of the Tory government was on agriculture. I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture is sitting in his place. He's probably doing drafts of letters of apology to farmers across the province as he sits here listening to this debate, because none of us believe that there are not going to be any cuts in support for agriculture.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): There already have been.

Mr Laughren: We know there already have been. So why they think everything's so precious in the Common Sense Revolution when they've already broken all sorts of promises in it, I don't understand. The Minister of Agriculture is going to be, if I could use the expression, eating crow in the next while on agriculture.

All of this to accomplish two things. This is what's causing them all the agony, basically two reasons: one is you made the promise in the Common Sense Revolution that you don't want the perception out there that this was just a document to get elected. You really want to be able to go to the people and say, "We brought forth the Common Sense Revolution and we're living up to the commitments that it contained therein." That's what you want to say. But people are laughing at you already on that promise, because they know you can't deliver on it. They just know that.

Secondly, do you really think that you could even start to get away with this 30% income tax cut, the only progressive tax there is in the province, without people associating it with classroom education and health care and support to agriculture and to policing? Of course people draw that link. They're not stupid. They understand that any discomfort, any unemployment and layoffs, cuts in programs, is to pay for that tax cut that you promised in the Common Sense Revolution.

I recall Mike Harris saying, "If we don't live up to all these promises, I'll resign, because I'm a different kind of politician." That's what he said. He said, "I'm a different kind of politician and if I don't live up to all these promises in the Common Sense Revolution, I'll resign, because I'm a different kind of politician." He is indeed a different kind of politician. I would go with him that far. He is a different kind of politician. But at the end of the day --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): So are you.

Mr Laughren: Of course.

At the end of the day, he's already broken some of his promises and he's going to break a lot more of them, and guess what, folks? He's not going to resign. Then what's he going to say? He's going to say: "I was only kidding, folks. You don't really expect me to resign, simply because I promised I would, do you?" If you used that argument, he'd have to live up to all the promises in the Common Sense Revolution, and we know how stupid that would be.

So there you have the Premier, a different kind of politician, who said, "I will resign if I don't live up to every single promise in the Common Sense Revolution." You and I know he's already broken half of them in the Common Sense Revolution and before the next three years are up, he will have broken the rest of them in the Common Sense Revolution. So forget about it, folks, he's not going to resign, he's not a different kind of politician except that he still thinks that people out there are so stupid that they believe there's no link between the tax cut and all the cuts in programs. People are not stupid. People are not that stupid.

I can tell you that's exactly what people will say. They will say, "Wait a minute." I can see all the newsreels now, playing back Mr Harris's scrum in which he said: "I am different. I'm a different kind of politician and if I break any promises, I'll resign." I can see that playing back again and again and again on the newscasts, as he breaks promise after promise after promise, and the first one is health care.

I commend the Liberal caucus for bringing forth this resolution today and I'm quite happy to support it.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I am pleased to rise today and speak against this motion. I speak against this motion for one very important reason: The House has not lost its confidence in the government. The people of Ontario have not lost their confidence in the government, in Mike Harris or in Jim Wilson. In fact the people of Ontario elected us with a very clear mandate to do the things we said we were going to do in the Common Sense Revolution. One of those promises was to maintain the health care budget at $17.4 billion by the end of our mandate, and I am proud to say that this promise will be another promise the people of Ontario will say this government has kept.

Not once, however, have we ever said that the status quo is acceptable. We promised the people of Ontario that we would find savings through the elimination of waste and duplication and reinvest them in front-line services, into services that the people of Ontario want and need, the services that Ontarians have told us they want.

We have already invested more than $300 million back into front-line services. Some of these announcements include $170 million back into community-based, front-line, patient-focused services for tens of thousands of people in Ontario. Long-term care is a growing demand in Ontario, and we are not only prepared to acknowledge this but we are prepared to finance this growth also.

In addition to putting our dollars where the growth is, we have also restructured the long-term-care area within the Ministry of Health to allow it to meet the needs of the people of Ontario, to allow it to grow with the changing demographics of Ontario.

In addition to the changes and the restructuring we have done to long-term care, we have also protected emergency room services in small, rural hospitals by introducing a $70-per-hour payment for physicians, which acts as an incentive to provide coverage. For communities that historically have had difficulty in attracting and retaining physicians, this can add an incentive of up to $60,000 per year for a physician who covers one shift in five. This initiative came as welcome news for hospitals that were at risk of losing their emergency room services and reinvests approximately $13 million in small communities such as mine.

In my discussions with the hospitals in one of the small towns that I represent, I have found that there's been a substantial change in our emergency room