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

October 2, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L240 - Thu 2 Oct 1997 / Jeu 2 Oct 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BALANCED BUDGET

EXOTIC ANIMALS CONTROL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ANIMAUX EXOTIQUES

BALANCED BUDGET

EXOTIC ANIMALS CONTROL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ANIMAUX EXOTIQUES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

SCHOOL TEACHERS

ORANGEVILLE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY

DEER AND MOOSE TAGS

PUBLIC HEALTH

SENIOR CITIZENS

RADIO STATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION REFORM

HOME CARE

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPORTS FUNDING

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

TRAFFIC CONTROL

EDUCATION FINANCING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

COURT DECISION

TUITION FEES

FIRE IN HAMILTON

RENT REGULATION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BALANCED BUDGET

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I move that in the opinion of this House, since past provincial governments have been known to spend well beyond their means and these overspending practices have placed the people and the province of Ontario in a precarious fiscal position, and

Since responsible governments should be able to spend within the means available to them and the present government under the leadership of the Honourable Mike Harris intends to balance the budget by the year 2000-01,

Therefore, after balancing the provincial budget, the government of Ontario should recognize the importance of ensuring that future governments do not place the province of Ontario in fiscal difficulty and should introduce balanced budget legislation that will prohibit deficits in future provincial budgets, require the government to dissolve within 90 days of the presentation of an unbalanced budget or the overspending of a budget, and require the people of Ontario to approve government borrowing through a province-wide referendum that includes a repayment

schedule for the principal and the interest.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bert Johnson: It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to present and speak to this resolution. I look forward to the comments of all my colleagues in the House this morning, as we will be debating what I consider should be the future direction of provincial governments.

I'd like to begin by briefly discussing the reason I've brought this resolution forward and how I see it impacting the future of Ontario if it receives the support of the members today.

In 1994 I looked around my riding of Perth county and was not at all happy with what I saw. The people I had grown up with, the people I lived and worked with were being subjected to an ever-increasing burden. Taxes were high, unemployment was high and government spending was high. About the only thing that was low was morale. The people of Perth county were living within their means while being forced to support a government that could not do the same.

I had a decision to make. I could sit back and watch this happen or I could join with others and try to make a difference. I decided to make that difference, so October 5, 1994, I delivered a speech in which I promised the people of Perth county that a brighter future was possible. I would like to read an excerpt from that speech I gave on my nomination night as it lays the foundation for this resolution I have tabled in the Legislature which we are debating today.

"Year after year, somewhere in the budget speech -- look for it along with the finance minister's new shoes -- the provincial, or the federal as well, Treasurer says, `We will pay down the deficit.' Does he mean it? Yes. Will he do it? Not unless he has a lucky trip to the casino in Windsor. He will not do it and the reason he won't do it is because it's not in his budget figures, just in his speech.

"If you're surprised and think this oversight is the fault of our forefathers' design of the provincial budget, I don't agree. I think their common sense told them that if you borrowed something, you paid it back -- not leave it for your children to pay back. So it wasn't in our budget way back when and it's not in our budget now.

"Could it be that it's a bad idea? I don't think so. Your banker insists that capital repayment is in your budget and the province of Ontario insists that capital repayment be in the budget of every municipality and school board."

That was written in 1994 when the provincial government had presented the people of Ontario with high deficits and massive accumulated debt. In fact, the higher the NDP government hiked taxes in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, the less revenue the province took in. The policies, which resulted in 65 tax increases in 10 years, were crushing the spirit of the hardworking people of Ontario.

That's why I was proud to become part of the Mike Harris team that was looking towards the future of Ontario. The vision is summed up in one sentence: "It's time for government to make the same types of changes all of us have had to make our own families and in our jobs." For those of you who missed that one, it can be found in the introduction to the Common Sense Revolution.

In June 1995 the people of Ontario sent a clear message that the time for government overspending had to end. They gave the job of straightening out the province's finances to the Mike Harris team, and I'm proud to say that we are succeeding.

As the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, announced recently, we are on or ahead of

schedule to balance the budget and we are witnessing the return of jobs, hope, growth and opportunity to the province of Ontario. As of the first quarter, the deficit for 1997-98 is projected at $6.6 billion -- still way too high, but more than 40% below the $11.3-billion deficit the government was faced with when it took office.

In 1995 we set out workable targets and as a government we have modestly overachieved on our targets in the first two years of our mandate. Our plan was to cut taxes, cut spending, remove barriers to growth, do better with less and to fully balance Ontario's budget. Clearly we are doing what we set out to accomplish and we will have the budget balanced.

With this goal accomplished, we must begin to once again look to the future and ensure that the people of Ontario are not put in a position of fiscal difficulty again. It is for this reason that I've introduced the resolution we are debating today. I see the need for legislation that will ensure that governments of the future are as responsible and accountable to the people of Ontario as the present government under the leadership of Mike Harris.

Balanced budget legislation is not new. Quebec introduced legislation in 1996 mandating a balanced budget by the year 1999-2000. Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick introduced legislation in 1995.

The legislation which other districts have introduced covers a wide range of ideologies. My resolution focuses on three main points: (1) there should be no deficit in a provincial budget; (2) overspending should result in an immediate election; and (3) government borrowing must include a repayment

schedule for the principal and interest and must be approved by a referendum.

The first point I have already discussed. There is a need for governments to live within their means, just as the people of Perth county, whom I represent, live within their budgetary means.

The second point revolves around the policies of the Mike Harris government. In 1995 we set out to (1) build a climate where jobs and prosperity are equally available to all, (2) to maintain the quality of life, unrivalled in North America, that we in Ontario enjoy, and (3) to ensure a healthy future for our children, full of hope, opportunity and security.

We are accomplishing these goals. Governments in the past have failed to do this, and if governments of the future can't do it, I feel that they should be required to go to the polls and test their excuses on the voters.

The third point I have addressed in the resolution is the use of referendums to determine spending priorities. The Common Sense Revolution was the consolidation of years of listening to the people of Ontario. The policies outlined were those of the people of Ontario.

For many politicians, especially the government of the time, listening to the people of Ontario was a new concept. As I mentioned earlier, governments in the past have always stated their commitment to the principle of a balanced budget, but it was only this government that had a sound fiscal plan and the will to carry it out.

In 1997-98, $9.2 billion has been budgeted to cover the public debt interest alone. Imagine what could be done for the people of this province if this money were available now. The use of referendums in the future will allow the people of Ontario to set the standards and keep the government accountable to the electorate.

It is my hope that the decision today will start the debate over the need for balanced budget legislation in Ontario. As a whole, this resolution will tell Ontarians that the provincial government will never again mortgage our children's tomorrow through unaffordable spending.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to receiving support for this endeavour from the members of this Legislature, as I have received much support from the people of the great riding of Perth.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to rise on this important issue of the motion that's being presented before this assembly today. It is a motion. It does not bind this House. It is an expression of opinion of this House, but it's dealing with an important matter, not only for government finances, but it affects the economic wellbeing of this province.

I bring some particular personal opinion to this. As a professional economist, I can tell you that if you get two economists, you get three opinions, and there are many opinions about the nature of the issue that the honourable member for Perth has presented to us.

I have to applaud the honourable member for Perth. I know, as a former municipal politician, that he and I share the same background of balanced budgets. In the municipal sector, both for school boards and for municipalities, we are required to bring in a balanced budget every year. But the honourable member has maybe failed to remember or recognize that that is for the operating budget only. On the capital side, municipalities borrow all the time.

It is sometimes impossible to finance a major capital work from the local property tax base, so you borrow money, rent money, over the next so many years, and indeed municipalities and school boards have accumulated debt, within certain limits set down by the Ontario Municipal Board. In this context, the honourable member for Perth and his community I'm sure have availed themselves of the same thing.

This brings me back to the issue of the day, which is the motion before us here that once the government attains a balanced budget it is required thereafter always to have an annual balanced budget. Quite frankly, if this were a municipality, this would be easy to say, because property tax by and large funds very stable services. It is not really susceptible to the winds of economic change, to the pressures that are put on to us by a recession because of our major trading partner to the south or whatever.

This is the major difference, because municipalities and school boards have stable funding and stable expenses, except for that one part, which we've heard from municipalities a thousand and one times, where they are obliged to contribute to income redistribution programs. Property tax, as we all know, is not appropriate for that. As a matter of fact, the chair of the Who Does What commission, David Crombie, said that financing income redistribution programs from property tax is not only wrong in theory but devastating in practice. I just have to take you back to the Dirty Thirties, where municipalities went bankrupt trying to do that.

This leads me back to the issue at hand. Our party did present a balanced budget proposal during the last election, but it was over a specific cycle, the term of the government, five years, similar to what is there in New Brunswick. This makes sense, because part of the responsibilities of the provincial government is to try and maintain some kind of stability within our provincial economy, as best as possible, and try to protect our vulnerable.

If you look at the beginning of the recession at the turn of this decade, 1990-91, where we had our last balanced budget, under a Liberal administration -- look back over the past 25 years and you'll see there was only one balanced budget, which was under a Liberal administration; you'll see 17 years' worth of unbalanced budgets by previous Conservative administrations. But I'll leave that to one side.

What happened the following year? The following year we walk into a recession. Our revenues go down by over $1 billion and our requirements to support the vulnerable in our community go up by over $1 billion. Right away, under this proposed resolution, we would be forced into an election, we'd be forced to lay off people, we'd be forced to cut benefits. We would hurt the economy by being pro-cyclical, meaning we'd be taking money out.

I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that in their hunt to chase down expenditures, when they cut welfare rates by 21.4%, they took, believe it or not, $150 million out of the economy of Ottawa-Carleton, so the recession that was already in place worsened.

All I can tell my colleagues opposite is that while it's fine to trumpet the mantra of a balanced budget, you have to look at a reasonable time line and look at the responsibilities of government to do that.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): It's with some trepidation that I rise to participate in this debate, knowing that I may very well be the victim of slings and arrows from across the way. However, I'm prepared for that.

The member for Ottawa West made a comment about being a professional economist. Before I get into this debate I just wanted to share some of my thoughts about professional economists. I think they have a role to play in this debate as well. I can tell you that in another life I used to take the advice of professional economists, much to my own peril.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): How did you recover?

Mr Laughren: Not very well. I have yet to see an accurate forecast from one of them. But there are two sayings about economists. One is that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. The other one, I think a more appropriate line, is that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, it would indeed be a very good thing. I think that's the better line on professional economists -- not to do damage to the member for Ottawa West, of course.

I must say, this debate around balanced budgets is one that I find very interesting. The new right got caught up in the whole argument of balanced budgets, and I understand that. It certainly sounds appealing, and at first blush it is very appealing. Quite frankly, if you've got a government at this level, it's not that difficult to accomplish either.

We're seeing how this government is going to balance its budget. It's not hard: Take $1 billion out of education, download on the municipalities, raise tuition fees even higher. It's not that hard to do. All you have to do is download. You learned well from the federal Liberals in Ottawa. They did a masterful job of downloading on the province. So the province says, "There's a good idea. Why don't we download on our partners, the municipalities and the school boards?" and anybody else they can get their hands on, like the seniors of this province or like the Red Cross.

There are different ways you can balance your budget. I mean, I could stop supporting my children. Of course I should be anyway; they're old enough. But anyway, that's for another day.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): They're all in their 50s.

Mr Laughren: Listen, I may have trouble supporting myself since the Premier took away my gold-plated pension plan.

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: I don't know what all the heckling's about. One of the things the Premier ran for election on was that he was going to cancel the MPPs' gold-plated pension plan, and he did, and do I ever resent it. However, I'll put that aside, because I'm not here to argue for something for my own self-interest.

I simply say that I wouldn't get too enthusiastic about the member's resolution, although I can understand where he is coming from and I give him credit for bringing it forward for debate here this morning. I think it's a well-worded resolution. I'm just issuing a word of caution about what can be involved if a government is determined that it absolutely must balance its budget at the provincial level and if there is a downturn in the economy. All that means is that you have to speed up your downloading and your cuts to people who depend upon support from the province, whether that's the school board or whether that's the municipalities.

We know that's happening. I can take you to a community in my own constituency where the government, in its interest to provide a tax cut for those people who don't need it nearly as much as the people who live in this small community need a break, I can tell you -- the downloading on that municipality, the net downloading, is 175% of their tax base. Now, you tell me how that community is going to deal with that. I can tell you.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Transition funds.

Mr Laughren: They've already been told the maximum they can get out of the transition fund, and it still leaves them over 100% of their tax base. I know the solution and I'm advising them to do that: Send the keys to Al Leach or to Chris Hodgson. Send the keys. That's what I would do, and I'm advising them to do that. If that's what the government wants, if that's the way you balance your budget, that's the kind of fallout you're going to have to deal with. Why wouldn't you?

Why would anybody have to cope with that in a small municipality where the tax rate is already high because it's a small community and they don't have the substantial tax base and residential taxpayers are already paying a great deal?

I say to the member for Perth that while I appreciate the fact he's brought this resolution forward, I'm going to have difficulty supporting it, partly because I think people would see it as somewhat contradictory on my

part if I did support it; and second, I worry about how you get there and how you stay there at that balanced budget at this level of government, where you have to consider, as the member for Ottawa West said, the cycles of economic activity in the country.

We're on an upswing now and I'm happy about that, but I can tell you it won't always be on the upswing. There will be downturns in the economy. We know it's going to happen. When it does, you're going to find it a lot more difficult and a lot more difficult to cope with balancing a budget if suddenly your revenues are going through the floor. Believe me, it can happen. Then what do you do? You can't overnight download.

This government has some time now to download because the economy is growing. But if the economy were shrinking and you were doing your download, you would have a very difficult time in balancing the budget in the period of time you say you're going to. You may accomplish it, but you must ask yourself at what price you're accomplishing this, at what price to the municipalities and the property taxpayers in the province, and at what price to the children of this province in terms of the education they're receiving. You start taking another $1 billion out of education and it's going to be felt in the classroom.

You can use all the nice words you like that cuts to education won't affect the classroom. You cannot take $1 billion out by reducing the number of trustees in the province. It's not possible to do.

I simply say that I have some difficulty with this resolution, although I appreciate the fact that a Tory government in Ontario, especially the neo-cons and the Reformers, simply couldn't go back home with their head held high if they didn't attempt to pass a resolution like this or even get it into the legislation of the province.

I appreciate where the Tories are coming from in this resolution. I just hope they've thought it all the way through.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure this morning to be asked to speak on the member for Perth's resolution with respect to a balanced budget. Actually, it comes very easily to members from this side of the House, because we've committed, each and every one of us, to work towards balancing a budget. That's the fundamental of the Common Sense document. Most people would be familiar with it, and if not, they should certainly pick one up and become familiar with it.

It is the plan that made several commitments. I'm just going to bring people up to speed on what the commitment is. It is an integral plan, an integrated plan, the combination of a 30% provincial income tax rate reduction -- we're going to reduce the income tax for every single hardworking Ontarian -- and on our part we're going to have a "20% non-priority spending reduction and elimination of job-killing government barriers, which will make Ontario a magnet for new investment and new jobs and will get people back to work and the economy moving again." Clearly, the plan is a well-balanced plan of economic renewal, not more government expenditures.

I am going to return to this particular point of view throughout my comments, but I want to start by saying that there were a number of positions of attempting to achieve the same goal. If I may take the liberty of using another government's position, I'm going to recount, or recant -- no, "recant" means retract -- recount for you some of the responsibilities they committed to during the election period.

I'm not plagiarizing. I think it's important to understand that I believe they will be supporting the member for Perth's resolution this morning because they committed to it themselves, very clearly. I'll read directly from page 7, with your permission, Mr Speaker: "High deficits and big public debt are job-killers. Rising deficits" take money out of people's pockets. "Ontarians are paying more interest on debt." I'm going to go on: "A Liberal government will both preach financial restraint and practise it. Through the Ontario Liberal balanced budget plan, we will balance the provincial budget within four years."

At the time they and we were looking at it, we were looking at a deficit of some $10 billion or $11 billion. That's the shortfall, every year, of revenue to expenditures. How can you possibly balance the budget without reducing spending -- unless, of course, their intent was to raise taxes. But no, they go on to say -- and I give them all the credit in the world. They went part-way; they went to the middle. They said, "We will cut taxes" -- imagine that; Gerry Phillips, the very guy who criticizes us every day -- "by 5% during our first term." So clearly their plan was half of our plan.

How were they going to save the other $11 billion to get to that balanced budget in four years? They had to cut spending or raise taxes, as simple as that. They've already said they were going to cut taxes by 5%, so theoretically they were going to reduce spending in the order of $15 billion.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): No.

Mr O'Toole: I'm not sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. It's important to keep it in mind.

I have the greatest respect for my good friend from Nickel Belt, because he has a great sense of humour and he's also seen inside the large vault in Ontario. He's been inside the vault. Mr Laughren, I believe, when he was in there saw the catastrophic conditions he was in. In fact, they tried to deal with the reduction of spending one way: the social contract. They cut every public sector employee drastically, just like that, with the stroke of a pen, no debate.

I want to make a couple of points about how important Mr Johnson's budget plan is. I can do it by memory, really, because I know it so well. We spend more on interest than we do on education. To service the public debt, we spend more on interest than we do on education. That's just wrong.

We also in my view have a plan that by reducing taxes -- our public accounts record shows we've reduced taxes and increased revenue. That theory is well practised in many parts of the world. It's called a Laffer curve: by reducing taxes you can increase revenue. But what we promised for sure -- I'm going to wrap up my comments here because I'm getting the cane.

We have got to balance the budget. That means you can't spend more than you earn. Every single Ontarian understands that. In my home I can't spend more than I earn. I would love to have two cars or three televisions or whatever, but I've got to spend within my means. Our plan encourages people getting back to work. We promised to create 725,000 new real jobs where people will create more income for the province, and to balance the budget and quit taxing people to death.

I would encourage you to stay tuned because all the way through while balancing the budget we've committed to health care; we're spending more on health care. We've committed to education. There will be no reductions to spending in the classroom. Any waste in administration or wherever should be addressed.

I'm going to save the rest of my time for the member for Perth. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this important issue of balanced budget legislation.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am pleased to join the debate on ballot item 101 presented by the member for Perth. At the outset I wish to laud the initiative and, at the end, I will be voting because of the principle the proposed ballot implies. But the content of it leaves me a little bit aghast, with respect to the content of the presentation itself.

As I said, the principle is a motherhood or fatherhood type of issue because it sounds good. If you were to speak to anyone and say: "Listen, we're going to impose on the politicians to balance the books; otherwise, within 90 days, if they present some increases, they will have to resign. They will have to go back to the people." Is this the type of government we really want? I don't think so. I don't think that if the facts were to be presented to the people of Ontario they would say, "Every 90 days you go to the polls."

The resolution being presented, as I said, is a good, sound principle, but the contents are totally flawed and will not work, unless of course we go back to resolution 13, as was done in Florida, "Don't touch the budget," but every time there is some expense that has to be incurred you go and tax the people in a different way.

I like to remind the Premier, Mr Harris, who was it who said any increase or any due or user fee, by any other name, is a tax increase? Is this what we are going to impose on the people of Ontario, that every time we want to increase taxes, to escape what we are proposing here, we are going to impose new user fees as we have done in the last couple of years? Wasn't it this now Premier, prior to the election, who said, "Oh no, we are not going to do that; we are not going to close hospitals; the envelope is sealed; we are not going to touch one penny from the education and health care systems"?

But now we see a different story. They have been raising taxes by downloading on to the various local municipalities.

It calls for us to have this particular piece of legislation so that it would bind future governments so it wouldn't place Ontario citizens in a very precarious situation. We had a litany from the member for Durham East on how we have been promising and how we have been spending. For heaven's sake, I'm sure their memory is not so short. In 1989-90 we were the only government, after 40 years of Conservative government, that balanced the books, and we even had a surplus. Even they themselves said so in their own document.

We did it without promising 30%. For whom? Certainly the poor people don't see any of that money. If they really wanted to balance the books they could have done it without the 30%, without the 2001. They could have done it well before. This is what Liberal people were saying during the election and that's the way we should be looking at it.

Unfortunately, in three and a half or four minutes you can't say very much, but let me say to the member that I do compliment him for the initiative he has taken. But to bind any future government, to say that unless you bring in a balanced budget, or there is any increase, then within 90 days you will have to resign, I think is totally inappropriate and totally contrary to the principle of good government.

Mr O'Toole: Will you support it or not?

Mr Sergio: Yes, I did say that I will support it in principle but I have severe reservations, as the content of the initiative is totally flawed and it does really merit a long debate.

As a matter of fact, when you talk about a referendum, didn't Mr Harris say in Your Ontario, Your Choice to give them the choice every time you want to raise taxes? Doesn't it say, on your own page 5 here, "Nevertheless, the issue of cost must be addressed as part of an overall referendum strategy for Ontario"?

Why don't you do that before you come up with suggestions like this one here? Why don't you go to the people of Ontario? Give them the facts. Get the answer from them. But then again, we have seen the record of this government when it comes to bringing and posing issues in front of the people. They don't even listen, never mind giving them a chance to express themselves, and when they do, such as the Metro debate, 78% or 80% or whatever it was, the government didn't pay any attention.

Is this what we are saying to the people of Ontario, that we will bind future government? "Oh yes, of course, probably to clean up the mess that we are going to inherit from the previous government. That's the way it is going to work." I'm sorry, I don't think that's the way it should be working. Responsible government shouldn't have to have recourse to such a drastic need and I don't think the people of Ontario should be bound by such a strong and tight resolution.

As I said, I will support it because of the principle, but I have serious reservations on the content of the proposal.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I find this piece of business before the House this morning rather interesting and somewhat strange, given the track record and the activity of this government in its two and some years in power in this province. I find it actually quite hypocritical.

All the way through the election we heard this party, before it became government, talk about the deficit and how they were going to balance the budget and fight the deficit and bring the business of this province into the kind of constraint that only Conservatives have the ability to do.

It wasn't long after the election that we began to realize that in fact they didn't mean that. What they meant was they were going to turn the business of this province over to their buddies in the corporate sector and then they would do what they will with the finances of the province, and whether we reach a balanced budget or not became, all of a sudden, really not that important. What was more important was the tax break, making sure that all those people who bankrolled and supported and continue to bankroll and support the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario and this government get all the rewards they possibly can in the shortest period of time.

If this government was really interested in balancing the budget, they would not be moving ahead as quickly as they are with the tax break they're putting in place that is just, in my mind and as we experience how it's playing out across the province, absolutely unrealistic.

This government is not in any way serious about balancing this budget. That's what makes this piece of business before us today so absolutely bizarre, so absolutely useless and so much public relations, so much ideological claptrap. I want to be on the record here today to say that.

If this government is interested at all in a balanced budget -- and I don't think any government in its right mind wouldn't be. I think every government through the ages and that is sitting in power in Canada today would love, if they could, to balance the budget, but they know that the pushes and pulls, the constraints and the demands on government are such that you walk a very delicate tightrope. Any business I've known of, and I was part- owner of one before I got this job, walks that kind of tightrope. There's always this debt-to-equity ratio that you're continually looking at, and it's the same thing for a government, particularly a government that has any business acumen at all.

To stand here today and listen to the members of the government get up and support this piece of business that talks about a balanced budget, having one for ever and a day after that, is frankly bordering on the ludicrous. As I said before, if they were really interested in a balanced budget, if they were really interested in the principles behind this bill that's in front of us today, they would immediately go to the finance minister and the Premier and say: "Let's back away from this tax break.

Let's stop this nonsense of turning over literally billions of dollars to people in this province who don't need it, who are already well off, who already have what they need to do everything they need to do."

We see in the province today many business enterprises declaring historically record-high profits with every quarterly report they make. Some might say -- and I talked to some friends out there, very hard-working constituents in Ontario -- they are obscenely high profits, at the same time as this government is doing everything in its power to make sure those profits are even higher, by way of the tax break and some of the regulations they're putting in place.

They'll suggest that that money is creating more jobs. The reality actually is showing us that's not the case either, that this target they set for themselves of some 720,000 new jobs over the term of their government they're not even close to achieving.

Interjection: They're at 225,000.

Mr Martin: They've created 225,000. They're halfway through their mandate and they've created 225,000 of those jobs. There's absolutely no way they're going to do it. Those are the targets I think they should be focusing on. Bringing a piece of legislation here today to talk about balanced budgets when they have not reached and will not reach the targets they set for themselves during the election campaign is at best hypocritical.

I'll leave a little bit of time for my colleague.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Perth. One of the primary reasons I ran for office was this basic thing we're talking about here. I could no longer sit on the sidelines while governments continued to run up mammoth deficits and destroy the future of our children.

I could only describe what has happened for the last 15 years as irresponsible fiscal policy. The province today has a debt of over $100 billion. Interest payments on that $100 billion is over $9 billion a year. How could you say that this is anything other than criminal?

The spiralling deficits and the growing debt, if left unchecked, had the potential to destroy the very fabric of our social programs, including health care and welfare. This does not include the jeopardizing of our future economic wellbeing. The opposition parties continue to attack each and every attempt this government has made to bring its fiscal house to order. They have not yet made one positive contribution as to how we might accomplish this mammoth task.

As a result of the $100-billion debt, the children who today are age 15 will probably be 60 before the debt will be eliminated. We have saddled two entire generations with a massive debt, a financial burden, and they will have no benefits from that debt. We have done it to them.

In the Financial Post a couple days ago -- Monday, I believe it was -- there was an

article on a recommendation that had been made to the federal government. It's a report issued by economists William Scarth and Harriet Jackson of McMaster University in Hamilton. One of their recommendations is that future tax cuts should focus almost wholly on reducing tax rates for wage earners rather than lowering taxes on capital or interest income. It seems to me that is what we as a government have been doing.

This report also talks about how the gross domestic product, I believe measured at $800 billion federally and $340 billion provincially, how the debt burden should only bear a rate of 15% of that gross domestic product. In Ontario we're sitting at 30%; federally we're sitting at about 75% or 80%. Obviously something has to be done. The only way that can be done is if we have balanced budgets. We must bring the debt under control.

It's really interesting that they talk about how this must be done within the next 20 to 25 years. Why? To compensate future workers. It must be done because we must treat wage earners fairly so they derive equal benefit from tax cuts. Son of a gun. Here we are talking about tax cuts for the average worker again. Isn't that what we've done as a government? That is what we will continue to do through balanced budget legislation.

I'm pleased to be able to talk about this because it is getting the balanced budget discussion on the table. Obviously we can't do it today, because we still have to fight the deficits. We can't do it tomorrow; we can't do it next year. But before the term of this government is out, we will have a balanced budget and we will be able to have balanced budget legislation on the books.

My time is short and I want to leave some time for the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. I just want to say that this balanced budget resolution places a much-needed focus on the issue and I look forward to the time when we will be able to introduce it.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm pleased to rise and speak on this motion this morning, because I believe it is very important for all the taxpayers of Ontario.

When we talk of a balanced budget it tends to mislead the people of Ontario, and every time you talk about the balanced budget, it definitely does. At the municipal and also the school board level, we have to come out with a balanced budget, but at times, when we have to have some capital investment, we borrow the money over a period of time. The payback could be 25, 40 years. It doesn't show as having an unbalanced budget, but the debt is going higher and higher.

I was listening to the member for Perth a little while ago. Every one of us does believe in a balanced budget, but remember one thing, and I think the people across the way should remember this too: At the present time this government is trying to have a balanced budget by the year 2000, but by the year 2000 I believe it is going to cost everyone in Ontario an additional $14 per month extra. How do I come up with this? It's because of the downloading; it's because of the user fees we are going to have.

I'm looking at the ambulance transfer to the municipalities. In the past, the government was paying $300 million a year

Only the city of Toronto had their own ambulance which was costing the city of Toronto in the area of $30 million a year. So the government is saving $300 million in ambulance services, but who's going to pay for it? The local people.

I don't call it a real balanced budget. It's going to look good for this government; a balanced budget at the end of the year. We're looking at the year 2000 to have a balanced budget. In 1998 we're looking at a deficit of approximately $6 billion. If we look at all this downloading that we are doing, the assessment, for example, used to be done by the provincial government; now it is going to be every local taxpayer that will have to pay the assessment. It's going to be an average of $31 per household in Ontario.

Septic tank inspection is an average of $450 per inspection, per home that you are going to build. Who's going to pay for it? They'll have to increase the building permits for which the new home buyers are going to pay an average of $450 extra. How much is the transfer of provincial highways going to cost the local taxpayers? Again, it's going to be on local taxes.

The farm rebate tax: This government, when they made the announcement of the mega-week, January 13, 1997, said the farmers will have a saving of $175 million, in that area. Immediately, when we heard about it, I called the assessment office in our region and they told me there's no saving for the farmers directly, because they were already getting the 75% rebate from the provincial government. It is the provincial government that is going to have a $175-million saving. Who's going to pay for it? The local taxpayer; because there will be 75% less revenue from the farm tax at the local level.

Who's going to pay for it again? It's the rest of the residential and commercial areas from each municipality.

I look at social housing, for example. Social housing was fully paid by the provincial government. Now it has been downloaded to the municipality. Sure, it looks good for this government. We will reduce the deficit. We will reduce it on the back of the local taxpayers.

Casinos at the present time: We will have a revenue --

The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to start out by congratulating the member for Perth for what I consider to be a fine public relations exercise. That's really what we have right here, because what he's doing by this resolution is attempting to pass a resolution now to bind the hands of any future governments, and I have this sneaking suspicion that the government in the years 2000 and 2001 isn't going to be a Progressive Conservative government.

If they really have any intentions of balancing the budgets, they should make those intentions known. They should balance the budgets now. Why can't they do that? Because they know that those choices are difficult and we shouldn't be binding the decision-making powers of future governments. That's why we're all elected here, to make those difficult decisions. I would suggest to the member for Perth and his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative government that if they really want to balance the budgets, do it now, and not to pursue this phoney tax cut scheme to benefit those who are most well off here in the province of Ontario. That's what it's really about.

My friend from Kitchener, when he had an opportunity to heckle during a previous member's speech, said tax cuts are going to lead to the creation of more jobs. We heard just this week in the city of Toronto, Campbell's Soup, a profitable company, is reducing its workforce by 12%. We've seen similar examples throughout the province of Ontario over the last few years. General Motors reduced 12,000 jobs. Imperial Oil reduced 4,000 jobs. Inco cut 2,000 jobs. Molson's reduced 6,000 jobs, and it goes on.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I'm delighted to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf of the balanced budget resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Perth. This government is committed to the part of his resolution which deals with fiscal prudence and responsibility and the elimination of the deficit by the fiscal year of 2000-01. But we believe that the member for Perth's resolution is simply too restrictive and could limit the very role of government in certain circumstances.

There's no question about our fiscal responsibility. Since this government took office in 1995, we have remained committed to our promise to balance the budget in our mandate. Two years ago the province had a deficit of $11.3 billion, and I'm happy to report that that's now been reduced to $6.9 billion.

The government has not only reduced spending across the board but it has also restructured the delivery of its services. This is very important because it has created a new thinking here in Ontario. This makes us believe it's unlikely that governments will ever again run up deficits as they did in the past. However, in the unlikely circumstance of some unforeseen act of God, government might want and need the flexibility to overspend in order to minister to the needs of its citizens in dire emergency need. That's why this government cannot support the second part of the member for Perth's resolution which calls for the dissolution of a government that overspends.

I'm just looking because I know my time is running out. Our approach also is in keeping with the approach of other provinces across Canada. Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, none requires government to dissolve in the event of overspending or of creating a deficit. Government members are committed to the principle of balanced budget, and as I have shown today, our record proves that we are proceeding on target to achieve a zero deficit by 2000-01 and that we've restructured the delivery of services that will prevent and make it very unlikely that governments will run up deficits in the future.

In

summary, I would like to say that this government is in favour of that part of the member for Perth's resolution that advocated balancing the provincial budget. Where we differ is with the resolution's requirement that governments who return a deficit must be dissolved. This said, I'd like to thank my colleague and friend from Perth for bringing forward this important resolution. This government's fiscal plan is on track but it always does help to be reminded of our fiscal responsibility.

Mr Bert Johnson: I'd like to thank all the members who spoke to my resolution today. I feel that the ideas and opinions brought forward will go a long way towards making this type of fiscal responsibility a legislative requirement for the province of Ontario. It has not surprised me that members of the New Democratic Party -- I'm sorry, the Old Democratic Party -- will not be supporting this. They have given their lifelong support to spending money they do not have.

What does surprise me a little bit are the comments from some of the members, and I'm glad to see that the members for Renfrew North, St Catharines and Scarborough-Agincourt are here, because I'd like to remind them that they were part of the government that balanced its books, according to them, in 1989. I want to tell you just a little bit about how they did that.

I have in front of me a bill that was assented to on March 2, 1989. On its third page, it says, "This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 2nd day of May 1988." For those of you who remember back in those days, that was when the provincial sales tax was increased from 7% to 8%. Some may say, "Well, that was a 1% increase." Those members must have chuckled around the cabinet table when their spin doctor told them, "Tell the people of Ontario that that was a 1% increase," because it was designed to take out of the pockets of the hardworking people of Ontario over 14% more tax.

I hope this resolution will pass through with the support of the members today, so that we can begin to move to a future where Ontario government is more accountable to the people of Ontario. I'd like to thank the participants for their participation in the debate.

EXOTIC ANIMALS CONTROL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ANIMAUX EXOTIQUES

Mr Parker moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 159,

An Act to regulate the keeping of Exotic Animals / Projet de loi 159, Loi visant à réglementer la garde d'animaux exotiques.

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

Mr John L. Parker (York East): It's my privilege to rise in the House this morning as sponsor of Bill 159,

an act to provide for the licensing of exotic animals. At present --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Does that include John Hastings?

Mr Parker: No, but it does include the member for Sudbury.

At present, Ontario has no legislation which addresses the possession of exotics. Ontario and Manitoba are the only provinces in Canada which lack any form of provincial control over the possession of or trade in exotic animal species. Bill 159 is intended to bring Ontario into line with the rest of the country in this regard, or, as the August 28 issue of the London Free Press so clearly put it, in Ontario you can "adopt a baby racoon from the wild...and you can expect to get busted." But if "you want to own a 135-pound jaguar that could rip a person's throat out in a matter of seconds, feel free." It's precisely this incongruity that Bill 159 will remedy.

I recognize that our farmers in this province are in a mode of diversifying these days and it's not the intention of this bill to restrict that phenomenon. I'm prepared to work with my rural colleagues and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to add such amendments to my bill as are appropriate or necessary to clearly allow Ontario agriculture to diversify as it presently is doing.

My rural colleagues have made me aware that in recent years our farmers have branched out into new areas such as farming ostriches, emus, llamas, fish and other species which are not native to Ontario. I support those efforts; in fact my rural colleagues campaigned in the last election in favour of legislation which would support agricultural diversification in Ontario and I support them in that initiative.

By passing Bill 159, this House would enable Ontario to establish a consistent, uniform approach to the control of the conditions under which exotic species could be possessed, owned, traded, kept and displayed. Standards could be established and enforced for the protection of both the public and the animals themselves. Bill 159 would address the phenomenon of the exotic animal owners who are chased out of one community by the passage of a bylaw only to set up shop in a nearby community that has not yet chosen to establish a bylaw.

Also, by establishing a province-wide standard and establishing some control over the possession of exotics, Bill 159 might serve to discourage the spread of exotic animal possession and limit the possession of exotics to legitimate zoos which have the expertise and physical resources to handle each species appropriately.

How widespread is the phenomenon of the ownership of exotic animals in Ontario? Precisely the fact that no regulatory regime exists at present makes it difficult to assemble complete and reliable data on this point. One owner-breeder, however, of exotics estimates that over 2,000 large cats are kept by private individuals in this province as house pets. This exceeds the number of tigers kept in the major legitimate zoos in the province.

There's every reason to believe that this figure of 2,000 could be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. My community of East York is home to Zoocheck, a volunteer organization which has put hours of research into this matter. According to Rob Laidlaw of Zoocheck, lions, tigers, monkeys and venomous snakes are all common throughout the province. They are widely advertised for sale in publications which are freely available to the public and can be purchased for anywhere from $50 to $1,500. Some vendors will take your order over the phone and deliver right to your door, no questions asked.

You can order right from a catalogue Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, jaguars, ocelots, lions, camels, you name it. Many of these creatures are kept as pets. Many others are put on public display for commercial purposes in what are promoted as "zoos" but which are probably more accurately described as private menageries.

Setting up a so-called zoo is not hard to do and it isn't even expensive. On any day of the week, you can start out from Toronto with a truck and $1,000 in your pocket and by evening pick up a monkey, a couple of tiger cubs, a wallaby, maybe a few mambas and spitting cobras and other small exotic animals and still have change in your pocket. You can put them all on display in any community in Ontario, apart from the few that have passed prohibitive bylaws, and call yourself a zoo.

Zoocheck estimates that there are about 60 such menageries throughout the province and more seem to be opening each year. No provincial authority exists to inspect the quality of living conditions or habitations or the conditions of confinement in these operations.

By contrast, Ontario has only five zoos which are accredited as such by CAZPA, a group to which the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo belongs which administers on a voluntary basis a set of standards to be adhered to by any organization in Ontario wishing to be considered a legitimate zoo.

An accredited zoo will take great care to provide for the proper care of its animals and for the safety of the animals and the visiting public. They all feature perimeter fencing, double doors, appropriate stand-off barriers and other safety measures. There is no provincial authority or standard in place, however, to apply the same precautions to menageries. Typically, menageries do not have these features.

What are the risks posed by the unrestricted possession of exotic species? Many people who acquire an exotic animal as a pet are completely unprepared for the problems they bring upon themselves, their neighbours and their animals. Many believe that if you acquire an exotic animal as a pet at an early age and raise it as a house pet, the animal will grow up to be as domesticated as a regular dog or cat. Most people don't realize that domestic dogs and cats are the products of hundreds, sometimes thousands of years of domestic breeding. Most dogs and cats are by now genetically conditioned to have characteristics that make them suitable to be trained as family pets.

This can't be achieved in a single generation by taking a tiger cub into your home and bottle-feeding it from infancy. To put it simply, you can take the tiger out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger. People are surprised to find that as their exotic pet grows up, it turns into a creature whose behaviour they cannot predict and which may respond to its natural predatory instincts without warning. Periodically, an animal will turn on its owner, leading to serious injury or death.

In 1992, a Brampton man was crushed and suffocated to death by a python he kept in his residence as a pet. In 1994, in Wiarton a 16-year-old was attacked and killed by a tiger kept by his uncle as a pet. In the coroners' inquiries which ensued in each of these cases, the juries recommended that provincial legislation be enacted to prevent a recurrence of such events. In my submission, the present bill responds to exactly these recommendations.

From time to time, an exotic animal will escape from captivity, putting an entire community at risk. The animal can present a threat to other animals kept by the same owner, to humans, to pets, to farm animals and to wildlife. Thousands of hours have been consumed by authorities in this province in tracking down and apprehending escaped exotics. Often it takes days or weeks to capture an escaped animal. There are some cases on record of escaped exotics being on the loose for years and in still other cases the escaped animal is never found.

Owners of exotic animals which have outgrown their welcome also find that they are impossible to get rid of. They often try to donate the animal to their local zoo, only to find that no responsible zoo will take on an animal whose pedigree is unknown. In the end, their only recourse is to turn the animal over to a private menagerie or have it destroyed.

The present bill also provides for controls to be put in place to address the issue of the welfare of the animal itself. At present, there are many accounts of exotic animals being kept under conditions that can only be described as squalid and inhumane. There are accounts of animals being undernourished, provided with unpotable water, lacking adequate shelter, suitable cages and living space.

It can occur anywhere. In my own neighbourhood in Toronto, right in a residential area there was until recently a storefront operation calling itself an animal sanctuary in which exotic animals were kept and occasionally put on display. Eventually, steps were taken to have the enterprise shut down, whereupon the problem was merely shifted to another community. However, before it closed, the premises were inspected and were found to be home to many different species, including several large cats which were kept in small cages in the basement. These animals were found to have suffered from lack of nourishment, lack of natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of living space and lack of exercise.

Ontario, apart from Manitoba, is the only province in this country which does not have a uniform set of provisions to address the matter of the possession of exotic animals. This bill seeks to correct that situation.

I hope my brief remarks this morning have helped to illustrate the need for such legislation, and that this bill will have the support of members of this House.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am also pleased to join the debate on Bill 159, proposed by the member for Scarborough Centre. It is a good topic. I think it's timely as well, even though I have to say at the outset that there are quite a few municipalities in Ontario that have adopted a policy of no exotic pets within their own boundaries. Then there are some others that have limited it. This is an area I wish to touch on later on during my presentation with respect to the number of exotic pets or animals.

The bill as it is presented is totally silent with respect to the number of exotic animals kept as pets or stuff like that. It's something the member may want to take into consideration, to have the proposed Bill 159 changed to include the number of exotic pets or whatever. Sometimes they are used as pets; often they are used for gain, let's say employment in some circuses or acts, and we have seen very recently in some establishments within Metro Toronto that such an animal, a tiger I believe, was being used to assist in whatever type of show was being conducted in one of these establishments.

Yes, that is a concern. Although people may feel comfortable in a particular place if the owner or attendant is with that particular animal, you have no idea at what time the wild animal instinct may show up and cause panic or harm to people in attendance.

The bill proposes to establish a licence for persons above the legal age, and for a number of persons the regulations provide they may have such a licence. There are a number of exotic animals held in Ontario that are not native to our own environment. How do we apply the licence to people who wish to possess such an exotic animal?

I'm sure there are a number of species, qualities of animals that we could attribute such a definition as "exotic animals" to. I don't have to tell you that we have, for example, pet stores that have exotic animals which parents buy for their kids as pets. It's not only the licence of the person acquiring the exotic pets; it's also the people who eventually will maintain or look after it, or if used by children as pets, how they are being handled and stuff like that.

Sometimes we hear of infectious diseases caused by animals as well, not only exotic but also native to Ontario. The legislation should address that aspect as well, where exotic animals should be totally banned where such an animal may be of a species that may cause health hazards to humans.

If the legislation is not done -- I know this is for second reading -- -- and the requirements are not final, are not presented totally to us, it should not deny, as we move along with this piece of legislation, that some children would love to have an exotic animal. I'm not talking of lions or tigers or boa constrictors or stuff like that. It could be a number of other species that would do well for some children, but perhaps the parents or guardians are not in favour of having to get a licence to acquire one of these exotic pets for their children.

That's one area where I think some accommodation should be made. According to the type of exotic animal, we could make some necessary accommodation so kids may enjoy the pleasures of an exotic pet, providing that the legislation would allow for that. Of course, we are talking of minors.

Meeting the standards: This is a case where it depends on the type of exotic pets. I'm speaking with respect to some experience we had when we dealt with legislation in the city of North York, In that particular legislation, we arrived at it because of the many complaints not only of a variety of snakes and stuff like that, but we were receiving complaints about boa constrictors and racoons and other animals -- even though racoons are native to Ontario -- that perhaps were not so docile to the environment in which they found themselves.

It's important that we specify the type of environment for a specific exotic animal or pet -- if it's something that can be kept indoors, if it's something that can or should be kept outdoors, and what kind of provisions, what kind of conditions we are going to impose on the owner of that animal or pet so it does not endanger the vicinity or the neighbours. It's important that we specify, unless we ban totally, under what conditions those exotic pets or animals are maintained.

The legislation should address very seriously, if this is going to pass and in time become law, how we are going to look at this later on. We know the difficulties we have when it comes to inspections and enforcing of regulations, enforcing of standards. I know there are grace periods, grace times, and that is done mainly through the various local municipalities and local property standards and bylaws and so forth.

I don't have to tell you that the municipalities are crying, with all the cuts they are receiving, that they won't be able to afford the number of inspectors to provide inspections of those conditions on a regular basis, and inspections of the condition of the animal itself, let alone what it may be causing in the immediate neighbourhood. Proper attention should be directed to that as well.

One area we have to take into consideration is, for example,

section 17(3) that deals with the powers of entry of such an inspector on behalf of the province or the municipality. At this stage I really am not sure if the province should be getting into the total control of that or leaving it to the local municipalities.

Don't we know that the provincial government is passing on -- not mentioning the infamous word "downloading" -- to the local municipalities many other and more stringent responsibilities and regulations. This is an area where the local municipalities can do it on their own and have their own regulations, have their own controls, without being so sanctimonious and saying, "This is what we're going to do." But that's fine. It's a good argument. It's something we can all identify with. I'm sure it's something the public will be happy is being addressed, so we move along.

In due course, if we are speaking to the new city of Toronto, they can address that themselves in the future and changes can be made. But I think it also addresses the other municipalities in Ontario.

As I was saying, subsection 17(3) deals with power of entry. That is not clear, as presented in this bill. Are we saying an inspector can automatically demand to walk into a house solely on, let's say, a telephone call they may have received from a neighbour that such an exotic animal is being kept? Before an inspector assumes that power, I think he or she must ascertain himself or herself that indeed an exotic animal stays or lives, with a licence, at that particular place.

I don't have to tell anyone with municipal experience that on an ongoing basis we get a number of calls that there is such and such an animal or whatever problem or whatever noises at such and such an address. It often turns out that we send inspectors on a wild goose chase only because two neighbours may have a problem between themselves and indeed there is no such complaint.

In my own case, there have been complaints about rabbits and chickens, even pigeons -- they are not exotic -- hundreds at this particular address. Once the inspector goes, he says, "Do I have the wrong address?" because there isn't any such thing. Before we send inspectors and probably create even more problems among neighbours in a particular neighbourhood, if the power is given to an inspector to say, "I want to come in," we ensure that the inspector ascertains that there is a problem, there is a pet at that particular address.

Describing the species and type: I want to add that it is important that we define the number of allowable exotic animals per person, if you will; per applicant or per licence. I'm not sure that I would like to see that one licence allows three tigers or five pythons or stuff like that. The more we allow, the more difficult it's going to be to supervise, to control, to take care of, to manage more than one of those exotic animals.

If we are speaking of larger animals, not -- I have no idea -- birds perhaps. We know the species that are very common here in Canada, in Ontario, but there are many other species that are foreign to our climate and our country. I think we should specify some ways -- I don't see it in the legislation, but I'm sure that when we get to the nitty-gritty, this is going to be addressed. Perhaps the number of exotic animals should be limited to either one or two, sometimes maybe none; some others can be maybe two or three or four.

In the case of North York, for example, we say, "Not more than one rabbit if you're gong to keep it as a pet," or, "No more than three" -- I believe, if I remember well -- "chickens or roosters per family if they are considered as pets." This should be taken into consideration.

Also -- and I haven't seen it in the proposed regulation here -- exotic animals are kept by a circus, let's say, and from time to time we do have a travelling circus from town to town, city to city. I have no idea if that particular area is covered by some other piece of legislation or that we should incorporate it in this one.

I had a few more things to say, but time goes fast. As I said, I will support the intent of the motion.

Mr Laughren: May I first of all commend my friend from York East for bringing forward this private member's bill. It's one which I have no hesitancy in supporting. I think it's long overdue. I think he said that every other province has such legislation. It is strange that we don't have it yet in this province. As I understand his bill, it means there must be a licensing system for anybody who has, under their charge, any exotic animal from outside the province, outside Ontario -- not just Canada, but from outside Ontario -- if they're found in the wild in their natural habitat.

The licensing is necessary. I don't know how else you control it if you don't have licensing. I noticed in this bill that other classes can be added by regulation. If this bill were to pass, they can simply add new ones to it. Believe me, I take this bill seriously; I would not want to be frivolous. But I assume they're keeping in reserve being able to add classes, so that in the dark of the night this government can bring the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale-Bedrock under protection of this act as well, without bringing it before the Legislature. I say that in an affectionate way, of course.

There are a couple of parts that bother me. One is the investigators. I don't know where you're going to get these investigators, because your government has cut back so much -- in the Ministry of the Environment, for example, in the Ministry of Natural Resources -- that they're already unable to do the job they're supposed to be doing. If you think you're going to convince your government to hire inspectors for the monitoring of exotic animals, when they won't provide enough to monitor the environment, I think you're dreaming in Technicolor. However, I am not questioning the principles involved or the intentions of the member for York East. I support him 100%.

The other area that bothers me a bit -- and I think the member for York East is trained in the legal profession. At least he has the insouciance, the sophistication, the panache of someone who's been called to the bar -- maybe many times; I don't know. I'm not trained in the legal profession, but I think the member for York East is. I was surprised at the ability of the registrar to refuse a licence, revoke a licence or refuse to allow one to be renewed without a hearing, to just do it. I worry about that.

Are there not some rules of natural justice that say you should have to hold some kind of hearing so this issue can be aired and a person can have his or her day in court? It just seems to me that would be unusual. I find it passing strange that the member for York East would put that into his bill.

I think it's too onerous to say that if I go before the registrar and indicate that I would like to have a licence for the keeping of exotic animals, the registrar can just sit there and say, "No, I refuse," just write me a letter and say, "No." As a matter of fact, he doesn't even have to put it in writing, as I understand the bill; the registrar doesn't have to give reasons in writing for decisions. I find that a bit autocratic and draconian. I ask the member for York East to respond to that if he would, if he has time at the conclusion of this debate.

But in principle I support his bill. I suspect there's not one of us who hasn't gone to a zoo or someplace to view animals, to take out children and so forth to see the animals. I suspect most of us have a certain pang of almost guilt when we see these incredible caged animals. Even though I'm not suggesting that we ban all zoos -- I wouldn't go that far -- I still have a pang of guilt whenever I go into a zoo and see these incredible caged animals. It's simply not a nice life sentence for these animals, whether they're exotic or otherwise.

I can certainly remember in Ontario seeing the black bear, which is domestic to Ontario, of course, penned up. There used to be a place on Highway 7 near Kaladar, a service station and a restaurant, and there was a cage there with a black bear in it that was pacing back and forth. It was not a large fenced area either; it really was a cage. I always felt that was not appropriate.

I suspect that while there are rules applied to animals in Ontario that are captured and kept, perhaps this could be done in one bill. Actually, the Game and Fish Act could have been expanded when it was brought for amendments to this House not too long ago. I can't remember when it was, but there were amendments made to the Game and Fish Act, and it should have been, I feel, included in those amendments so that we wouldn't be dependent upon the very good intentions of the member for York East through a private member's bill. However, that's passed now, and I simply wish to commend the member for York East for bringing this before the Legislature this morning.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is a pleasure to assist the member for York East on the second reading of Bill 159. When the member asked me to address the issues in the bill, I reminisced and thought of some of the municipal bylaws that I was involved in, which I'll report to the House later.

This is

an act to regulate the keeping of exotic animals; this isn't about keeping lions and tigers and bears. I think there are really two key issues. The two key issues here are the need to protect both the exotic animals or pets and also humans or the community. To protect and regulate is exactly what this bill is about: the licensing. It goes into some detail under regulations.

The other important aspect for me in the debate is to acknowledge that I don't support the keeping of personal pets of exotic varieties that could be a danger to both the keeper and to the community, certainly not in an unregulated environment, but with regulation I suspect that's a step closer to having a safe situation. But we need to ensure that we recognize both public and private zoos that conform to safe keeping of animals, whatever that is, and we need to recognize legitimate farm practices that prevail in Ontario with the diversification of the agricultural sector.

As I said at the beginning, I want to start with a few comments of a personal nature about what my riding of Durham East has had to deal with. When I was on local council, we passed an exotic animal bylaw, and I'll go into some detail on that in a few moments. Durham East is home to a couple of very famous, well-respected, well-recognized animal zoos, if you will. I'm going to cite them for the members.

We have the oldest private zoo in Ontario, perhaps in Canada, the Bowmanville Zoo. A very good friend of mine, Michael Hackenberger, and his partner operate that. They have very well-known tigers, but more importantly, elephants, used in commercials and featured in many movies. Michael Hackenberger is a professionally trained trainer. As well, I believe he has a background in zoology and animal husbandry. That zoo, by the way, is private; there's no public money, not like the Metro zoo or other public zoos throughout the world. It is recognized as part of the CAZPA, which, as Mr Parker mentioned, is sort of a self-regulating body. There's the Bowmanville zoo.

We also have in Durham East the Orono Exotic Cat World. Many of you may have seen that as you've driven up 35, 115 to Peterborough, east of Bowmanville, east of Orono. Exotic Cat World is also a very well-respected place, abode, zoo, whatever, for exotic cats primarily. I know the zookeeper family there personally. They are trained, they are involved, and they treat these animals almost as if they're pets, but they also have the proper storage and feeding facilities for the animals, so they're able to deal with a very complex problem.

I look around the riding, and on a different level we've got the Cadmus Country Club, which is a private trout farm. It's just a beautiful place to go. It's north of Bowmanville, in Blackstock, a little community. That could perhaps, in somebody's vocabulary, be illegitimate.

But one of the more famous ones I want to mention from Durham East is Bill and Paula Lishman. Bill Lishman is well known for the movie Fly Away Home, the Canada geese that were trained to fly in unison behind his little ultralight aircraft. There was a movie made of it, a very widely viewed and respected movie. In this definition, he may have been considered illegitimate, but I think he treated these wild birds as pets, more or less. But again, the animal itself sometimes needs protection in certain situations.

I go looking further, and my riding of Durham East is a fairly large agricultural riding. In my riding I know there are keepers of buffalo, emu, ostrich, mink, chinchilla, llama, and of course there would be the elk and red deer and fallow deer.

I know another family that's in the business of keeping wild birds. They operate a game farm, for release for pheasant hunts and things like that.

But on another level, in my riding there are people who have pets such as parrots and monkeys and other kinds of animals that could be defined as exotic. So it's about time; there was some need to regulate.

I'm going to move to the most important observation of why the municipality of Clarington passed a bylaw. The bylaw is 93-161, passed in the year 1993. I was on the council. I was a local councillor at the time. Mr Parker mentioned that an animal sanctuary moved from East York. Well, guess where it moved? It moved to Clarington, then called Newcastle. Of course that's another story. We were Newcastle, Ontario; now we're Clarington. That's another story, but Clarington is east of Oshawa. This exotic menagerie moved in, and the neighbours were just wild, furious, threatened. What do you do?

Improper fencing and housing and care of the animals: Of course any civilized person would be concerned. These pets didn't ask for that situation.

I respect Mr Parker. There need to be regulations. Any person keeping any kind of animal needs to follow proper regulations or standards. I think most people who use them as domestic animals, whether it's horses or whatever, have a long practice of respecting the care and treatment of the animal.

I also must mention the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, Ms Isabel Bassett. Her Bill 153 deals with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

More specifically, why I wanted to comment on this bill, in the remaining minute I have, is to recognize that the member for York East is clearly on record as saying he is willing, as this goes into committee, to deal with the issues surrounding the Ministry of Agriculture.

My riding is an agricultural riding, and I would have the member know that exotic animal husbandry or farm animals that I mentioned and outlined need to be recognized as domestic or regular farm practices. We just went through the Farm Practices Protection Act and in that we fully want to diversify farm practices, but they aren't the same thing as I described, the animal sanctuary of these wild lions, tigers and bears running around the country. We can't accept that. That's just not acceptable. It's not an appropriate kind of thing.

Our bylaw in the municipality of Clarington went on to clearly

schedule and itemize the proper storage and use of particular animals. I think it also talked to the need to recognize what were domestic occasions, and there were some licensing aspects and some inspection aspects for each of the animals named in the schedules.

I'm going to support the member's bill and I'm going to support it with the full recognition that he is going to work with the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, to make the proper amendments, recognizing the diversification of farm practices in Ontario today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for York East for bringing forward this bill which deals with exotic animals in captivity in Ontario. As has been said, this is a bill that is long overdue.

It's really not a surprise that it comes up during private members' time because, as legislators, we often become overwhelmed by other issues that we face in our communities, issues that affect health care, education, and working conditions for people who work in our communities as well. So it's good that during private members' time the member has come forward with a bill of this nature.

This is a bill that not only is going to deal with the conditions that animals are being kept in but also is going to provide some control for the government on where these animals are kept, who is keeping them and what conditions they are going to be kept in.

We've seen over the past few years a real escalation in the illegal traffic of exotic species into countries like Canada. It's a worldwide problem and it's depleting species in countries in South America and Central America and Africa, places like that where exotic species of animals, what we would term exotic species of animals but of course they're native in those locations, are now becoming endangered because of the market demands for exotic species here in Ontario, for example.

That's one area where I think a bill like this is going to be able to provide some much-needed control and some legitimacy for that market so that people who are going to be importing exotic animals into Ontario aren't going to do it in conditions that are going to actually result in the death of many of those animals, because that's what happens to them when they're being imported illegally into Ontario. We don't want to be seen to be continuing to deplete species in other countries like Mexico and Costa Rica, for example.

I think it's going to go some way in reducing the incidence of the transmission of diseases that come along sometimes with exotic animals that come from outside the country. These are diseases that may be passed on, not only to animals of that same species but to other animals in Ontario that are important as far as our agricultural industry, that we really don't have any awareness of or ability to deal with. That's an issue that may be addressed as well.

I come from the city of Windsor and had an opportunity when I was a lawyer with the legal department at the city to have drafted an animal control bylaw in the city of Windsor which had a definition of exotic species of animals, and it has an absolute prohibition on the possession of exotic animals within the city of Windsor. Exotic animals in that bylaw are defined as animals that are not indigenous to Ontario. In the city of Windsor the only people who are able to possess these types of animals are people who are running pet shops and people who have circuses. There are no zoos in the city of Windsor.

There may be some other exemptions, but I haven't looked at the bylaw for a while and I don't remember exactly what it was.

The other thing the bylaw contains is that anyone can only possess two of any animal that is indigenous to Ontario as pets. This really leads me into one of the concerns I do have about the bill, and that is with respect to the powers of investigation.

section 15 it says, "The minister or a person authorized in writing by the minister may appoint an investigator for" various purposes under the act. I know in our area, in trying to enforce animal control bylaws, the difficulties that investigators have had in trying to not only gain access into properties, but also deal with the animals they find and deal with the conditions they find in those, many times, residential properties.

On occasion we've found people with hundreds of domestic cats, for example, but living in conditions that are really substandard and conditions that are contributing to disease and malnutrition in those animals. We know the difficulties that enforcement officers have, the resources that need to be allocated, just to undertake searches of residences for a somewhat simple matter like that.

This is legislation that's going to require some resources to provide enforcement mechanisms. The member for Yorkview, in his remarks, indicated that he was looking for something in the legislation that dealt with actual living conditions for animals. I'm happy to see in

section 21 in the regulation-making provisions of this bill it provides that regulations can be made prescribing standards for the premises and conditions for keeping exotic animals and the standards for the premises and the conditions in which a licensee is authorized to keep or have possession of exotic animals.

Those are important provisions. We need to make sure that if we are going to license people to possess exotic animals, there are some means to ensure that the premises on which they're keeping those animals are up to standard, that they're not contributing to the spread of disease, they're not contributing to malnutrition of animals, they're not conditions that are basically unhealthy for exotic animals.

That's going to require some investigative resources. The minister who is responsible for this act is going to need more than "an investigator." There is going to have to be a team of investigators in the province who are going to be responsible for the enforcement of this legislation, and I would suggest that this isn't a responsibility that should be downloaded to municipalities and to the local law enforcement people in our communities.

We do have inspectors from the Ministry of Natural Resources now who investigate matters of a similar nature, also I would suspect from agriculture and food as well, but clearly these aren't people who are trained in the conditions that exotic species of animals are going to have to be kept in. So that's something I have a concern about as well.

In closing, I do want to commend the member for York East for bringing this legislation forward. It is something we do need and is going to benefit exotic species of animals here in Ontario and those who wish to keep them here in Ontario. I hope we pass this bill today and I look forward to further debate with respect to some of the issues that have been raised here this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I am pleased to be able to speak on my colleague's bill --

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought I took the floor first here. Are we going in alphabetical order?

The Deputy Speaker: I recognized the first one who stood up, which was the member for Scarborough West.

Mr Jim Brown: I am pleased to be able to speak on my colleague's bill,

An Act to regulate the keeping of Exotic Animals. I have a deep concern for animal welfare and have spoken many times in this House about our animal friends.

I would like to thank the member for York East for addressing the problems of regulating the ownership of exotic animals. We must work to ensure that no animal is abused and that laws are in place to prevent abuse of exotic animals and at the same time protect the public.

My colleague's bill, as it now stands, highlights some concerns to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. The development of a system of registration and licensing could create significant costs. Red tape and regulations cost the taxpayers and this concerns our ministry. There must be a balance between cost and effectiveness.

There is also matter of whether such a registry would fall under provincial or municipal jurisdiction. I would invite my colleague to work with the ministry to find an effective and cost-efficient way to regulate the care and use of exotic animals. It is possible this bill could be amended to give the municipalities the responsibility for registering and looking after the regulation of exotic animals.

With some changes, should this bill pass second reading, I believe this bill could be a valuable asset in helping to protect animals from mistreatment and to protect the public from possibly dangerous situations.

Every animal in captivity is in complete and total dependence on its owner. When there is such dependence, there is a danger of abuse and neglect and we can't tolerate that.

There was an incident near my riding this week where a pit bull terrier was found chained to a tree by the edge of the Scarborough Bluffs. The dog was left in such a way that investigators believe the owner intended for the dog to fall over the cliff and hang itself from its chain. A month ago a cat was hanged in Scarborough. This was another pet killed by insensitive human hands.

Abuse of animals is not limited to domestic animals. The motion picture Project X received widespread criticism following allegations that the monkeys used in the film were beaten to get them to perform for the cameras.

Under the definition of "exotic animal" in this bill are included all animals "not native to Ontario" that are normally found in the wild. I believe my colleague is working on this definition to make it more applicable.

Animal welfare legislation in this province has not undergone any dramatic change since 1919 and it needs a review. My colleagues from York East and St Andrew-St Patrick have both given this House good ideas.

Before I conclude, I must relate to this House the public's concern over animal welfare. Holly, the dog that was dragged behind a car last year for disciplinary purposes, spurred more calls to the Solicitor General's office than any other case except the Bernardo case. When puppies were allegedly flushed down a toilet about a month ago, their story was front-page news. The public cares intensely.

I support my colleague's goal and think that this bill is a good idea in general, subject to amendments.

Mr Preston: I have to agree with my colleague from Durham East in his remarks regarding zoos. The Nickel Belt representative said that he feels a pang of remorse when he sees a caged animal, but we must remember that our regulated zoos are the only repository for a very great number of animals that are becoming extinct. If it weren't for our regulatory zoos we would have no more California condor, the sandhill crane, panda bears and the list goes on. Our regulated zoos are really creating a great benefit for our civilization because it's tomorrow that we have to worry about.

I have to congratulate the member for York East on this bill. It's going to mean an awful lot of work for him because the definition of "exotic animal," as has been stated by everybody, is going to be very difficult to pin down. A person who has a chameleon that they wear on their collar or the person who has the 500-pound tiger: Where in between those do we draw the line?

I'd like to thank Mr Sergio from Yorkview who spoke about the wild goose, the goose chase he called it. I had people complain about noise in the back of my property, and when the police got there they came to complain about barking dogs but indeed it was wild geese. So they were on a wild goose chase.

Enforcement is going to be a problem. But the bill in its inception is for the good of the people and the good of the animals. The member for York East has said in his second statement, "I'm prepared to listen and make changes so that it fits." Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for York East, you have two minutes.

Mr Parker: Thank you to all who commented here this morning.

I'd like to use some of the remaining two minutes available to me to acknowledge and thank some of the people who have been very central in advising me on this matter, some of whom are here to support it this morning: Joan Henry; Rob Laidlaw, Andrea Villiers and Holly Penfound from Zoocheck -- Rob and Andrea in particular have been very helpful in guiding me through this process; Silia Smith, executive director of the World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada, Patrick Tohill, communications officer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada; Stephanie Brown, past president, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies; and Liz White, director of the Animal Alliance of Canada.

I am grateful for their support and for the advice they have been able to give me directly or indirectly.

I want to thank the members for Yorkview, Nickel Belt, Durham East, Windsor-Riverside -- and I welcome the member for Windsor-Riverside back to this House after his brief vacation; I haven't had the occasion to do that yet and I'm happy to have the opportunity this morning to do so -- and the members for Scarborough West and Brant-Haldimand for their remarks this morning. I take very seriously the cautions they have raised. I think their concerns are fair, legitimate and deserve attention. I look forward to working with them if this bill gets the favour of this House on second reading and has the opportunity to proceed for further study.

I'm grateful in particular for what I think was support from the member for Nickel Belt. I'm grateful for the same sort of effusive, unqualified support he gave to this bill that I was so pleased to give to his candidacy for Speaker of this chamber. When an NDP member calls your bill "autocratic and draconian," I know they love you and I appreciate that very much.

BALANCED BUDGET

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 101 standing in the name of Mr Johnson. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

EXOTIC ANIMALS CONTROL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ANIMAUX EXOTIQUES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 102 standing in the name of Mr Parker. Mr Parker has moved second reading of Bill 159. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Mr Speaker, I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1159 to 1334.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent from the members of the Assembly that all three caucuses have the opportunity to pay tribute to World Teachers' Day this Sunday, October 5.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have consent to pay tribute to World Teachers' Day, October 5? Agreed?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I understand that one of our members already has a statement in that regard. This request came in very late in the day. Since one of our members is going to make a statement on this matter, perhaps the opposition may wish to consider making such a statement on Monday, during their members' statements.

The Speaker: So I take that as a no.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

M. Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury) : Bienvenue au Collège Boréal. C'est avec grand plaisir que je souhaite officiellement la bienvenue aux membres de la communauté du Collège Boréal en tant que composante du monde de l'éducation de Sudbury et bien sûr du nord de l'Ontario. Il ne fait nul doute que le Collège Boréal a déjà eu des effets positifs sur notre communauté. Nous savons qu'il sera un partenaire important dans la croissance du nord de l'Ontario.

Les membres de l'administration, du personnel et les étudiants et étudiantes du Collège Boréal devraient être fiers que leur rêve soit devenu réalité. L'édifice, l'emplacement et la technologie utilisée dans cette institution et dans l'ensemble du nord de l'Ontario sont autant de signes tangibles de sa présence.

Nous sommes heureux qu'il fait maintenant

partie de notre communauté et nous savons le bien considérable qu'il nous apportera. Il sera pour de nombreuses années un outil de croissance qui nous permettra d'atteindre l'excellence en éducation. C'est l'aurore d'une nouvelle dimension.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, in compliance with your ruling, I have removed the button that says "World Teachers' Day," but I want to bring to the government's attention the irony we see ourselves faced with. We have a debate going on in this Legislature on Bill 160 that, as a very major part of its thrust, is going to take away the basic protections teachers have; but more significantly than that, it's going to make it impossible for them to continue to carry on the kinds of responsibilities they have towards our young people in the school system.

Yet we see an attempt by the government to say that they like teachers, that they are in favour of teachers, that their fight is not with teachers, while at the same time they are proceeding to put the teachers' backs up against the wall and forcing the strike that is impending.

We know that the fight our teachers are taking on has nothing to do with bettering their pocketbooks. It has everything to do with protecting the school system we have from the kind of ongoing attack this government seems to be intent on proceeding with. I want to say to the government that whether it's the 100 or so parents who were at the meeting at St Raymond school in my riding last night or the 200 people who were at a similar meeting a couple of weeks ago, parents and students understand what this fight is about. They are unanimously saying to the government that the attack you are taking on against our teachers and against our school system is wrong.

ORANGEVILLE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This is an exciting year for the Orangeville Agricultural Society. Labour Day weekend marked the 140th annual fall fair for the Orangeville Agricultural Society. After 140 years, this year's fair had the largest turnout of visitors ever. Most organizations would be happy to mark their 140th anniversary with a grand celebration. The Orangeville Agricultural Society decided to go one step further and has built one of the premier fairgrounds in Ontario.

In April 1997, the Orangeville Agricultural Society began building a new fairgrounds northeast of Orangeville in Mono township. This beautiful new complex overlooks Island Lake and has a facility that will serve our community well in the years to come. The years of planning and consultation have ensured a facility that not only serves the needs of the agricultural society but also the urban community, with the inclusion of a banquet and exhibition hall.

The first agricultural societies were designed to educate and enlighten the farming population. Educating urban residents has now become the focus of agricultural societies and fall fairs. The history of agricultural societies in Ontario is one that has always involved volunteers and people helping people.

The Orangeville Agricultural Society has not veered from these noble beginnings and has indeed become a focal point of our society. I'd like to congratulate the board of directors and members of the Orangeville Agricultural Society who have worked so hard over the past few years to bring this dream to reality.

DEER AND MOOSE TAGS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a message for the Minister of Natural Resources. At this time of year the phones in my office and across the province ring and the letters come pouring in. It's about the allocation of deer and moose tags in this province, and a minister who has done absolutely nothing about it.

I have a letter that is particularly instructive, Mr Minister. It's addressed to you. It says:

"I would really like to know how a person can go year after year, applying for a tag only to be let down by a system that does not work. I know this first hand....

"It has come to my attention after speaking to members of the Elliot Lake Rod and Gun Club, and also with Mr Ed Duff of the anglers and hunters association (Spanish branch) that I am not alone in feeling that this system has major problems and just is not working."

Later on he says, and I find this particularly appalling:

"After finding out I was unsuccessful for the fifth year in a row, I felt I deserved some kind of explanation. I contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources.... I explained my situation to the woman who answered the telephone and asked to speak to someone about this matter. I was informed that I was not allowed to speak with anyone, that she would e-mail my complaint to whomever, and if they felt there was any wrongdoing they would contact me. She said she didn't see anything that was wrong and told me not to expect an answer."

That's totally unacceptable. He goes on to say:

"As a respectful hunter, taxpayer, and a Canadian citizen...I would like to know, is the Ministry of Natural Resources not a government-operated system?"

The Minister of Natural Resources has been there for two and a half years. He has done nothing to correct this problem. He has a report on his desk. The minister needs to act on behalf of Ontario's hunters.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Three months ago the board of health for the Porcupine health unit sent a letter to the Premier to express their serious concerns about the lack of 100% funding for a number of public health programs. Since the Premier has not taken the time to listen and to respond to their concerns, I want to read part of the letter.

"The board believes that the current plan to hand funding of all local public health programs to municipalities will place an unfair funding burden on certain health units and municipalities, most particularly in northern Ontario.

"Programs such as unorganized territories program, genetics program, speech-language pathology program and the mobile dental treatment program are at risk here since they have not been placed in the proposed mandatory program guidelines.

"These programs are unique and vital for northern Ontario, and as such, we are asking that measures be taken to ensure that vital programs provided by public health units will continue to be 100% provincially funded."

I am asking the Premier today to respond immediately to my constituents' concerns and to assure them, and all of us, that northern Ontario has access to funding of these services on the same basis as other residents throughout Ontario.

I might point out that I have a large number of letters here that have been sent to the Premier's office and to the Minister of Health and they haven't been responded to. I don't know if they intend to respond to them or not, but people in northern Ontario are very much concerned that when you dump all this funding on to municipalities, municipalities are going to have no choice but to either eliminate the services or raise taxes.

Taxes are high enough now without having to raise the property taxes to compensate for Mike Harris wanting to give a tax break to the wealthiest people throughout this province.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): As members of this Legislature know, yesterday marked the fourth celebration of the annual recognition by the United Nations of the International Day of Older Persons.

The maturing of nations around the world, including Canada, causes us to reflect on the changing priorities of society, the new challenges we will face in the years ahead, as well as the numerous opportunities presenting themselves.

In his book Boom, Bust and Echo, author David Foot notes the critical role seniors will play in both our economy and in the priorities of everyday life as they become an increasingly larger proportion of our cities, towns and communities.

Our government has recognized the important role seniors play in our society, with the Premier showing the vision to appoint a minister responsible for seniors' issues, the Honourable Cam Jackson, who has long been an advocate for seniors across Ontario.

The demand for strong and sustainable health care that will be there when our growing senior population needs it is a singular priority for our government, reflecting the growing importance of seniors in our province.

I know members of this House as well as friends and neighbours in my community of Hamilton join me in extending our very best wishes to all those who marked the International Day of Older Persons and wish them many years of success in the future.

RADIO STATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Milestone Communications Ltd has appealed to the federal cabinet to overrule the decision of the CRTC awarding the 99.1 FM frequency to the CBC and not to Milestone for a world urban music station.

Milestone proposed that the CRTC grant them the frequency to serve Metro Toronto's young listener of world urban contemporary sound. The music would range from rhythm and blues, jazz, rap, hip hop and funk, calypso, Latin and reggae.

The new station would attract a mainstream, multicultural audience aged 18 to 34 who are now underserviced by the present selection of stations. With no station available to those listeners locally, many tune in to the weak signal that is available from Buffalo's world music station WBLK-FM.

Clearly the most diverse metropolitan city in Canada deserves its own station offering a Canadian perspective to black music. Although this Metro area boasts a black population of over 220,000, the station would serve listeners from all the communities around the greater Toronto area.

Our young black community needs a station to call their own. This is their city as much as it is anyone else's and they deserve a clear voice through a clear frequency to share their history, voice, music, culture with those from all other cultural backgrounds. They have a story to share and they need a Canadian radio station to articulate and express their message.

I have supported this bid since the beginning. I truly hope that with this appeal, Milestone will be granted the frequency for a new station on the airwaves for a new and vibrant voice in this diverse urban community.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On Monday this government will release its fourth set of numbers on the cost of its download. Since no one but the Conservative caucus believes this will be revenue-neutral, it's time for the government to come clean on what it intends to do to assist municipalities facing huge property tax increases. Nowhere is this more necessary than in northern Ontario where the total download cost is now $282 million.

The Minister of Northern Development has clearly been told that the loss of the northern support grant makes the download much worse in the north. A review of the loss of all unconditional grants, including road subsidies, in northern Ontario shows a loss per household of $480.47 in the north versus a loss of $105.32 in the south. That's why the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association have called on this minister and this government to establish northern development investments to cope with our special needs in the face of the download.

The Minister of Northern Development knows the community reinvestment fund announced by the government is not specifically earmarked for the north. He knows FONOM, NOMA and the mayors of the five major northern centres do not accept this fund as an adequate response to our needs. He knows thousands of people in northern Ontario have petitioned him to keep the northern support grant so we won't be devastated by the download.

On Monday, we will see if the Minister of Northern Development will deliver. The north needs its own unique fund to cope with the impacts of the download. Anything less will not be acceptable.

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I rise today in recognition of World Teachers' Day. It is an important day for us to look at because of the fact that we recognize teachers have such an important influence on all our children's lives.

While all of us can point to requirements, that is, academic requirements and federation membership, I think there are some real requirements. One of those is patience; patience for all students who come with a diverse set of needs. A second real requirement is a passion; a passion for excellence to stretch our students to become the best they can. Those are the kinds of qualities we see in those who teach our children today.

Today we recognize the importance of this influence and I would ask members to think for a moment on those teachers they remember, those teachers who had the kind of influence on them, who provided the inspiration and the motivation to become the people they could as well.

I want to pay special recognition, obviously as a teacher myself, to World Teachers' Day.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Time for oral questions, official opposition, member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Mr Speaker, I don't see the Minister of Education in attendance and he was supposed to be here.

The Speaker: Do you want to stand it down?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Durham East, come to order. Member for Durham East, thank you for your assistance. Did you want to stand it down?

Mr Cordiano: We have a number of questions for the Minister of Education.

The Speaker: All right, then let's stand them both down and we'll go to the third party.

Interjection.

The Speaker: It's one or the other.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, question period starts more or less at the same time every day.

The Speaker: Look, member for Lawrence, I don't need any lectures on when question period starts. Do you want to stand it down or not?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Stand it down. Third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We'll have to stand down our questions too, Speaker.

The Speaker: Question, member for Windsor-Walkerville. Can you restart the clock, please?

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The opposition is ready when question period starts. Unfortunately, the government isn't.

Minister, under subsection 257.12(1) of Bill 160, the Minister of Finance may make regulations for prescribing the tax rates for school purposes, but under subsection 257.12(4), the regulations under the above

section "shall prescribe a single tax rate for the residential/farm property class and the multiresidential property class."

Given that across Ontario multiresidential apartment buildings are taxed at a rate which is two, four or, in some cases, six times as high as single-family homes, a fact which your parliamentary assistant frequently pointed out in debates on Bill 96, prescribing a single tax rate could mean a significant increase in taxes of homeowners and a significant decrease in the property tax on apartment buildings.

Can the minister tell the House today how much the education portion of the property taxes of homeowners will increase and apartments decrease because of provisions in Bill 160?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. Obviously what this government is trying to do and will do is to bring some fairness and equity back into the property tax system.

If the member opposite thinks it's fair that tenants in Ontario pay up to six times as much in property tax as a single-family homeowner, I have to say I don't agree with that. I want to see some fairness and equity come into a very fractured assessment and tax system that we've had in Ontario for years. A property taxpayer, whether he lives in a rental accommodation or whether he lives in a single-family home or whether he lives in a condo, should be treated with the same fairness and equity as every other member of our society.

Mr Duncan: It's obvious the government doesn't know what the impact is. What we do know for sure is that tenants won't realize the benefit, it'll be landlords, because you provided weak amendments to a bill that doesn't protect tenants and you rejected our amendments, which would ensure that tenants realize the gain from decreases in property taxes.

Minister, the people of this province want to know how much homeowners' taxes will go up in Mississauga, in Kingston, in Windsor, and why you didn't provide reasonable guarantees that any decreases to property taxes for apartment buildings would flow through to tenants. You didn't do that. Why not? Will you now agree to revise Bill 96 and accept our proposition that will ensure that property taxes will go down for tenants and, at the same time, protect homeowners right across Ontario?

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for the question. I was actually going to get one of our backbenchers to ask that next week. What we want --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You have to admit they are cute at that age though, aren't they?

As I said earlier, what we want to do is ensure that there is fairness in the tax system and what we're going to do with Bill 96 is ensure that fairness is there, that tax increases that come to a landlord will be able to be passed on to the tenant and tax decreases that are provided to a landlord will be passed through to the tenant. That's the type of fairness and equity this government is going to bring to the tax system, something that should have been done many years ago. The people of Ontario finally have a government that is prepared to deal with it.

The Speaker: New question, third question, third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): We still have a dearth of cabinet ministers, but the government House leader is here and I'd like to ask him a question.

The Speaker: Okay, but right now, I'm just going to finish the third questions and then go back to the leaders' questions for both parties. So third question from the third party.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will know that a group of parents delivered 400 letters to the government House leader this morning. These are all from parents who are concerned about Bill 160 and are uncertain about the future of education for their children. They know the bill gives the minister power to decide which classes will be taught by non-teachers, but they don't know which ones those will be.

Also, they don't know how much money the government intends to spend on education because the funding formula is not spelled out and they're worried that the government may be going to take more money out of education for their children.

Will the minister, in response to these concerns of parents and the concerns of students who have been outside this place today demonstrating -- and in Durham a number have walked out as well; North Bay as well -- withdraw proceeding with Bill 160 until such time as he makes it clear how much money --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm very eager to respond to the member for Algoma. I'm pleased to inform him that I've checked with my colleagues on the mail they've been receiving and the phone calls they've been receiving in their constituency offices. I've talked to people in the ministry who are getting the response clips back from the information we've sent out to homes across the province. I can assure the member for Algoma that the vast majority of people, parents who are sending in this information to us, who are contacting our constituency offices, are saying: "Well done. Carry on. Go forward. Get a better education for our kids."

Mr Wildman: The parents who have presented the 400 letters this morning, the students who have walked out of classrooms, the teachers who have attended rallies across the province by the thousands are not happy with the way the minister and the government are proceeding. They are most concerned and worried that the government is pushing teachers to the brink. Parents don't want a strike, but they understand that the teachers are concerned about the quality of education for their children.

If the government is determined to proceed with Bill 160, as the minister seems to be, despite the concerns of parents, students, teachers and others interested in the quality of education, will he at least make a commitment that his government will provide for widespread hearings across the province in committee before this bill is passed into law so that these people will have the opportunity to express their concerns?

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Wildman: Will the minister at least make that commitment, that we're not going to just have three or four days of hurried hearings, that we're actually going to allow everyone who wants to make a presentation --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to reassure the member for Algoma that we have certainly heard from parents and from taxpayers in the province who are concerned with the level of student performance, who want to make sure we can have a level of student performance that's the best in Canada -- we think that's what our young people deserve -- who are very interested in having our students have more time on tasks, the opportunity to have more time in their studies, the opportunity to not have the continuation in the growth in class sizes we saw through the social contract and other policies of your government. They're very pleased that is happening.

I can assure the member opposite that the government House leader will obviously, as this bill goes through the democratic process, provide opportunity for input from people on the bill, on the conditions of the bill. In addition to that, the member for Algoma can be assured by the fact that I will continue -- even outside of that process -- to look forward to working with people who are concerned about education, including the teachers, who, I understand, will be looking forward to a meeting in the near future.

The Speaker: New question; member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Education. You have been, for months, desperately trying to make people believe that your education reforms are not motivated by the bottom-line objectives you have. You want people to believe that somehow you're making these reforms and you're not taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the education system, which in fact you've already done. If that wasn't enough, now you have an even bigger problem. You have another $1 billion in cuts to camouflage.

How can you expect anyone to believe you when you say you're trying to put the interests of students first? Will you now stand up and tell the truth about your additional plans to take another $1 billion out of education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Premier spoke on this earlier this week and made it very clear to everyone in this chamber -- you might not have been listening -- that we have no such plans. We do have a plan, though, to make sure our students have the best performance in Canada. We think that's what we owe the students of Ontario. We have a commitment to doing that at the best possible cost. If you have an objection to either one of those objectives, please say what it is.

Mr Cordiano: Very clearly, let me tell you exactly what you've done. Over a year ago, you contracted with Strategic Counsel Inc. They knew exactly what you were up to, what you really wanted to do to the education system. You asked them to test how you could get away with getting rid of 10,000 teachers. They conducted focus groups and polls and they told you it would be "very problematic" to fire 10,000 teachers in the province of Ontario and get away with it. I'm going to ask you again: Are you going to stand in your place today and deny that you had plans to fire 10,000 teachers and take an additional $1 billion out of the education system? Will you stand up and deny that today?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The intentions of this government are well know