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

November 30, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-30 vol. A (PDF)

L020A - Tue 30 Nov 1999 / Mar 30 nov 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JEANNINE SÉGUIN

YOUNG OFFENDERS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SCARBOROUGH

NEIGHBOUR TO NEIGHBOUR CENTRE

NEWMARKET STINGRAYS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ALLAN BAKER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELGIN-MIDDLESEX DETENTION CENTRE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CANCER TREATMENT

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

ROAD MAINTENANCE

ONTARIO PLACE

CONTAMINATED LANDFILL

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES

HÔPITAL MONTFORT / MONTFORT HOSPITAL

EXTENSION OF DRINKING HOURS

LOTTERY AND CASINO CORPORATION OFFICES

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MARRIAGE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ROAD MAINTENANCE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EMERGENCY SERVICES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JEANNINE SÉGUIN

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Vendredi dernier, des centaines de personnes, incluant le député provincial John Cleary, se sont réunies pour dire au revoir et un grand merci à une de leurs plus grandes amies. Jeannine Séguin fut célébrée par ses amis, sa famille et les citoyens et citoyennes de sa communauté et de l'ensemble du pays. Les gens sont venus pour rendre un dernier hommage à une personne qui a tant donné pour promouvoir et améliorer la qualité de la vie de tous les francophones.

Récipiendaire de l'Ordre du Canada pour sa contribution exceptionnelle en éducation et pour les droits des francophones, elle fut également une bénévole inépuisable auprès de sa communauté et son église.

Son travail pour les communautés francophones à travers le Canada en entier ne sera jamais oublié. La population entière perd une des plus grandes pionnières des communautés francophones. Son décès laisse un grand vide dans le coeur des résidents et résidentes de toutes les communautés.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Recent tragedies involving young people have caused the people of Ontario to renew their call for tougher penalties to address serious crimes committed by young offenders. Real changes are needed to protect the public, to hold young persons accountable for their actions and to restore public confidence.

The federal government has ignored this issue far too long. Recent changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act do not address many of the serious concerns that have been brought forward by the people of this province over the past decade.

This government has consistently expressed serious concerns about the need to strengthen the Young Offenders Act to deal with violent young offenders so that people can feel safe in their communities. The recent changes contained in the Youth Criminal Justice Act do not go far enough. They do not serve as a serious deterrent to crime.

Most illustrative are the comments of the young who are harassed, terrorized, abused and assaulted by young offenders. Ask the victims and they will confirm that the greatest single measure that can be taken to reduce this menace is to have meaningful changes made by the federal government to the laws that apply to minors.

This government will continue to push Ottawa for changes that will strengthen the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, to lower the age of accountability for serious crimes, to promote parental accountability and to make the punishment fit the crime.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): A week this Thursday, on December 9, the Legislature will vote on a bill that I hope will get all-party agreement. The

short title of the bill is, the Truth about Ipperwash Act. It is

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George. People in Ontario will be aware this happened more than four years ago. It was the first death involving a First Nations person in a land dispute in this century.

There have been serious, serious questions raised about what happened that night and the events leading up to it, with much contradictory evidence of what took place. We will never have closure on this issue until there is a public inquiry. The local township, the local council and many people across Ontario support the call for this public inquiry.

The bill calls for the establishment of an inquiry that will look into the events leading up to the death and will make recommendations to avoid similar instances. Part of the bill says, "The commission may defer beginning the inquiry if necessary to avoid prejudice to any person who is a party to court proceedings concerning matters which may be a subject of the inquiry."

This is a bill that I think answers any questions about why we can't commit to an inquiry. It will once and for all begin the important process of bringing closure to this tragic event.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SCARBOROUGH

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Last week I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of Cedarbrae Mall in my riding. The mall has undergone a multi-million-dollar renovation and expansion over the past few years. The mall has been transformed from an aging plaza to a modern facility.

Cedarbrae is just one example of the economic growth witnessed in Scarborough Centre since 1995. The Scarborough Town Centre, also in my riding, recently completed a $38-million expansion. The Rainforest Cafe, Famous Players Theatre and Indigo Books now call the Town Centre home. Over 400 construction jobs were created with the expansion and over 900 permanent retail and service jobs have been created by the businesses.

Kennedy Commons Plaza has been built, once again in my riding. Kennedy Commons is home to AMC Theatres, The Brick, Enbridge Consumers Gas and dozens of other businesses. Building the Commons created 350 person-years of construction employment and the businesses have created over a thousand retail and service jobs.

I'm proud to say that thanks to an economy fuelled by tax cuts, Scarborough Centre has done its share in creating the well over 600,000 net new jobs created in Ontario since 1995.

NEIGHBOUR TO NEIGHBOUR CENTRE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): As the holiday season approaches and we think about those Ontarians less fortunate than ourselves, I want to recognize a unique organization on Hamilton Mountain which, year-round, makes a tremendous contribution to the needs of the community.

The Neighbour to Neighbour Centre was started in 1985 and exists to provide a range of support services to the unemployed, the underemployed and their dependent children. Neighbour to Neighbour provides the residents of Hamilton Mountain and neighbouring communities with self-help resources and emergency food in an environment of dignity and self-worth.

Let me outline the range of services Neighbour to Neighbour provides: 800 families a month receive emergency or supplemental food services; a job-finding club operates at a 79% success rate; a bundle-up program last year distributed over 500 coats to children up to 12 years of age; a Christmas hamper program services 650 households representing 2,300 individuals. Other services include literacy training, computer access, job listings, a parent support group and a used book store.

Neighbour to Neighbour is an exemplary community-based agency which, in spite of losing all provincial funding support when this government came to power in 1995, continues to provide an invaluable support to those residents of Hamilton Mountain in need. I salute Neighbour to Neighbour and agencies like it. I wish it continued success in its good work. Neighbour to Neighbour passes any audit, particularly the audit of the heart, with flying colours.

NEWMARKET STINGRAYS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to congratulate the Newmarket Stingrays for their outstanding achievements.

The Newmarket Stingrays swimming club was named the gold medal winner as the Maritime Life/Swimming Canada club of the year. The award is given out each year to the most outstanding club, recognizing planning and organization, community service, swimmer development, program delivery and innovation.

The 200-member organization competed at nearly 50 swim meets this year and, despite the small population in the area, its 90 competitive swimmers have held their own against clubs like Calgary and the region of Waterloo.

What makes the Newmarket Stingrays so special is their community involvement. Their members participate in York County Hospital's Circle of Hope, and they have donated approximately $48,000 in recent years to the hospital's pediatrics department. This and other volunteer work, including swimmer development and participation in the Sears "I Can Swim" program, has set this club apart.

Congratulations to head coach Alan Swanston, president Grace Volkening, and to all of the swimmers and their families on their outstanding achievement in being named the number one swim club in Canada. Well done.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My statement is directed to the Minister of Health. It concerns the deplorable lack of basic health care services in this province.

Last week, I asked the minister a question about Judy Vanderpol, a sole-support mother of three who desperately needs reconstruction surgery for her hip that was replaced 14 years ago. She suffers from serious stomach problems because of the morphine she takes for her pain. Her specialist tells Judy he cannot

schedule her surgery until October 30, 2000. That is totally unacceptable.

Hearing nothing from the minister's office after my question last week, my office called the ministry directly to see what help the ministry would give to shorten the unacceptable wait for Judy Vanderpol. A medical con sultant from your ministry said, "We don't get involved in that." He said it was up to the specialist to try to find an earlier hospital date, but he is unable to do that. Or he could file for prior approval to send Judy out of the province for treatment.

Is that the choice facing patients in Ontario's abysmal health care system: Wait and suffer for almost a year, or go to the United States?

I'm sending this problem over to the Minister of Health, because she is the minister and it is her problem. Your cuts have created this nightmare for Judy, and you have to get involved to fix it and fix it now.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to discuss the report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on local government reform for Hamilton-Wentworth and to draw to the attention of the minister one of the serious problems I have with this recommendation. I give these remarks in the context of being one who supports one tier; I was prepared to support the Church accord. In fact, most of my colleagues don't agree, but given that it is a local issue, I feel strongly about this.

I want to point out that there are serious problems with the labour part of this-I don't know why the Minister of Community and Social Services finds this so funny. The headline in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday says, "Labour Leaders Threaten Work Action." If the Minister of Community and Social Services thinks this is something to laugh about, then go ahead, but I would suggest to him that we take it very seriously.

And I would point out that at least three of the areas where there are labour recommendations that take away serious fundamental rights that workers have in Hamilton-Wentworth could easily apply to the other communities that are involved in restructuring in terms of Sudbury, Ottawa and Haldimand-Norfolk: literally thousands of people whose rights could be taken away.

Minister, remove these offensive recommendations from your legislation or look to serious action on the part of labour leaders, as well as losing my vote, which I do want to give to support one tier in Hamilton.

ALLAN BAKER

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Today I'd like to share a story with you. This is a story of hard work and dedication, a story of love of mechanics. This is the story of Allan Baker.

Born one of six boys and raised on a farm in Dummer township in Peterborough county, he developed an interest in mechanics at an early age, and it became such a strong passion that he still has it to this very day.

In 1953, along with his wife, Jean, he started his own business. He started out by repairing and maintaining the local milk trucks, but he didn't stop there; he repaired everything from farm machinery to buses. Over 45 years his business even employed members of his own family. I'm sure his wife and three children, Dianne, Bob and Linda, have many stories to tell of their own.

Mr Baker is also dedicated to his community. He is a devoted member of the Norwood Lions Club, and he is proud to say that he has missed only one Norwood Fall Fair in the last 70 years.

In 1998, Mr Baker closed his business. His tools may have been sold, but the love for his work still hasn't faded. In fact, it has been said that he even carries a few tools around with him in his jacket just in case he can lend a hand.

Mr Baker is a living example of the hard work and good business sense that this government has always been proud to encourage and to support. He is a man who has dedicated his life to the farm community. Allan Baker was recently awarded recognition by the Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture. It gives me great pride to recognize his contribution and to share it with you all today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in relation to supporting and managing the health care system / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne le soutien et la gestion du système de soins de santé.

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

Minister, for a short explanation.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The legislation I am introducing today, if passed, will provide added flexibility for Ontario hospitals as they restructure and build improved health care facilities to better meet the needs of their growing and changing population.

The proposed changes respond to requests from Ontario hospitals and the Ontario Hospital Association. If passed, this legislation will ensure that hospitals have the time they need to implement their restructuring projects.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): We are pleased to provide the Legislature and the people of Ontario with a report on the state of the province's finances and economy.

During the first half of this decade Ontario lost jobs, investment, confidence and hope. As we approach the new millennium, we see a tremendous improvement in economic growth, job creation and fiscal accountability in government. Our active agenda of tax cuts and sound economic and fiscal management has put Ontario back on track.

We are laying the groundwork for sustained economic growth. Ontario's economy is growing faster than the rest of Canada or any of the G7 industrialized countries. Investment and spending by households and the private sector are surging. Confidence is high. Strong employment creation is replacing job stagnation. Most of the growth is in full-time private sector jobs.

With continued vigilance, we are on track to balance the budget by the fiscal year 2000-01 and to begin paying down the massive debt that is the legacy of the tax-and-spend policies of previous governments. We have reversed the steady increase in taxes. We now have the lowest general personal income tax rate in the country.

In the 1999 budget in May, we noted that the outlook for continued job growth and prosperity was bright. We are very pleased to report today that Ontario's performance and prospects are even stronger than we had anticipated earlier this year.

Tax cuts, careful spending and removal of barriers to growth are creating an economic climate that is restoring business and consumer confidence, spending and investment in Ontario.

The result is that Ontario's economy is expanding at a vigorous pace this year. Real GDP rose by more than previously expected at annualized rates of 5.2% in the first quarter and 5% in the second quarter of 1999 fiscal year. So far this year retail sales are up 7.3%, housing starts are up 24.3% and exports have grown by 16.2%.

The May 1999 budget was based on projections of Ontario real GDP growth of 3.7% in 1999. Based on the economy's performance so far this year, we, along with the private sector, are projecting that Ontario is on pace for growth of 5% this year.

The consensus among private sector forecasters is that Ontario's economy will grow more rapidly than the economies of any of the G7 countries in 2000 as well. All private sector forecasters also expect Ontario to register stronger economic growth than the rest of Canada this year and next.

The people of Ontario can now see that the hard work and sacrifice of five years are paying off. The outlook shows that the policies that they endorsed, the policies that were needed, policies of lower taxes and economic growth based on private sector investment and job creation, are working.

For all Ontarians, the most compelling economic issue is creating and keeping good jobs. Tax cuts have fuelled vigorous job growth in Ontario. In the first half of this decade, Ontario consistently underperformed the rest of the country. From January 1990 to September 1995, Ontario lost nearly 50,000 jobs, while the rest of Canada gained 350,000 jobs.

Since mid-1995, Ontario's job growth has consistently outperformed the rest of the country. Most importantly, the increase has been in the private sector. The jobs have been full-time. Ontarians of all ages, including our young people, have benefited from this growth. Ontario's youth unemployment rate, while still too high, has fallen to 12.7%. The overall unemployment rate has fallen to a new low of 6%.

Since September 1995, Ontario has gained 615,000 new jobs, nearly all of them full-time jobs in the private sector. These represent over half of all private sector jobs created in Canada. So far this year, 177,000 Ontarians have found jobs, virtually all of them full-time. This is roughly equivalent to the combined populations of Chatham-Kent and Sault Ste Marie finding full-time jobs. Job growth is estimated to be 3.1% this year, and we are well on our way to our goal of creating 725,000 jobs by the end of the year 2000.

As the Ontario experience demonstrates, low tax rates are critical for economic growth. As well, they enhance economic competitiveness. As announced in the 1999 budget, a business tax review panel is being formed in order to examine the current Ontario personal, corporate and property tax systems for their impact on the capacity of business, both small and large, to create jobs. Advice by this committee will guide us as we prepare Ontario's budget for the year 2000 and the years ahead.

In an open, global economy, jobs and investment find new homes quickly and easily. High taxes scare away new investment and jobs. They raise the costs of producing goods and services. They act as a drag on our economy. They depress job creation and prosperity.

Although Ontario and most other provinces have been steadily reducing taxes, Canadians as a whole still face a higher personal income tax burden than citizens of any other nation in the G7.

The provinces cannot make the tax system competitive on their own. Most of the personal income tax burden in Canada, over 60%, is imposed by the federal government. The federal government can and should create jobs and strengthen the national economy by cutting taxes. Premier Harris and I have stressed that the federal government should cut taxes in the next federal budget.

I was pleased to host my provincial and territorial counterparts earlier this month. Every single finance minister from every province and the territories agreed that federal tax cuts should happen immediately, that full restoration of the Canada health and social transfer should happen now and that they should be priorities for the federal government.

They also called for a reduction in the job-killing federal Employment Insurance premiums. As the surplus in the EI account continues to balloon, standing at about $26 billion today and rising to about $31 billion or more by the year 2000, Ottawa is missing the opportunity to offset scheduled rate increases for CPP with EI rate cuts.

The federal government actually increased job-killing payroll taxes in 1999 and will do so in the year 2000 as well. These increases in federal payroll taxes next year will cost Ontario employers and workers alone over $560 million and will cost the province as many as 22,500 jobs. This is based on a paper issued by the C.D. Howe Institute, which estimates that every $1 billion increase in payroll taxes results in a loss of 40,000 jobs.

It is time for the federal government to do its share. As we approach 2000, we call upon the federal government to show respect for the equal and evolving nature of Canadian federalism and to show flexibility in its understanding of our respective roles in this federation we call Canada.

The federal government has required that provincial personal income tax systems use the federal definition of taxable income. This limits the flexibility of all provinces in designing tax systems to meet the specific needs of their taxpayers. Ontario is no longer willing to accept federally imposed constraints from an earlier era of federal dominance in federal-provincial relations.

Ontario will be moving to a "tax on income" system in which Ontario's personal income tax will no longer be linked to the federal tax and subject to hidden tax increases of the federal system. A "tax on income" system would preserve the benefits Ontario taxpayers have gained from government tax cuts, as we embark on this course with the expectation that provinces will have the same flexibility as the federal government currently possesses over the personal income tax system of each.

The federal government must also restore CHST funding to 1994-95 levels immediately. Ottawa slashed $6.2 billion a year from provincial transfers for health and social programs, and so far has only restored $2 billion of the $6.2 billion. We call upon Ottawa to return the rest of this funding to provinces in the year 2000, including an appropriate escalator clause for these cash transfers that keeps pace with future cost pressures and inflation.

Ontario's strong economic and job growth is continuing to propel gains in government revenue. While we have been cutting tax rates, our revenues have been rising. They will be an estimated $59.1 billion this year, up from $49.5 billion in 1995-96. Perhaps that will answer the criticism of some members opposite who projected that we would lose $5 billion a year, not gain $9.6 billion a year.

For this fiscal year, we are delighted to report that we are once again on track to exceed our target for deficit reduction. Based on the second-quarter Ontario finances, which are being released today, this year's fiscal deficit is now projected at $1 billion, down $1.1 billion from the 1999 budget plan.

We can and do look forward to introducing a balanced budget for 2000-01 next spring, an excellent way to launch the new century. Furthermore, we will ensure that the budget remains balanced. The Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act, 1999, approved by the Legislature last week, will prevent Ontario governments from raising taxes in the future without the express permission of the people of Ontario, and will prohibit governments from incurring deficits except in extraordinary circumstances. It is imperative that we not revert to the tax-and-spend habits of previous governments once the deficit is eliminated.

Even when the budget is balanced, we will continue to safeguard taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. We will start paying down the debt, beginning with a minimum $2-billion repayment during our current mandate. The legacy we inherited from previous governments was debt, over $101 billion of it. Our legacy to future generations is a province that is on sound fiscal footing, with a plan to keep it there.

Successful businesses review their operations continuously, looking for ways to find efficiencies, to improve the products and services they deliver to their customers, and effective governments do exactly the same. We promised that under our government existing programs would all be reviewed and justified on the basis of cost, necessity and efficiency, and we are continuing to do this.

As announced in the 1999 budget, the Ontario Financial Review Commission will be reconvened to assist the government as we continue to strengthen fiscal management and public accountability. A blue-ribbon panel will be appointed and will provide recommendations to improve the fiscal management and accountability of key public-sector organizations such as hospitals, universities, colleges and municipalities. We are ever vigilant in our efforts to ensure taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. We are making government work better by managing spending on programs and on compensation.

As my colleague the Chair of Management Board recently noted, the province has reached collective agreements with its employees that are reasonable and fiscally responsible. Ontario's broader public sector, such as municipalities, boards of education, post-secondary institutions and the health care sector, should do the same.

In a competitive world economy where markets change with lightning speed, we cannot rest on our laurels and assume that the battle is over. We need to keep an eye on the future, while making the right investments today to sustain our economic competitiveness.

Earlier this year, the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board presented our government with an economic road map for jobs and economic prosperity. We will be following this direction to make the strategic investments that will promote new technology, innovation and skills development, and enhance our competitiveness now and into the future.

The actions the government has taken to date, and the actions we will continue to take, are not quick fixes. They have not always been the easiest choices. But our economic and fiscal record of success, together with the brighter outlook of our economic future, demonstrates that they are the right choices. Our policies are working. The outlook for Ontario's strong and growing economy is very positive.

Our government's agenda is motivated by our goal of ensuring that the people of Ontario have the opportunity to access good jobs, quality health care, first-class education services and a prosperous future. We will not waiver from this agenda or from the often difficult decisions required to implement it.

By continuing on the path of sound fiscal and economic management, we are laying the foundation for prosperity and quality of life that will benefit all Ontarians for many generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin the debate on the government's fiscal and economic outline. I start by looking at the government's record on debt, where we can see that since Premier Harris became Premier, the debt of the province, and these are the government's own numbers, has gone up by $22 billion-25%. These are the government's own numbers.

I would also point out that virtually every other province in this country now has a balanced budget. When Premier Harris became Premier, the federal government and Quebec had substantial deficits. The federal government balanced their budget three years in advance of Mike Harris. Quebec balanced their budget two years ahead of Mike Harris.

Mike Harris, in the analogy I have in my mind, is prancing along, waving to the crowd. Bouchard runs by him, Chrétien runs by him and they balance the budget. They have been paying down the debt of the provinces.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: I know you don't like to hear this. I would just ask us to take a look at the credit rating agencies. They look at the way Mike Harris manages the finances of Ontario. What has happened to the credit rating agencies-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, member. Stop the clock. I cannot hear the response coming from the member.

Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I go back to the independent bodies that rate credit worthiness. They downgraded Bob Rae three times. Mike Harris was mad about that. Mike Harris has been Premier now for four and a half years, heading to five years: the same credit rating. Why? Because you have mismanaged the finances of the province. That is what they're saying. Hydro played games with the books. Now they're on our own books.

One of the most important pages in this document is page 22. What it says here is that exports now account for 51.9%-almost 52%-of Ontario's economy. It was about a quarter of Ontario's economy; it's now 52%. I think it's important, when Ontario looks at our economy, that we recognize why we have been growing strongly. It is because of exports virtually doubling.

While Mike Harris is patting himself on the back, I really think he should be patting Bill Clinton on the back. The reason I raise this is, let's recognize what is driving Ontario's economy. It is exports; there's no question. The minister himself said 52% exports.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Minister of Finance, please come to order so I can hear the response.

Mr Phillips: The reason I think it's important is this: On Friday, Palladini sent us all a letter saying: Why are people investing in Ontario? It is for these reasons. These are the people who are driving our exports.

Here's what Mr Palladini's letter to us said: It's because of "first-class education" in Ontario that is "highly affordable and accessible." What is Mike Harris doing? He has taken tuitions from 20% of the cost to 35% of the cost now. No longer is it highly accessible and affordable.

It goes on to say here: "A typical company operating in Ontario might find its employee benefits bill slashed to one sixth of what it'd pay south of the border." This is Al Palladini's letter to us on Friday. What is Mike Harris doing? He's systematically moving to a two-tiered system where people pay for their health care costs, not by all of us sharing the burden but paying for it-if you can afford it-out of your own pocket; if you can't afford it, too bad. I would say that one of the most important pages in this document, for all of Ontario to recognize, is that what is driving Ontario's economy is exports.

You're undermining by your own definition the major reason why companies want to invest in Ontario, like a quality health care program. "Save Civilized Society" is the big heading here. "Ontario's outstanding quality of life"-they talk about the quality of life in our urban areas. "Our civil society"-what's Mike Harris doing? He's undermining the very thing that is driving Ontario's economy, and that is our exports.

I go on. The minister misspoke himself. He said that Ontario is now at an all-time low in unemployment. The fact is that this is the document he sent out to us two weeks ago. In the late 1980s, Ontario's unemployment rate was 5%. You misspoke yourself, Minister. You may want to correct the record a little bit later.

I would also say on the job front that we are looking forward to the government delivering on its commitment for 825,000 jobs. The minister never mentioned that today, but that was in the Blueprint.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, he did. You didn't listen.

Mr Phillips: Oh, I did listen. He never mentioned 825,000 jobs. You're using the old promises. You're looking at some new promises now you're going to have to live with.

While you are touting the accomplishments of Ontario, it is on the backs of our most vulnerable and it is as a result of exports, not what you did.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The member for Sudbury, come to order, please.

Responses.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Let me begin by congratulating the Minister of Finance on the hyperbole of his spin. He would have us believe that because he gave 6% or 7% of the highest-income people in the province a tax cut, everything else has flowed from heaven. The reality is in a study of the auto industry that was just released today. It's a study which shows that we are now going to surpass Michigan in the production of automobiles. But nowhere-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: But nowhere in the study does it mention the government's tax cut. They point out that Ontario is going to surpass Michigan in the production of automobiles not because of some phony tax cut; what they point out is Ontario is moving ahead because our currency is so much lower vis-à-vis the American currency and because health care costs-medicare-are so much cheaper than that American system of health care that you're trying to emulate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I would ask the government benches to come to order so I can hear the response, please. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I know the Conservatives don't want to hear this. When anyone does an analysis of what has become the number one industry in Ontario, they don't want to hear that that industry has grown not because of any phony tax cut. In fact, they don't even mention your phony tax cut. What they mention is the low value of the Canadian dollar. What they mention is the efficiency of a medicare system that you're tearing apart. What they also mention is that 90% of the automobiles produced are exported.

What it means is what this government doesn't want to admit: It's exports that drive the Ontario economy. Once again, your phony tax cut has got nothing to do with it.

The person we should be thanking is not the Minister of Finance over here, but Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton for allowing the American economy to hum and allowing them to import our automobiles, our trucks, our buses, our trains, our transit equipment, our computer equipment, our pulp, our paper and our lumber. But no, this government wants to go on with this fantasy.

The fantasy is further exposed when you look at the opinion research that was done earlier this fall which shows that 75% of the people in Ontario don't feel they have had a tax cut. Lower-income people know that they haven't had a tax cut. Middle-income people know they haven't had a tax cut. Modest-income people know that they haven't had a tax cut. If anything, those people are now paying the higher tuition fees, the motor vehicle registration fees, the higher property taxes, the family responsibility taxes, the public guardian and trustee taxes and the new property assessment fees.

That's the reality of what you've done. You've given the wealthiest 6% a tax cut. You've hit everybody else with a tax increase. You're lucky enough to live at a time when the American economy is functioning.

What I really want to say to the Minister of Finance, though, is this: You failed to mention the health deficit, the education deficit, the environmental deficit and the social deficit you are leaving behind, and it's those deficits which hurt the prospects of the majority of people in this province.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I would also point out to the minister that page 55 of his own document that he has tabled here today shows that the outlook of personal income tax revenue projections, as opposed to the 1998-99 actuals, shows that you're going to collect over $1 billion less in personal income tax. That's your rich friends getting wealthier because of your tax cuts. When you look across our communities, what are the vast majority of citizens facing? Cuts to their education system, cuts to the hospital system, cuts to our environmental protection laws, cuts to our labour laws and the inspectors who are there to enforce all those laws.

Minister, your friends are doing great in your wonderful little world; it's everybody else who is getting screwed.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to withdraw the last word, please.

Mr Christopherson: I withdraw it, Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELGIN-MIDDLESEX DETENTION CENTRE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, on June 6, 1996, you told this House that you had just learned of allegations of abuse at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. We know that a phone call was received in your office three months before that date from the mother of a young offender at Elgin-Middlesex, and she was concerned about her son's safety.

In recent weeks, we've been told that the staff in your office tried to hide the fact that a call had been made to your office. Today there is new evidence that your office tried to have the documents changed to cover up the fact that that call did in fact come to your office. There are voice mail records now that back up those who say that there were changes to those documents ordered by your office.

My question for the minister is this: Given the new information that is now available in the public, we'd like to know what you believe your course of action should be.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I refer this to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): As the member opposite would know, the matter she is raising today is before a quasi-judicial board and it would be totally inappropriate to comment on the specifics that are before that panel. I think that has been the position that has been raised by members opposite on a number of occasions.

I think the member should be aware of, and I would have thought she would have been concerned about, what we have done to deal with the young offender institutions and our involvement with young offenders in this province as a result of the numerous inquiries into that particular incident. We have taken action. I would have thought the member would have wanted to know whether we have appropriately trained corrections officers to deal with young offender situations. I would have thought the member would have wanted to know whether or not we were prepared to implement different correctional policies for people who are attending those institutions.

I would have thought the member would have wanted to know whether or not we have attempted to deal with how we deal with emergency situations in our institutions in general. I would have thought those would have been the questions the member would have posed in this House.

Mrs Pupatello: I'll tell you what the public wants to know. The public wants to know, who is defending their interests today? We want to know why, on April 26-I'm going to quote this same minister who I directed the question to and who I expect to answer the supplement. He said in this House: "I can indicate clearly that there was no undue interference from the minister's office with respect to this whole matter." That's the quote by the minister that I would like to answer today.

Today we have information through the media that voice mail records confirm that this same minister's executive assistant knew, approached correctional officers about changing documents. The evidence is mounting, the evidence is damning, the evidence seems clear. What we know is that this happened on this minister's watch. What we know now is that he should do the right thing. We are asking this minister to answer, this minister to step aside until this investigation which should be launched into his office is over.

Hon Mr Sampson: For the record-and I think the honourable member understands that this is the record but I'll clarify it for her-the former minister, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, indicated to this House over three years ago that he first became aware of the incident at Elgin-Middlesex in June 1996. That is on the record.

Minister Runciman, I think the House would agree, has the utmost integrity in this House. In fact, a member of your party agreed with that comment because they said at that time that they accepted Mr Runciman's statement as that being the fact.

Mrs Pupatello: Let me tell the minister that I would like to answer this final supplementary on this, that the bar has been set by your colleague, and that was Jim Wilson, then Minister of Health.

Here is what he said in this House. When he stepped down because of the behaviour of a staffer, he said, "I hope I've set a precedent that when there are questions of impropriety by staff members, of ministers themselves, that they fully step aside and allow an independent third body to look at this."

That is the precedent. That is the integrity. That is the integrity that you are speaking of where this minister is concerned, that as a matter of his integrity, as a matter of the precedent that has been set by that same cabinet colleague when he stepped aside because of the behaviour in that minister's office, we are asking you today, in light of the evidence that is mounting-records by the assistant deputy minister at the time, that the minister's office was fully informed; records today-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Member's time is up. Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Mr Sampson: The member knows this issue is before the grievance settlement board. Unfortunately, yet again, the opposition is dredging up old stories and allegations that, frankly, serve no purpose in this House, and not focusing on the real issue of the day, which is how young offenders are treated in institutions across this province; not dealing with the fundamental policies as to how we deal with the very serious challenge in this province of properly providing security and custody and treatment services to young offenders in this province.

It's not prepared to deal with the fact that there's a tremendous challenge in this province to make sure that we have young offenders who come out of the system and are properly rehabilitated so that they don't reoffend, so that they don't create yet other victims.

These are the policy issues, I say to the member opposite, who I hope is listening. These are the policy issues that we are taking forward to the people of Ontario. These are the policy issues that are important to Ontarians, how we deal with young offenders, youth justice and criminal activity in this province.

These are the issues that we should be debating in this House and not old stories and not old allegations that you continually want to raise in this House for your own political advantage.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Minister, your special adviser for municipal restructuring in Sudbury has done the job you have asked him to do. Now it's time that your government put its resources behind his plan. When you forced amalgamation on Toronto, you gave Toronto a $50-million grant, plus $200 million in interest-free money. When Chatham and its surrounding municipalities amalgamated, you gave them $22 million to cover the cost of restructuring. The citizens of Sudbury deserve no less.

Restructuring in Sudbury is estimated to cost between $12 million and $14 million. It must be your government that picks up the cost of municipal restructuring. The citizens of the new greater city of Sudbury cannot be saddled with a $12-million to $14-million debt. Will you commit today in the House to the citizens of Sudbury that you will pick up the entire cost of amalgamation in the greater city of Sudbury?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. I take it from his comments that he is supportive of the report, and thank him very much for that support.

We are in the process of reviewing a very complex report which had quite an interesting series of recommendations, including the fact that the citizens in the new, amalgamated greater Sudbury would see taxpayer savings of around $14 million annually. I believe this is good news for citizens in the Sudbury area as well.

The honourable member raises a point about transitional costs. Indeed there are transitional costs, and I certainly will take his comments under advisement as we seek to respond to the report.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): To the same minister: Let me make it clear on this side of the House that you will not get a clear commitment of support on this bill until you address our issues in regard to restructuring funding and the costs to those municipalities. So you can put that assumption aside.

Let us tell you again: The same situation applies to my community of Hamilton-Wentworth. Minister, we have clearly seen the fashion in which you treated Toronto regarding restructuring costs. We've seen that you treated Chatham-Kent, with a population of 110,000, to $22 million. The recommendation for Ottawa-Carleton is in excess of $50 million. However, the recommendation for Hamilton is only a $10-million loan. That is not acceptable. That does not cover the cost. We estimate the cost, based on this formula and the formula you have used, to be in excess of $50 million.

Will you outline to us clearly today how you address that issue, and will you commit today that Hamilton-Wentworth will get every single cent it needs in regard to restructuring costs up to the $50-million formula that is in front of us?

Hon Mr Clement: I am detecting a trend in the questions, and I thank the honourable member for his commentary with respect to the special adviser's report for Hamilton-Wentworth. I'll certainly take his views under advisement.

We are always looking for ways to save the taxpayer money and to deliver better services for less. This is not only a challenge for us at the provincial level; it is a challenge that our municipal counterparts also have. We are looking at proposals that would deal with that, that would create a more efficient level of government, more transparency for the taxpayer and more accountability to the taxpayer.

It looks like at least this honourable member is on the same side, and I welcome his views to get to a better deal for the taxpayers. The policies he ran on in the election certainly did not guarantee that. Maybe he's had a change of heart since the election.

Mr Agostino: To the same minister: Let me tell you again that you will not get a commitment from this side of the House until we get a commitment from you that you will give money to Hamilton to the tune of $50 million to deal with restructuring.

I want to ask the minister about the betrayal of one of your members, the betrayal by the Premier of the member from Wentworth-Burlington. Yesterday we asked the finance minister in the House about comments made by the Premier reassuring the member, Mr Skarica, that he would not bring in one-tier enforced restructuring. The Minister of Finance said yesterday that he knew of no such commitment that had been made to him.

Let me tell you what the member from Stoney Creek says today. He said he was baffled by Eves's statement to the Legislature. He said Skarica personally assured him before the election that those assurances were from the Premier and the party. He also said it's possible that Eves does not know or he forgot. Could I ask you who is right? Is it Mr Eves, the Premier or Mr Skarica, or is Mr Clark wrong? Who committed to whom? Did the Premier commit to Mr Skarica that he would not bring in one tier in Hamilton-Wentworth?

The Speaker: Sorry, the member's time.

Hon Mr Clement: There were quite a few questions in that supplementary, so let me provide the House with this information. Certainly we are looking for ways to give the taxpayer a break. The one thing that I found quite curious in the honourable member's remarks was the fact that he was willing to oppose any proposal to give the taxpayer a break unless he got his way on another issue. I would think that his party would want to be the party of principle. Maybe I'm wrong on that as well; maybe they're taking a new tack-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take a seat. I cannot hear the minister's response. I need to hear the minister's response. The member for Windsor West, please come to order. Member for Hamilton East, please come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: We, on this side of the House, welcome support from the opposition when it comes to giving the taxpayers a break. I ask the honourable member this question: If he is in favour of doing so, why not support all of our initiatives in this regard? The finance minister has made it clear that this is our priority. We would love to have their support on this side of the House. For the taxpayers, we welcome it.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you're playing a callous game with the lives of cancer patients and their families. I've obtained confidential documents that show your ministry is asking Princess Margaret Hospital to put itself in a position of being sued. You're asking Princess Margaret to accept changes to the referral process and put patients on their list that don't have any hope of being treated within the four-week recommended time period.

You want to move people off the holding list and onto a list whose only purpose is to politically manage the waiting period and do absolutely nothing about reducing the waiting time. Your demands have forced the hospital to seek legal advice. I have obtained a copy of the legal opinion from Borden and Elliot, and it makes it clear that you are putting Princess Margaret in a position of being sued.

Minister, why are you forcing hospitals to bend over backwards to avoid lawsuits when the real issue is the lack of resources that you're prepared to put into reducing cancer waiting time?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member full well knows, we actually have invested over $155 million in cancer services since 1995. In fact, we were the ones who set up Cancer Care Ontario in order to ensure that all people throughout the province would have access to cancer services. We have also made a commitment, as the member understands and knows, to reduce the waiting time for cancer radiology patients. We also are expanding access to cancer facilities throughout Ontario.

We have announced that we will be building new facilities closer to home in the communities of Mississauga, Durham, Waterloo, St Catharines and Sault Ste Marie. We actually have taken significant steps and invested $155 million to do all we can for cancer patients.

Ms Lankin: Minister, what you're doing is asking Princess Margaret to join with you in a shell game. You're asking them to take patients off the holding list and to put them on their waiting list for treatment when they have no hope of being treated within the safe time frame. The hospital has got a legal opinion. It says they could be open to being sued for lack of duty of care.

Minister, you have created this situation. The hospital is about to send out a draft letter-they're considering it at the oncology committee meeting today-that will make clear to patients this waiting game of yours, and it will say, "Delays of this length are well beyond the recommended time frame after diagnosis."

They don't want to play this cynical, callous game of manipulation. They don't want to open themselves up to a lawsuit from patients who you are looking at manipulating, who you are looking at politically managing instead of treating.

Will you take responsibility for this and withdraw your request from Princess Margaret to play this political shell game?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Cancer Care Ontario, which was created in 1997 in order to ensure that all people in this province had equal access to cancer services is the agency that coordinates standards and guidelines for the treatment of patients requiring cancer services. I know that agency is doing all it can to ensure that high-quality services are provided to the people in this province.

As I said, we have invested an additional $155 million to respond to the needs of cancer patients.

Ms Lankin: Minister, don't try and push this off on someone else. Listen to this, please. Let me read this to you, very clearly:

"If the University Health Network were to accept the changes to the re-referral process requested by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, patients re-referred to the Princess Margaret Hospital would be registered on a list by the PMH at the PMH.... My concern is that such a patient may be led to believe that he or she is being attended to in a proper and timely fashion as he or she is in the care of Princess Margaret, a renowned cancer treatment centre."

It goes on to say they can't give that treatment in a timely fashion; they don't want to be part of your game to fool patients; they don't want to open up themselves to the risk of a lawsuit.

Take responsibility, please, today. Assure us that you will withdraw this request, these pressure tactics to manipulate patients, and just get on with addressing the real problem in terms of the waiting list.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member perhaps doesn't understand, but since December 1998, within the past year, we have provided an additional $5.8 million through Cancer Care Ontario to the University Health Network and to Princess Margaret Hospital for equipment upgrades, which I understand will result in the treatment of more than 700 patients.

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Deputy Premier, and it's a further question about his plans for tax subsidies for NHL hockey millionaires. You've refused public hearings on your property tax subsidy scheme for NHL hockey millionaires, and you've refused public hearings because you don't want people to know about this.

But my question today is about another scheme. The Ottawa Senators want you to classify them as a charity for the purpose of their home games so they won't have to pay entertainment tax of $3.5 million a year-a completely cynical scheme to declare them a charity so they could avoid paying a tax that every other entertainment provider pays.

Minister, tell us today that you will not get involved in this cynical tax subsidy scheme and that you will reject their request to be classified as a charity for the purposes of their home hockey games.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the leader of the third party will know that charities are registered and get their registration number from the federal government, not from the provincial government. So we don't have the power to do what he's suggesting even if we wanted to.

Second of all, there has been an issue, as he knows, in the media etc with respect to payment or non-payment of RST. I want to be perfectly clear. I think that every corporation that should pay entertainment tax, provincial sales tax, whatever, should meet their obligations and pay it. I'm not considering any exceptions to that rule.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you know very well that the owner of the Ottawa Senators has this cynical game in mind. You know very well that they've put forward a scheme to have their home 40 games treated as charity events. I would think, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, that in the interests of fairness you would want to step forward and say very clearly, very publicly, that Ontario is absolutely opposed to this.

At a time when we obviously don't have enough money for cancer patients, when you're promoting hallwAKZU6-RALSFitals, when you're thinking about taking more money out of schools, I would think you'd be on your feet saying that Ontario is not going to play any

part in this, that Ontario is absolutely opposed to it, and saying to the federal Liberals in Ottawa that they ought not to take any role in this too. Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I guess the member just can't take yes or, in this case, no for an answer. We are not considering making any changes as to who should pay entertainment tax, what is a charitable organization and what isn't in the province of Ontario. I just gave you the answer you wanted twice now.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. When the Provincial Auditor released his annual report two weeks ago, he confirmed that your government was risking public safety and costing taxpayers more in its relentless bid to privatize road maintenance work across the province. You responded unbelievably with the claim that the Provincial Auditor was wrong. Minister, I can assure you that the auditor is more than prepared to prove that he is right and you are terribly wrong when he appears before the public accounts committee, which will be investigating this important matter at its first opportunity.

But winter is already upon us. It hit northwestern Ontario last week, southern and southwestern Ontario yesterday and today. The need for public safety obligates you to guarantee that your determination to privatize this vital government service does not put people's lives in further peril on the road.

My question is, will you put aside your misguided disagreement with the auditor and impose a moratorium on any further privatizations of road maintenance for the sake of public safety?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): It's interesting. I think you should get your information from listening to answers in this House as opposed to reading the Toronto Star. There's no disagreement with the auditor. The fact is that safety is our number one priority and public safety has in no way been compromised. In point of fact, maintenance contracts specifically require adherence to traditional maintenance standards. These maintenance standards are monitored and there are significant penalties for any outside organization which does not adhere to them.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, I can assure you the auditor himself is very upset about you accusing him of being wrong and he looks forward to the opportunity. Yes, he is.

It's vital that you acknowledge that not only is your privatization of road maintenance not saving taxpayers any money but that it has put the public at risk. To make it worse, you have lowered your own ministry standards for maintenance in order to achieve those phantom savings. In other words, we have increased costs and less maintenance.

Just 10 days ago, municipal truck sanders from Schreiber and Terrace Bay in my riding were called out by emergency crews after a freezing rainstorm because your ministry crews didn't get there in time, which begs the question, do you even have the equipment you need to do the job, and why have the number of road closures increased since your standards were lowered?

The mayor of Terrace Bay, Mike King, expressed the feelings of many of us when he said last week, "I've lived here 25 years and I truly believe the frequency of road closures is a result of cutbacks and contracting out."

My question is, will you back off from this dangerous approach you're taking, or perhaps more to the point, in light of your wild sell-off of ministry equipment, can you?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Interesting question. The fact is the particular area that you're speaking about hasn't been given to the private sector. The fact is there has been no change to the safety standards or the maintenance standards and we strictly adhere to them.

The fact is that in this province we have snow, we have ice. It happens every year. Believe it or not, we had snow and we had ice when you were the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister take his seat. Order.

Minister.

Hon Mr Turnbull: The same maintenance standards apply as have always applied and they are strictly adhered to. It is important that everybody in this province take steps to get their automobiles ready for serious weather in the winter. We understand the importance of good roads in this province. That's why we're putting more money into our roads than you ever-

The Speaker: Order. New question.

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr David Young (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. The Toronto Star reported last Saturday, and again this day, that attendance is down at Ontario Place over the past year. Ontario Place, as you are well aware, has been an important part of Toronto's waterfront for the past 25 years, and the park, although it has continued to evolve over that period of time, has always been there as a constant for the people of Toronto, for the people of Ontario and for the many visitors from around the world who have come to our fair city. The Star suggests that the management of Ontario Place and the board are to blame for the drop in attendance.

My question to you is, do you agree? If so, what actions are you and your ministry going to take to correct this?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): First of all, I'd like to thank the member for his question and indicate that tourism and the number of tourists who have come to Ontario has increased in the last couple of years under the leadership of our government. However, tourism in the city of Toronto has actually declined, and this is a serious concern.

What the Toronto Star failed to report was that we've experienced declines at the CNE, at the Metro Zoo, at Ontario Place, at the ROM, virtually across the board in the city of Toronto. It has actually been a decline of about 17.5% over the last few years. On the one hand, it has increased for the province, but it has declined in Toronto.

The facts at Ontario Place are very clear, and this was not reported in the Toronto Star, and that is that in 1991-92 Ontario Place was given away to the citizens of Ontario with a free admission. The revenue was $13.4 million, but the grants from the subsidy from the province-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up.

Mr Young: While I'm sure that my constituents are pleased about the reduction in taxpayer dollars to subsidize Ontario Place-I am sure of that by reason of the fact that the people of Willowdale and the people of this province, both in June of 1995 and in June of this very year, sent a very clear message, a message that they wanted, they demanded that Queen's Park would eliminate subsidies where it was reasonable to do so and where there was an alternative form of funding.

Toronto, as you are well aware, is a world-class city in which there are hundreds of thousands of tourists that come each and every year. As a result of that, we have great revenue in our city and in our province. My question is, what steps are being taken to improve the sales and marketing of this city, not only Ontario Place but all the great attractions that we have here?

Hon Mr Jackson: Many of the attractions in Ontario are moving to a greater emphasis on marketing and sales promotion. In fact, the ROM has restructured in the last year. They've already seen some new attractions coming to the city of Toronto.

We know that Ontario Place-and I support the board in their decision to reorganize their senior management team, to bring in additional expertise in sales and marketing, which is what this attraction requires. We have a new private sector general manager coming into place by the end of this year.

These are all positive signals, and they complement the fact that this is the first government in Ontario's history that has dedicated $120 million solely to marketing tourism for the province of Ontario around the world.

We're seeing clear results; more tourists are coming to Ontario. We need to make sure that they also come to Toronto.

CONTAMINATED LANDFILL

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. My constituency has the province's only hazardous waste landfill site, the largest in Canada. It has been found to be leaking methane gas and water. The clay liner of this toxic dump, which was guaranteed to be impregnable, now has at least three areas that are leaking. This creates an even higher risk to groundwater contamination, to the health and safety of the people in my community.

We are talking about a hazardous, toxic site that has received an imported 386,493 tonnes of hazardous waste this year alone; almost 25,767 dump trucks worth. Minister, will you close this site and do a full environmental assessment on a site that is clearly out of control?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Thank you very much for the question. I want to assure the people who live near this landfill that we will take any action needed to ensure that the health and safety of their environment is protected.

When we found out about the situation the honourable member refers to, we immediately ordered the closure of the newly constructed sub-cell at the landfill, because there was methane gas and water seepage. We acted immediately on the methane gas and groundwater problem, and we made sure it was not affecting other areas of the landfill and that there were no impacts outside the facility. We are continuing to monitor the site to make sure that that's the case.

We are doing an investigation to see what the cause of the problem is and what remediation has to take place. I'd be happy to work with the honourable member to ensure the health and safety of the citizenry around that area.

Ms Di Cocco: Unfortunately I understand you only have a $1.25-million bond on that site if anything should happen. As well, in 1997 you fast-tracked the expansion to 300 acres, and Safety-Kleen, which is operating the site, bought another 1,000 acres.

So again, that liner leaks. I'm glad to hear you are trying to do something about it, but the standards are low, you have gutted the environment ministry, and the community and the residents fear for their health and safety.

Minister, it's like environmental genocide. Please shut it down and assess the situation.

Hon Mr Clement: I want to assure the honourable member that our top priority is the health and safety of the citizens around that area, and that will continue to be our top priority.

I can report to her that the honourable member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex has already talked to me about some of the issues that she has raised in question period. I would be happy to work with both him and her to deal with

some of the bond issues and other issues related to ensuring that remediation is the top priority.

Again, these sorts of things are not acceptable and we have to respond to them. That's part of our job as the Ministry of the Environment and the government of Ontario. My further commitment to her and to the honourable member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex is that we will work with the local members-I believe there is a community liaison committee-and keep them advised on all the work that is undertaken to correct the problem, because we all want to correct the problem as quickly as possible.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I recently read with great interest and concern that the number of teenage smokers is on the increase. Even the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health recently released a report that stated that the number of teenage smokers has increased to 28.3%, which is almost a third of their population. I have also read reports that tobacco companies have been allegedly targeting children as young as 11 years of age to start smoking.

Minister, this issue certainly should not be overlooked. We all know the devastating effects of tobacco smoke. Could you please tell us what our government is doing to address the issue of teen smoking?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We share the concern. We certainly are quite alarmed to see the incidence of substance abuse among young people in the province.

We have been providing funding to the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association over the past three years. I know they have developed programs that respond to the needs of students in grades 7, 8 and 9, to encourage them not to engage in substance abuse.

However, recently we have expanded funding for our tobacco strategy from $9 million to $19 million and are putting in place more programs which will specifically target teenagers. There will be public-awareness campaigns and programs in the schools that will focus on preventing smoking and encouraging those who are currently smoking to cease. We have a 1-800 number to encourage quitting smoking as well.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much for your response. It's very apropos today with several of our young people in the gallery to hear that message.

It is indeed important that we send a message to our youth that smoking is extremely harmful and that the negative effects can certainly last a lifetime. Lung disease, ranging from respiratory distress through to cancer, results from both primary and secondary smoke, and the costs to our health care system are absolutely unacceptable.

Minister, could you provide members of the House with an update on our government's tobacco strategy?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated in my first response, we have expanded the amount of money available to deal with the elimination of smoking. We have increased the funding from $9 million to $19 million, which is an over 100% increase. Our target group will be our teenagers in Ontario. We have a telephone line which will assist them. We are working with educators and community groups throughout Ontario to again raise public awareness. We also have a heart health program in place. We know we can decrease the incidence of heart disease and cancer if we encourage people to stop smoking.

We are doing everything we can. We are working with our provincial counterparts and the federal government to eliminate the use of tobacco in the province.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Labour, the minister designated to chop down Toronto city council to possibly as few as 22 members, who is going to ram it through before Christmas. I want to tell you, before the gobbledegook I'm going to get, that I know the game. It's not about saving pennies, because the Provincial Auditor already told you how you can save millions of bucks. This is about silencing Toronto city council, because they have been tough on you guys.

They've been tough on you guys as it relates to issues of homelessness, rent control, child care and public transit. So what have you done as part of the game? You're going to throw a little grenade. The grenade goes off and all these poor little city councillors are going to scamper about to protect their futures and not have enough time to worry about any of the other issues they have attacked you on for such a long time.

Have I got the game plan pretty well defined?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The question should be going to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as I understand it. Could you help me out here? Was it a labour question or municipal affairs and housing?

Interjections.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The honourable member has quite a fertile imagination. I congratulate him on-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You cannot-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question has to go to a minister with that responsibility. The standing orders are very clear. The question has to go to the minister responsible. The minister responsible is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon Mr Clement: Again let me congratulate the honourable member for the fertility of his imagination in terms of conspiracy theories. I'm sure the truth is out there somewhere.

I can assure the honourable member that, yes, we are always looking for ways to ensure that taxpayers throughout Ontario, indeed taxpayers in Toronto, get a break. They deserve a break, they deserve better government, they deserve more efficient government, and they deserve better services for less money. We are engaged in a process in which we are collecting information and opinions. I will take his opinions under advisement if he wishes to share them. Perhaps his caucus has a position on this issue that he would like to share with us.

Mr Marchese: I told this minister, and the other minister who I thought was designated to deal with this, that the Provincial Auditor has told them how they can save millions and millions of dollars. You have a number of ministers saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. Go to that report to save your millions.

In relation to this issue, this is what your predecessor, M. Gilchrist, said about this: "We gave the city the power to make those changes under Bill 103, and so it is quite appropriate for the councils themselves to be using the power if they see fit."

Councillors thought they had your blessing, or at least the other fellow's blessing, but I thought he was speaking for your government. All of a sudden, what I get from you is that yes, they have the power under Bill 103, but they're powerless to do anything. What you're telling me is that you can change, unilaterally, dictatorially, issues as they relate to schools and that you, unilaterally, in relation to this Toronto city council, can decide what is good for them, contrary to what your predecessor said.

Minister, I think I've got your game plan. You're throwing a grenade to keep these people busy so they don't attack you. You don't want the city councillors to attack you in your-

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up. Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm not quite sure I understand what the honourable member is talking about. There is no game here, there is a determination from this government to make sure that taxpayers get a break, and indeed I can tell you that Toronto taxpayers have done very well under this government and under the leadership of Mayor Lastman. They have a property tax freeze. Their property taxes in Toronto, on similar homes, are lower than in Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor, London or Mississauga.

They are getting a break, but we are always looking for ways to deliver better services for less. That's our obligation as a government. So if the honourable member has a solution that he would like to share with us, rather than in engaging in conspiracy theories, we're all ears because that's our mandate: Give the taxpayer a break, more jobs, more prosperity, more opportunity. That's hard work, but this government is up to it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Minister, today I want to ask you about the way you are cannibalizing the provinces' school boards, taking money away from some boards, taking some of it for tax cut purposes and giving some to other boards. Particularly, I want to address what you're doing to the Toronto Board of Education. Some $256 million has been taken out and it's already having a real effect because it comes on top of $100 million that your ministry has removed from the students in Toronto.

I know from past experience that big numbers sometimes cause you to get away from the subject, but let me just focus this for you. That $256 million translates into General Mercer Junior public school, where the principal, Debra Porter, says they're only able to get resources for one subject in the new elementary curriculum a year. Will you tell Debra Porter and her teachers that you are willing to take some responsibility, as the EIC said you should, for the lack of money in the Toronto school board?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): We've been very clear to all the school boards that we are funding in a much more equitable manner, so it's very fair to all of the boards in terms of what is paid for, how it is calculated.

We quite recognize that there are many boards that have unique circumstances; Toronto is certainly one. That's why they received $700 million more, on top of what they got before, to help with the transition, because we quite recognize they have unique challenges. The Education Improvement Commission was also very clear that the Toronto board has a task to do in terms of living within its budget, as we're asking all boards to do. It's a difficult challenge, no question, but it's a challenge that's no more difficult that anyone dealing with their household budget or their business budget.

We have to live within our budget. We're prepared to help the boards solve those challenges. We've been flexible in the past in terms of helping that board and I am sure if there are legitimate issues we'll work with the board to solve them in the future.

Mr Kennedy: You just said you'll do nothing for this board.

This school is struggling to try and provide for its kids. It had a new classroom and it could get no supplies for it. I have pictures here to show you that, five weeks into the school year, there were no supplies on the shelves for that classroom. None. The teacher, Mary Ann Fedchak, who has taught for 30 years, is so frustrated with your cuts, with the position that you have put the board in, with your lack of taking responsibility, which you are exhibiting already here today, that she' going to retire. She's going to get out early. A committed teacher is going to give up because of the conditions that you've created.

I wonder if you have something positive today to say to this school, to that principal and to that teacher who, in the face of your cuts and your failing of the children, is getting out?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Only a Liberal would think that $700 million is "doing nothing." Only the Liberal Party would think that.

We appreciate that managing any school board is not an easy task. That's why we have put forward the independent consultant to help the board, to work through the challenges, to find the savings that they've been asked to make, as all boards have been asked to live within their budget. I would also like to remind the honourable member that there are many figures that are being used by staff, there are projections, there are forecasts. We've been down this road before with this board, with all due respect.

The other change here that the honourable member seems to forget is that, while teachers in classrooms were sitting there with no textbooks, with no computers, taping things together, we had school boards with high-paid staff, with fountains in their foyers, with golf courses on their land ownership list. The priorities were all wrong. We are changing that so those dollars are in the classroom, where they should be, with those good teachers-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up.

ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

First, let me put for the record that I want to publicly thank you, Minister, for coming to Durham, for awarding the Ontario Summer Games to Durham and more recently, last week, bringing a fat cheque to help pay for it. I really commend you for that.

Often I've heard the debate that there is a discussion between the competitors, whether able-bodied or disabled. In my riding of Durham, I've personally met a number of able-bodied athletes and disabled athletes: people like Sommer West, Rob Snoek and Jim Shaw come to mind. I see them as real competitors, able or disabled.

I'm wondering what you can tell us today about integrating those two sets of athletes in this province.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I would like to thank the member for the question. I know of his commitment both to his community and of course to the athletes in the area of Durham.

I was pleased and thrilled to attend last week with my colleagues from the Durham area to talk about the summer games that will be happening in Durham. It's quite an unusual thing, because we have eight municipalities from the Durham region which are joining together to bring forward these games.

It's very important because, along with Sault Ste Marie, this will be the first and second time that disabled athletes and able-bodied athletes, if you will-we'll use those terms for this question-are able to come together and compete at the same time. This is a wonderful opportunity. We're really looking forward to these games. We know they're going to be very successful, and I know the region of Durham is going to do a tremendous job of putting these games on.

Mr O'Toole: I'm confident that Durham, with your support, will do an excellent job. Of course, Durham is very well represented, with two or three members in cabinet, so if they need help, they know where to come.

Seriously, Minister, I'm pleased to hear that you've made a real effort to embrace and increase inclusiveness and eliminate barriers for able-bodied and disabled athletes. Perhaps you can tell us something about the future, the successive games. Is this just one time or are you going to continue this policy into the future?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say, first of all, that there's no question that Durham is well represented by cabinet ministers, but it's also very well represented by Jerry Ouellette and John O'Toole, who have done a terrific job. We're very proud of all four members we have in Durham, and we're always grateful to the good people of Durham for continuing to re-elect Conservatives.

We are committed to an integration of the people with disabilities into games. We think it's important. I had some great opportunities this summer to see some disabled athletes, both in Kitchener and at the Mobility Cup. These people are amazing athletes in their own right, in any right that they can be judged in. It's important for us to continue to integrate the disabled people in the games. I know it's going to be very competitive. I know that a number of new competitors are very excited about the games. We're going to see a great show in August in Durham. I hope everybody in the House is going to be there.

HÔPITAL MONTFORT / MONTFORT HOSPITAL

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Tout le monde à la Chambre ici sait qu'une décision unanime historique a été rendue par trois juges de la cour divisionnaire de l'Ontario. Ces juges ont déterminé que la directive de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de réduire de manière substantielle les services de l'hôpital Montfort doit être renversée parce que cette directive n'a pas tenu compte des droits constitutionnels des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. Ma question s'adresse au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Le premier ministre vous a confié le dossier des Affaires francophones. Vous êtes le conseiller principal du gouvernement en matière des Affaires francophones. De plus, une de vos responsabilités consiste à favoriser le développement de la communauté francophone de l'Ontario. Ma question : je vous enjoins, en tant que responsable auprès du gouvernement pour la communauté francophone de cette province, à savoir si vous êtes prêt à dire aujourd'hui même à cette communauté que vous allez respecter, que vous allez défendre avec force, que vous êtes prêt aujourd'hui même à dire oui à la décision de la cour au sujet de Montfort.

L'hon John R. Baird (ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Je vais référer cette question à ma collègue la ministre de la Santé.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the member appreciates that this is a very complicated and very serious legal case. I understand that the named respondent in this case, the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is considering the decision. They must review this and respond to the court's decision, and I have been advised that the commission will be responding in the very near future.

M me Boyer : Je suis très désappointée que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones n'ait pas pu répondre à ma question. Je ne m'adressais pas à la ministre de la Santé mais bien au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Alors encore une fois, j'adresse ma question au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Pouvez-vous vous engager aujourd'hui à vous acquitter pleinement de vos responsabilités pour défendre avec force les droits constitutionnels de vos concitoyens francophones, premièrement devant vos collègues autour de la table des ministres et aussi à votre caucus ?

L'hon M. Baird : Je vais bien sûr, comme toujours, parler à mes collègues au Conseil des ministres et de mon caucus.

EXTENSION OF DRINKING HOURS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. New Year's Eve is a special time for all. It gives us an opportunity to share with our friends and family the memories of the year past and a chance to discuss the good times in the year to come. This year will be extra special as we begin the last year of this century.

In Perth-Middlesex, plans are already underway to celebrate the occasion in many different ways. Fireworks, street dances, plays and children's games are all available for those who wish to celebrate the year 2000 in a grand style. Licensed establishments will be offering a wide variety of talent as well as beverages for those who are inclined to dance the night away.

With only 31 days to go, my constituents are eager and anxious to begin celebrating. In light of the importance of this New Year's Eve, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations recently announced that licensed establishments in Ontario will be able to serve alcohol until 4 am on January 1, 2000. I'd like the minister to explain to the people of Ontario why he chose to-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's time is up. Minister.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I appreciate the question. We know that New Year's Eve this year is going to be a very special occasion. In the past, Ontario has recognized its special occasions by extending drinking hours. The tradition for the past few years of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission has been to extend the hours to 3 am.

Given the nature of this New Year's that's fast approaching, I asked the AGCO to consult widely to determine what consensus we might arrive at on a province-wide basis with respect to further extension of the drinking hours in the province. They talked to municipalities, policing organizations, organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the hospitality industry, and the consensus seemed to be that the responsible approach was in another extension, to 4 am.

Mr Johnson: I'm glad that we'll have more time for the events in my riding. I encourage everyone who doesn't have plans for this New Year's to join me in the riding of Perth-Middlesex for good times with good people, particularly at Al Jerky's and MoDean's in Listowel.

I know that some other Canadian provinces are extending their hours significantly beyond what we're doing in Ontario. For instance, in Newfoundland, bars will remain open for 42 consecutive hours. That would be Labrador as well. I'd like to know if the minister has considered a longer extension?

Hon Mr Runciman: They don't have much else to do in Newfoundland perhaps. I apologize if I offended anyone.

We did take a look at what was happening in other jurisdictions. By and large, most other Canadian jurisdictions are extending the hours to 3 am or 4 am, as Ontario is doing. Really, it reflects this government's concern surrounding public safety. We have discussed this with, as I indicated, the chiefs of police organization. We've had a very positive response from Chief Grant Waddell-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

LOTTERY AND CASINO CORPORATION OFFICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. It's about the lottery corporation. The people of Sault Ste Marie are beginning to notice that you continue to transfer executives of the lottery corporation from Sault Ste Marie to Toronto and that the OLC chairman and CEO, Mr Barbaro, is based in Toronto and that you've put the Roberta Bondar building up for sale, that you plan, in the red tape bill, to merge the lottery corporation and the casino corporation and that those two corporations are already sharing a single suite at 4120 Yonge Street in Toronto.

Can you put some of the fears of my constituents to rest? Can you demonstrate your government's confidence in the Soo? Can you show that when your officials say, "There is nothing to fear," we can in fact take their word? Will you give your word today for the record that if the red tape bill is passed and the lottery corporation and the casino corporation are merged into a new single entity, the headquarters will be in the Roberta Bondar building in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The only person I know who's fear-mongering on this whole issue is the member himself. He has been told numerous times. We've had to have press statements. There have been 524 new jobs created in Sault Ste Marie since the opening of the Sault Ste Marie charity casino. There have been 40 staff hired corporately for the charity casino and racetrack slot machines. He knows that we've done more for Sault Ste Marie than the past governments-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat. Order. Did the Chair of Management Board finish?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the member from Broadview-Greenwood, I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to withdraw the derogatory comments about the province of Newfoundland.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As I indicated, I will withdraw my remarks if they offend anyone.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions is over.

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have one that's been approved by the table, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas patients requiring eye care in Niagara are faced with a shortage of ophthalmologists and as a result, are compelled to wait several weeks to secure an appointment with an ophthalmologist;

"Whereas, while the shortage of ophthalmologists is in existence, the removal of the billing cap on these medical specialists provides a temporary but essential easing of the health care crisis;

"Whereas the solution of the Ontario Ministry of Health removing the exemptions of the billing cap and forcing patients from Niagara to travel along the very busy Queen Elizabeth Highway to receive treatment in Hamilton;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health remove the cap on billing for ophthalmologists in Niagara until such time as Niagara is no longer an underserviced area."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments in this particular petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions forwarded to me by Cathy Walker on behalf of the CAW. Cathy is the director of the health and safety department of CAW national office. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances (carcinogens);

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to these carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in work;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name.

MARRIAGE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and the legislatures, and not the unelected judiciary;

"Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada, in the M and H case, has rejected biology, tradition and societal norms to redefine the term `spouse' to include the non-procreative partnerships of homosexual couples, and has effectively granted these relationships `equivalent-to-married' status;

"Whereas the court's decision will devalue the institution of marriage, and it is the duty of the Legislature to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood, be preserved and protected;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking

section 33 of the charter (the `notwithstanding clause'), to preserve and protect the commonly understood, exclusive

definitions of `spouse,' `marriage' and `family' in all areas of provincial law."

I have signed this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have 812 names here on a petition to add to the over 1,000 that I presented last week.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government has gravely impacted the education of our students with special needs through the introduction of the special education funding formula and the subsequent freeze in funding;

"Whereas the children of Ontario, especially those requiring extra support, are being forced to accept lower levels of service while at the same time being expected to meet higher expectations by this government;

"Whereas each and every child deserves the right to learn to his/her potential;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Education and the Ontario Conservative government to make the necessary changes in the funding formula to see that every child has the support required to learn, especially our children with special needs. We petition the minister to listen to parents, teachers and school boards who have acted as strong advocates for these students."

I support this with my signature.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The government has recently increased the hunting and fishing licence fees in this province. A number of my constituents are very concerned about the fact that the special-purposes account is not being used in the manner that it should be.

I have petitions here from Thunder Bay, Dorion, Hurkett, Nipigon, Red Rock. They're very concerned and want to have the funds being properly used.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Black Sturgeon Road in the district of Thunder Bay is an important access road for fishing and hunting to area lakes and forests;

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is attempting to block access to this road by refusing to implement upgrades;

"Whereas a vast area will be rendered inaccessible unless the government maintains responsibility for this road;

"Whereas the government has recently increased fees for hunting and fishing and has considerable funds in its special purpose account;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to use funds from the Ministry of Natural Resources special purpose account to maintain the Black Sturgeon Road as an important access road to protect the rights and freedoms of fishers and hunters in the district of Thunder Bay."

I am very keen to have the government listen to this petition, and I am very proud to sign it as well.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition signed by many residents in the west end of Toronto against the closure of Toronto schools. It is addressed to the Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government's decision to slash education funding could lead to the closure of many neighbourhood schools, including one of the most community-oriented schools like F.H. Miller Junior School; and

"Whereas the present funding formula does not take into account the historic and cultural links schools have with their communities nor the special education pro grams that have developed as a direct need of our communities; and

"Whereas the prospect of closing neighbourhood community schools will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools; and

"Whereas F.H. Miller Junior School is a community school with many links to the immediate neighbourhood, such as the family centre, after-school programs, special programs from Parks and Recreation, and a heritage language program;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens, demand that the Harris government changes the funding formula to take into account historic, cultural and community links that F.H. Miller Junior School has established."

Since I am in total agreement with this petition, I am signing my name to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition that reads, as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Sarnia is witnessing many women developing mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of the asbestos brought home on their husbands' work clothing; and

"Whereas similar cases are occurring in other areas of the province;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to allow compensation for family members who develop occupational illness as a result of workplace toxins inadvertently brought home."

I respectfully add my name to the list of petitioners on this important matter.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Petitions continue to come in related to the inaccuracy and underfunding of the northern health travel grant. We are very close to 10,000 signatures. I am hoping the minister is listening and will do something about it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographic locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition against the hospital emergency departments closing. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the residents in the west end of Toronto no longer have emergency room service at the Humber River Regional Hospital, formerly known as Northwestern Hospital, Keele Street site; and

"Whereas the west end of Toronto is the hardest-hit area for emergency restrictions in all of Toronto; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and Minister of Health Elizabeth Witmer had promised changes to deliver a solution to the mess they initially created by closing hospitals; and

"Whereas it is not acceptable to Toronto residents that every one of the eight emergency room departments in the city's west end were closed on Monday, January 22, 1999;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on Premier Mike Harris and his government to immediately address the health care problems in the west end of Toronto by reopening the emergency room at the Northwestern hospital, now known as the Humber River Regional Hospital's Keele Street site, and increase the number of in-patient hospital beds and keep its promise for interim long-term-care beds."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to sign it as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, stamped by the table. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the northern travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside of their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographic locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with this petition for fairness.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation last week concerning the consultation process in regards to an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 24, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to implement the 1999 Budget and to make other amendments to various Acts in order to foster an environment for jobs, growth and prosperity in Ontario / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le budget de 1999 et à apporter d'autres modifications à diverses lois en vue de favoriser un climat propice à l'emploi, à la croissance et à la prospérité en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, November 29, 1999, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Skarica has moved second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to implement the 1999 Budget and to make other amendments to various Acts in order to foster an environment for jobs, growth and prosperity in Ontario.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1541 to 1546.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 32.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

Mr Skarica moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to implement the 1999 Budget and to make other amendments to various Acts in order to foster an environment for jobs, growth and prosperity in Ontario / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le budget de 1999 et à apporter d'autres modifications à diverses lois en vue de favoriser un climat propice à l'emploi, à la croissance et à la prospérité en Ontario.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth-Burlington): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to split this afternoon's time equally among the three caucuses.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Skarica: I am going to split my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

This is third reading of the bill to make amendments to various acts to foster an environment for jobs, growth and prosperity in Ontario. The key to the bill is to implement 30 more tax cuts in addition to the 69 we implemented in the four years prior to the last election.

It was interesting to note that the Liberals again, on second reading, all stood up and voted against tax cuts. As I indicated in the second reading debate, I don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that they passed the taxpayer protection act and agreed to that and joined our party in approving that legislation. They fully know that we campaigned on the tax cuts that are implemented in this bill. The public re-elected this government based on the commitments made in the Blueprint, which now appear in this budget plan and total 30 more tax cuts.

So even though they know these tax cuts are being implemented and even though they know they can't raise those taxes again, due to the taxpayer protection legislation-they voted for the taxpayer legislation knowing that these 30 tax cuts have been voted for by the public, yet they're opposing these tax cuts. So I have some trouble understanding the logic and consistency of their position.

As the Minister of Finance, Mr Eves, indicated today, we've had tremendous economic growth in Ontario in the last five years. In particular, since the Conservative government took over in 1995, we have created 615,000 jobs. The tax cuts started in 1996 and, as indicated in the Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, referred to by Minister of Finance Ernie Eves today, it's interesting to note the economic growth since the tax cuts started to be implemented. The rate of growth for the whole five-year period from 1990 to 1995 was 1.1%, virtually no growth at all. In fact, there was a loss of 10,000 jobs.

In 1995 this government took over and, pursuant to the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution, we started to implement the tax cuts in 1996. At first there was a minimal impact of 1.6% economic growth in 1996. But then more tax cuts started to be implemented, and as the tax cuts started to accelerate so did economic growth. In 1997, after the first few instalments of tax cuts, we had economic growth of 4.8%. So compare 4.8% economic growth in 1997 with 1.6% the prior year and 1.1% for the whole five-year period under the NDP government.

I remember being in the Legislature in 1997, and basically the view of the opposition was: "We don't really have an explanation. It's exports, it's the low Canadian dollar." However, in 1998 economic growth was again very high, much higher than in the five years from 1990. It was at 4.2%. What was significant about 1998 is that we had the greatest job growth in the history of this country. Over 200,000 jobs were created in 1998, the most in history, and what was also significant about 1998 was that there was virtually an economic boom in Ontario. We hadn't seen that for six or seven years.

The opposition really didn't have an explanation for that. Their mantra at that time was, "Well, you have to borrow to pay for the tax cuts." I heard that many times. The member for St Catharines basically said that daily.

But the truth of the matter is that we didn't have to borrow a nickel for the tax cuts, because as our economy was growing, as we created 200,000 jobs, as people were coming off welfare rolls in the hundreds of thousands, there was a lot more inflow of revenue to the government. The net effect was that revenues were not going down but were increasing even though the rate of taxes was decreasing, and that was purely and simply because there was an economic stimulus.

In any event, after that record economic growth in 1998-more job creation in the history of this country-Ontario moved in 1999. It would be pretty tough to duplicate those kinds of results-4.8% in 1997, 4.2% in 1998. In fact, the forecast from all the economists as we moved into 1999 was that it was really going to be tough to keep up that tremendous rate of growth, and they projected 3.7%. Even at 3.7% the TD Bank was indicating that Ontario had the strongest economy in Canada.

We were growing at a rate faster than any province. We were growing at a rate faster than the United States on the whole. We were growing at a rate faster than our competitors on the Great Lakes. In fact, we were creating jobs at a faster rate than any other country in the G7. So we were having tremendous economic growth, and the TD Bank projected that it would be hard to duplicate it. But they still felt the economy was strong and with the stimulus of tax cuts and the strong American economy-there's no doubt about it; unfortunately our dollar is weak compared to the American dollar, and that gave us a competitive advantage.

It didn't give just Ontario a competitive advantage. It gave all the provinces a competitive advantage over the American states and a lot of other countries. But it was in Ontario that most of the economic growth was taking place. Almost half the economic growth in Canada was happening in Ontario. If you look at some of the other provinces, there were some economic disasters.

If I was going to look for an economic disaster in Canada, the first question I would ask is, "Where is there an NDP government?" Well, there's an NDP government in British Columbia, and what have you got? Another economic disaster. They will tell you that there was an Asian crisis.

Interjections.

Mr Skarica: Yes, there was an Asian crisis. But the Asian crisis basically affected the west coast of the United States, and they didn't have the economic disaster there was in British Columbia.

So what you have is record economic growth in Ontario, far outstripping the other provinces, basically outstripping the G7, and there has to be a reason for that.

In any event, with all that background, the forecast was that the economy would still be growing strongly, and the economists figured we would have economic growth of 3.7%, which still would be pretty strong-stronger than the rest of Canada and stronger than the G7. But what do we actually have? It looks like we're going to have 5% growth in 1999. On a percentage basis we're having the strongest growth in 1999 that we've had in this decade, and that's after record growth in 1998 and record job creation growth of over 200,000 jobs.

How are we doing in job creation in 1999? According to the Ontario Economic Outlook, on page 16, 177,000 net new jobs have been created so far in 1999 compared to the same period in 1998, and we still have a couple of months left. So in 1998 we had record job creation, and it looks like we're on pace to do it again.

The only real question in the 1990s is: What's the year that's going to have the most job growth, 1998 or 1999? I think that's a pretty good question for Ontario to have to consider.

Where have all the jobs been created? In second reading I heard the debate and some of the Liberal backbenchers were indicating, "Well, you know, these are McJobs, they're part-time jobs." That's not what the economic statement is indicating. They say the jobs created in 1990 have been full-time jobs. Another one of the backbenchers in the Liberal caucus said, "Part-time jobs; there are a lot of part-time jobs," but in fact in 1990 they have been full-time jobs, almost at a record level, 177,000 at this point.

Where did they come from? Manufacturing has added 55,000 net new jobs. Other leading sources of job growth include: retail and wholesale trade, 34,000 jobs; professional, scientific and technical services, 29,000 jobs; financial, insurance, real estate and leasing industries, 21,000 jobs; construction, 20,000 jobs; and restructuring, zero jobs, to answer the question from one of the members opposite.

What has happened to the unemployment rate is that in fact it continues to plummet. When the government took office, the unemployment rate was 8.9%, a very significant sum, a very significant percentage, and far in excess of what was happening in the United States. The unemployment rate in the United States has continued to diminish to the point now where it's between 3% and 4%, and that's basically full employment, given the non-accelerating rate of inflation. Ontario now is following that lead. We're down to 6% in October 1999, an almost 3% drop since we took office. That's in four years. That's a pretty incredible statistic.

One of the other problems when we first took office was that whatever job growth had taken place, young people were missing out. In fact that picture is now changing as well. Even in February 1997, when the economy was finally starting to take off, we still had very high youth unemployment. In February 1997, there was a youth unemployment rate of 18%, but now that has dipped significantly to the point where, in October 1999, it's 12.7%, which is a drop of a full six percentage points.

What's happening with the economic recovery-even the Toronto Star now indicates that Ontario is booming-is that there has been growth in sectors throughout the economy and a lot of people are benefiting. The youth sector, which did not benefit from what happened in our economy in the 1990s and had a very high unemployment rate of almost 20%, which is almost Third World figures, that rate has now been reduced dramatically. In 1999, youth averaged 50,000 more jobs than in the previous year, and 1998 was the year that had the strongest and fastest job growth in 20 years, I understand.

What ha