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

May 7, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L009 - Thu 7 May 1998 / Jeu 7 Mai 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

TAXATION

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

TAXATION

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

TAXATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD FIND

LANDS FOR LIFE

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

TOURISM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PRINCIPAL FOR A DAY PROGRAM

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

WOMEN'S INTERVAL HOME

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SMALL BUSINESS AND CHARITIES PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES PETITES ENTREPRISES ET DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

PRIVATE MEMBERS'PUBLIC BUSINESS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FIREFIGHTING IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

FERRY SERVICES

CHILD CARE

HOME CARE

PART-TIME STUDENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

DEPUTY SPEAKER'S BIRTHDAY

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL SAFETY

EDUCATIONAL REFORM

YOUNG OFFENDERS

BEAR HUNTING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM

CONTROL OF SMOKING

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1998 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 0959.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

Mr Guzzo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide Savings to Taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton Region / Projet de loi 9, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités afin de faire réaliser des économies fiscales aux contribuables de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to rise today to move second reading of this piece of legislation. It's a matter I have had considerable time to deal with over the past number of years. I go back to my first days on regional council in 1969 when the regional form of government was imposed by Queen's Park. We knew then we had too many municipalities in the 12 in number that were imposed. We knew also that we were dealing with too large an area in Ottawa-Carleton.

However, as time progressed and the consensus around the council table in the 1970s was reached, I can recall some discussions with then Chairman Denis Coolican of the regional municipality, Reeve MacQuarrie of Gloucester, Reeve Haydon in Nepean, Deputy Reeve Carmen there. Most particularly, I remember the wisdom, the foresight and the leadership of the then mayor of Eastview.

The issues were, how were we going to take services across the greenbelt? How were we going to pay for these services as they crossed the greenbelt that the federal government and the National Capital Commission had imposed on the Ottawa-Carleton area? The answer was a form of regional government where the infrastructure and the assets of the city of Ottawa would be used to finance the development of services, be it rapid transit or sewer and water, to places such as Orleans, east Gloucester, south Gloucester, south Nepean, Barrhaven and Kanata in the west.

In the summer of 1973, I particularly remember a very, very dry summer, no watering of lawns for a period of four or five weeks, and the 400 or 500 homes that were in Barrhaven at the time were serviced by artesian wells. Had we been faced with a fire, we were told the entire area might have been completely eliminated. In those days, 80 cents of every dollar spent at the region came from the city of Ottawa.

In 1973, I particularly remember representing an inner part of the city when I was first elected. It was a very difficult sell to justify 80-cent dollars being used to finance the growth outside the region. But if it was a tough sell for me in Ottawa South and the Glebe, let me tell you that the mayor of Eastview had a tougher sell. If there is an argument in Ottawa-Carleton for a distinct society that shouldn't be touched, I suppose Eastview, which is now Vanier, is it because that mayor, who is now the member for Ottawa East, was the person who changed the name, had a vision and a regional responsibility, and he carried it out with leadership and with scope.

I don't know what happened to him when he became a member of the cabinet of the Peterson government. I remember the joy that we felt in Ottawa-Carleton thinking that with him as Minister of Municipal Affairs something would happened. Well, he commissioned a report; you know, get a university professor in the summer to do a report. That solves all the problems. I don't know what happened to a lot of people in that Peterson cabinet. I have to be honest.

Mr Peterson was a member who was called to the bar in 1969, and the class of 1969 was an exceptional class, a bumper crop. Mr Chiarelli, the new regional chair, was from that class. The late Larry Grossman was my seatmate not just at Osgoode Hall but at Woodbine. Mr Justice Archie Campbell, who did the excellent report on police services as a result of the Bernardo affair, was a classmate, as was Mr Justice Dean Hamlyn of the federal court.

I think of that because I look at that leadership race of the opposition that recently produced a leader from Ottawa and I notice that not one of the first four finishers in that race served under Mr Peterson. I think there's a strong message there, but I digress.

Today we still have in Ottawa-Carleton 12 city halls, 12 city clerks, 12 planning departments, as we had in 1969. But today we have 100% agreement, resolutions from every council moving ahead with a proposal not for one city, not for three cities, but to move ahead and get away from 12 to some reasonable, realistic number.

Each council adopted a date of November 12 - the same day that's contained in my bill - on which, if an agreement had not been reached locally, to call upon the minister to move forward with some leadership and some foresight for this area and have a commissioner come in and resolve the matter on behalf of the citizens who are paying the freight for the waste and duplication that is present in Ottawa-Carleton today.

I want you to know that citizens' panel, which was disbanded recently, was made up of some of the finest citizens in the Ottawa area - Grete Hale, a business leader; Marianne Wilkieson, the former mayor of Kanata; Arnold Faintuck, the former director of planning at the city of Ottawa - selected by a committee headed by a former Governor General and a former federal court justice.

Why that agency is disbanded today - they would tell you that they were sabotaged. The argument comes forward that there's no time for public participation with the time frames within this bill that I present today, but I suggest to you that there is still plenty of time if there's leadership. I have to say with a great deal of satisfaction that Mayor Watson in the city of Ottawa, Mayor Coburn in Cumberland and the new regional chair are providing exactly that leadership and exactly the foresight and the vision that the mayor of Eastview provided to the regional council on which I had the privilege to serve.

I don't know why that citizens' panel disbanded, I don't know whether it was sabotage, but I do know this: There was tremendous concern through the region because it was becoming apparent that this panel was going to succeed. This panel was going to accomplish what had not been accomplished over the past 25 years. We were no longer going to have 84 municipal politicians representing 750,000 people in the Ottawa-Carleton area. We probably have something like 16 or 20, more akin to what Calgary has, serving around 700,000 to 800,000 people there. Of course Calgary doesn't have the benefit or the burden, if you will, of the National Capital Commission.

Under the regional form of government, the argument that I've heard with regard to the French language is countered by the fact of what has happened in the regional municipality over the past 29 years. I know the satisfaction that the then mayor of Eastview had in protecting those services and the services in the French language pursuant to the legislation that this government and the past two governments have had in place.

I can't explain to you why in the hospital structure that act cannot protect the same people for the same reason, but it seems that it's time we have a new system. There's $750,000 being expended to change the system, but I don't worry about that under this or any mode of governance that comes forward. I know the people will provide that service and I know they will be faithful to the commitment of the legislation that's there. I also know that there won't be a sheep doctor in charge of implementing any changes that come forward in here as we have in the hospital restructuring commission, so I feel confident.

I also feel confident that if it is necessary, and I hope it isn't, to move forward with a commissioner in the month of November of this year, a commissioner will be selected from the Ottawa-Carleton area and that the wisdom of some other city may not have to come and impose a position. I have suggested in the past a number of possibilities and a number of people who could serve that function and serve it well.

I suggest also that in the next five months there is plenty of time for public participation. We're not going to have what we would have had if the citizens' panel had been allowed to complete its task, and I regret that very much. But there's no reason why all public participation that is required - we've had 25 years of it since the mayor of Eastview, the now member for Ottawa East, and I first negotiated this at the council table of the regional municipality. I don't think we need another 25 years. I really don't think we need very much additional time.

I think the commissioner should be responsible and directed by the minister to provide sufficient time for public participation in the period that he or she or they will be in a position to assess the positions of the various divisions within the RMOC.

I thank you for the opportunity of making the comments.

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : La question de la restructuration et de la fusion des municipalités suscite de nombreuses controverses. Que ce soit en Ontario ou dans d'autres provinces, dès qu'on entend passer de la parole aux actes, on assiste à une levée de boucliers de la part de ceux qui s'inquiètent qu'ils seront perdants dans l'opération.

Permettez-moi de me placer au-dessus de la mêlée. Mon devoir est de défendre les intérêts de mes électeurs de Carleton-Est. Mais l'enjeu dépasse les limites de mon comté et la décision qui sera prise va affecter tous les gens d'Ottawa-Carleton pour de longues années à venir. En fait, c'est de l'avenir de 800 000 personnes dont il est question.

La question de savoir si on doit supprimer le gouvernement régional, c'est-à-dire la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton, et la remplacer par 11 supermunicipalités, a fait l'objet de longs et âpres débats. Encore aujourd'hui il y a toujours deux groupes qui s'opposent et qui défendent mordicus l'une ou l'autre thèse. Malheureusement, aucun des deux groupes ne donne l'impression qu'ils en arriveront à un compromis dans un avenir prochain.

Pourtant, ce n'est pas faute d'efforts. Il y a eu des consultations publiques organisées dans le seul but d'écouter la population. Il y a eu la création d'un comité de citoyens chargé de consulter la population, et ce comité devait émettre des recommandations. On a appris récemment que ce comité s'était sabordé. Enfin, il y a eu des annonces de projets de fusion de municipalités. Mais malheureusement, il ne semble pas qu'il y ait de suite à ces annonces.

Toutes ces initiatives, toutes ces énergies dépensées à faire valoir une position par rapport à une autre n'ont pas éclairé les enjeux.

J'en arrive à la conclusion qu'il y a eu de nombreux efforts pour consulter la population et que la population semble nous indiquer, à nous les élus, qu'il est temps de prendre une décision. Le projet de loi 9 invite la MROC à présenter une proposition de restructuration d'ici le 12 novembre 1998. J'y vois trois avantages.

Premièrement, les élus et les citoyens détiennent toujours l'initiative car c'est à la communauté d'Ottawa-Carleton qu'il revient de proposer un projet de restructuration. Si nous persistons à nous enliser dans des débats stériles, nous allons abuser de la patience de la population, et le gouvernement provincial nous imposera sa décision. Donc, je préfère le projet de loi 9, même s'il n'est pas parfait et même s'il ne fait pas l'unanimité à une décision imposée par le gouvernement provincial.

Deuxièmement, on met fin aux débats stériles et aux chicanes qui s'enveniment et deviennent des querelles de personnalités. Puisqu'il n'y a pas de place pour le compromis, il faut trancher. Enfin, nous allons consacrer nos énergies à bâtir l'avenir.

Pour conclure, je suis disposé à accorder mon appui au projet de loi 9, mais mon appui est assorti de deux conditions. Tout d'abord, les droits des Franco-Ontariens doivent être inclus dans le transfert de responsabilités aux municipalités. Le gouvernement provincial pourrait enchâsser ces droits par une nouvelle loi, puisque la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités. La MROC, pour sa part, pourrait s'engager à modifier sa charte et y ajouter le droit des Franco-Ontariens à être servis en leur langue.

Ensuite, si le gouvernement provincial devait intervenir, par le biais d'un commissaire nommé par lui, je demande qu'un processus soit prévu afin que la population soit consultée avant qu'une décision finale soit prise.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): It's somewhat unusual for a member of cabinet to speak on a bill, but I thought that in this case, because I have represented five of the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area for some long period of time, I should bring some thoughts to this debate.

I'll say at the outset that we have talked about restructuring in the Ottawa area for a long period of time. There has indeed been some restructuring; that took place a long time ago. In the 1970s we had a significant restructuring within the Ottawa-Carleton area, particularly with the rural municipalities where we saw in the now-township of West Carleton the coming together of three municipalities to make one of the largest land area municipalities in all of Ontario. We also saw some amalgamation in the now-township of Rideau between the old township of North Gower and the township of Marlborough into the new township of Rideau.

We went through some amalgamations, some creations in 1978. I was proud to be at the forefront of the creation of the city of Kanata at that time when I first sat here in this Legislature. I met with many of the mayors, not only of the areas I have the privilege of representing, but of some of the other areas as well.

As you may remember, in the early 1990s the former NDP government brought forward a restructuring of responsibilities between local municipal government and regional government. After that occurred, many of the leaders of the local municipal government felt it was no longer tenable to retain the status quo with regard to the existing 11 municipalities plus the one regional government. I said to them at that time that if they wanted restructuring, fine, they should then go out and consult with the public, find a local solution and we would be happy to put it in place.

They all assured me at that time - I'm talking prior to the last municipal elections - that was the will of their councils, and off on to the consultation route they went. As the consultations took place, as they went down a road, they came to us and said, "Please put us under a final, binding solution." We did not do that, we did not, as a government, choose to put regional government in that particular position.

I had always held out the prospect of this being done by each region on a request to the Legislature. I think that would make sense. I think our government - and I have taken the position - wants to see a locally driven solution. I know feelings run high on the various kinds of restructuring that could take place. I am, however, hopeful that a local solution can be found which will be acceptable to most of the partners involved in this debate.

I also want to say that while Mr Guzzo's bill has specific dates, like November 12, as a date upon on which an end to a certain part of the process would come, I would perhaps be more flexible and suggest that if those members, as I will, support this bill, we refer it to a committee and have the opportunity for local input from our local mayors, our regional councillors, our local leaders who might want to alter the process outlined in Mr Guzzo's bill.

But I do believe that the basic thrust of Mr Guzzo's bill is solid and right. I think the people of Ottawa-Carleton are sick and tired of this issue. They have heard enough. They want a solution. They want to drive a solution. If, in fact, the leaders of our local governments cannot come to a committee, cannot come to a consensus, then we should kill this issue and forget about restructuring for a period of time, because we should either have it or not have it. We do not want it to be driven from this place, I think all parties would agree with that, but we cannot subject the people of Ottawa-Carleton to a continuing debate which will never end.

That would be my preference with regard to this bill. I will support this bill because it will in fact, in my view, give an end to a process which has been far too long and far too inconclusive.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I am pleased to join other members from Ottawa-Carleton in speaking to and supporting the member for Ottawa-Rideau's bill to facilitate municipal restructuring in Ottawa-Carleton. It is an important part of a process that all municipal governments in Ottawa-Carleton agreed to last year in order to bring about more efficient government to ratepayers in my community. It is a process I am all too familiar with as less than a year ago I was a member of regional council in Ottawa-Carleton and a participant in the effort of reform.

I represent the riding of Ottawa West in Ottawa-Carleton, a community of over 750,000 people, the most over-governed region in Canada, with 84 elected politicians from 11 municipalities and a regional council, plus the National Capital Commission, a provincial government and a federal government.

Municipal reform in Ottawa-Carleton, I can tell you, has been a long and constant issue. As a matter of fact, the establishing of the region in 1965 was the result of a petition by 17 municipalities in Carleton county unanimously asking the government of the day to review their system of municipal governance. However, since that time we have seen the Mayo commission in 1976, the Bartlett commission in 1988, the Graham commission in 1990 and the Kirby commission in 1992, giving us today a directly elected regional council and 11 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. Change, as you can see, clearly has been slow and painful.

In 1994, I attended the Association of Municipalities of Ontario annual conference and heard the then leader of the third party, Mike Harris, stun delegates with his announcement that his party would reduce the number of municipalities in Ontario by one third to eliminate waste and duplication. In 1995, he won the election and began implementing his agenda. First, grants to municipalities were cut and then legislation, the infamous Bill 26, was introduced to permit provincially appointed commissioners to restructure municipalities.

In 1996, the government appointed the Who Does What panel to examine provincial and municipal responsibilities. The municipal affairs minister, Al Leach, told AMO delegates that year that municipalities should start restructuring themselves or else it would be done to them.

Then early in 1997 the famous mega-week announcements occurred where the Harris government downloaded over $3 billion worth of services to municipalities, including new responsibilities in social assistance and social housing, in exchange for the government assuming education funding from property taxes. Unfortunately, it's not a revenue-neutral exercise. In Ottawa-Carleton, property taxpayers went on the hook for over $200 million in additional services at a net cost of some $50 million.

As a result, over the past two years municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton have been exploring various restructuring models. The city of Ottawa made proposals, the 10 other mayors made proposals, regional council made theirs, and the cities of Kanata and Nepean began merger discussions, as did the city of Gloucester and the township of Cumberland. They began merger discussions.

To facilitate a common approach, the government appointed Gardner Church as a provincial mediator, but it was difficult to achieve consensus other than that change was necessary. Then in March 1997, a colleague of mine at regional council, Brian McGarry, proposed that all municipal and regional councils agree to the establishment of an unbiased citizens' panel to develop and examine governance models. If a model could achieve triple majority support, ie, a majority of local councils representing a majority of the population plus a majority of regional council, reform would be implemented.

However, if the process was not successful, then the government would appoint a provincial commissioner to determine the shape of municipal governance in Ottawa-Carleton.

This proposal, by motion, was accepted at each of the 11 municipal councils in Ottawa-Carleton: by Cumberland, by Gloucester, by Goulbourn, by Kanata, by Nepean, by Osgoode, by Ottawa, by Rideau, by Rockcliffe Park, by Vanier, by West Carleton and by regional council, and was endorsed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

To complete the agreement, however, we needed to have an amendment to the Municipal Act because the Municipal Act doesn't cover regions in its restructuring provisions. As a result, the member for Ottawa-Rideau introduced Bill 141 last June 1997, which had the complete support of the municipalities. Unfortunately, as we know, this bill died on the order paper with the prorogation of the Legislature last December. Now it appears before us today as Bill 9.

Unfortunately in the interim the citizens' panel has collapsed, leading to some scrambling by the municipalities to re-establish a new mechanism to develop a made-in-Ottawa-Carleton solution. According to the time lines agreed to as part of the McGarry initiative, agreed to by the municipalities, the municipalities have until November 1998 to develop a solution, which this bill today recognizes and accommodates.

I am, for one, hopeful that a made-in-Ottawa-Carlton solution is still possible, as all the parties in this process - the municipalities, the region and ratepayers themselves - realize that the status quo is not an option. We can no longer afford 11 city halls plus a regional centre with 12 clerks' departments, 12 planning departments, 12 legal departments etc. The cost of provincial downloading has made this doubly imperative.

What will the solution be? I cannot say. Some, I know, advocate for a single city while others call for a more evolutionary model of three or five cities with a regional government. However, I can tell you that when it comes to the imposition of a provincial commissioner to settle the issue, as the municipalities have agreed to, I will be looking for changes to ensure that the public will be able to participate in the model selection process and that there is accountability.

All too often we have seen the province's hired gun ride into town, walk all over local identities and years of tradition and ride away, leaving others to clean up the mess. We will be offering amendments to give direction to the commissioner to investigate, consult and develop models of municipal governance that will be taken to the electorate by way of plebiscite to judge, leading in turn to a recommendation by the commissioner to cabinet, which will then be able to decide and be held accountable for that decision.

Today, this bill is part of a process that admittedly has its political difficulties. However, the public demands change, and this government's downloading initiatives, for good or ill, have made change necessary.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Guzzo: Let me just make a couple of points -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you stop the clock, because the government members are going to lose time here.

Normally it's a tradition in private members' hour that the person who is moving the bill has the first part of the speech and wraps up at the end. The rest of the time is given to members of their own caucus. You are going back to the member for Ottawa-Rideau and it seems to me it should be one of the other members. He'll wrap up at the end.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order. When I looked up I saw they were both - in this case, in deference to the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I am going to be recognizing the member for Nepean. That's the advice I've been given. The Chair recognizes the member for Nepean.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to reset the clock to nine minutes and 45 seconds, where it was at the outset of these remarks.

The Acting Speaker: This order of business will be over at 11 o'clock regardless.

Mr Baird: Can I ask for unanimous consent that the clock be reset at nine minutes and 45 seconds?

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Baird: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Let me say at the outset of my remarks that I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, but on this issue we just have an honest difference of opinion. Let me also add my thanks to my colleague Al Leach and his political staff for their open-door policy and for always soliciting the input of my constituents. That's something I greatly appreciate.

Change is always difficult. It's never easy. There are no areas more so than the issues of governance and community. This is especially the case in my home region. There is a consensus in Ottawa-Carleton that we can find a better, more efficient form of government, but there is no agreement on what form that should take. It has been debated, it has been discussed, but this discussion has been by and large one with élites: by the crowd at the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, by those in the media at the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun, and by local politicians. They see this issue as an urgent priority.

The people in my riding of Nepean by and large haven't said this is a priority. Their priorities and concerns are the economy and jobs. They're concerned about whether our health care system will be there for their elderly parents when they need it; they're concerned about the quality of their children's education; and they're concerned about their ability to feel safe and secure in their own homes.

The average person whom I am privileged to represent is not up at night losing sleep over this issue; they're too busy working hard and raising their families. But they do care. In Nepean, people care that our city has been able to cut taxes for the last two years and that they've been able to freeze taxes for more than five years. They care that their taxes have been kept below the rate of inflation for more than 20 straight years. That taxes have been kept below the rate of inflation is something that people in Nepean take ownership in.

People in Nepean believe that you don't borrow money on the backs of the next generation to live beyond your means today. For that reason, all Nepean residents take great pride in being able to live in a debt-free municipality, pride because, as a community, we've collectively insisted upon it for more than a generation now.

Our local government rolls out the red carpet to investment and to jobs. The high-tech sector in the west end of the region, centred in Nepean, has flourished and grown over the past 30 years, I think in part because Nepean has had a pro-job-creation stance. That sector could have just as easily chosen the east end more than 30 or 35 years ago when they began setting up, but they chose the west end for a reason: because Nepean and the west-end suburbs have been pro job creation and pro economic development. We have benefited from that.

This bill could set aside those accomplishments. It would ask us to pick up the tab for decades of profligate high spending in the neighbouring municipality of Ottawa. The city of Ottawa is drowning in a sea of debt and wants Nepean taxpayers to belly up to the bar and clear the tab by taking on their debt. To my good friends the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, and Deputy Mayor Allan Higdon, who have begun to finally clean up this mess in this year's budget, I say, no way.

Bill 26, passed by this Legislature more than 18 months ago, enabled local county governments to restructure. But let's be very clear at the outset of this debate so there is no disagreement of opinion, so it's on the table: This bill goes much further than Bill 26.

I have letters here from the mayor of Kanata, Merle Nicholds, opposing the bill. She says that if Bill 26 powers were brought in and extended to Ottawa-Carleton, she would support them, but she believes this bill goes much further.

I have a letter I received just this morning from Janet Stavinga, the mayor of Goulbourn, the largest rural municipality, which believes that this bill goes far beyond what was passed in their resolution last year.

The mayor of Gloucester says the same thing. The mayor of Gloucester - a debt-free municipality - Claudette Cain, who has cut taxes this year, who cut taxes by 5% last year, is concerned about the effect it has on her residents.

Finally, I have a letter from the acting mayor of Nepean, Rick Chiarelli, who indeed echoes the concerns and objections of Nepean to this piece of legislation.

All these mayors have clearly said that they don't want this bill and they want it defeated, because they too believe it is wrong.

Bill 26 says that if you want to restructure, you can restructure; that Bill 26 would give you the tools to do the job; that Bill 26 would allow local municipalities to restructure locally, and it would give a whole series of tools for them to do it.

But make no mistake about it, this bill goes much further. It says that you will restructure and that you will restructure quickly, all in the belief that the mass public has somehow been engaged in the process, that the average citizen has somehow called a legislative 911 demanding immediate action. This has not happened. When it does happen, according to this bill, we will have dissolved our authority as legislators without the requisite safeguards: no taxpayer protection for Nepean residents, who very likely would pick up the tab for Ottawa's debt and high taxes; no protection for our rural townships that would allow them to opt out.

Let me emphasize that point. Nothing in this legislation would allow the townships of Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn and West Carleton to opt out of any forced restructuring - nothing. There are no safeguards on labour transition issues or on issues affecting language, no safeguards to ensure that big-spending politicians from Ottawa won't take advantage of the opportunity to engage in an orgy of new spending.

While some in my riding may very well support this bill, I believe the vast majority of people do not support it, nor would they be comfortable nor satisfied with the outcome that would likely result from this bill. As their representative in this Legislative Assembly, it is my responsibility to be that voice.

I want to be very clear. On this issue, it's very easy because I personally and passionately agree with my constituents on this important issue. People in Nepean aren't prepared to pay off Ottawa's massive debt and to pay the highest property taxes in Canada. I disagree with this bill. I think it's the wrong way to go. I do not support it and I will vote against it.

Mr Guzzo: Let me just say that I did have a couple of minutes to finish my initial address and my agreement was that there would be five minutes allowed for the member for Nepean, notwithstanding the fact that he never requested same, he never asked for same, but he sent somebody as his ambassador - I had agreed to it.

I have to question why the change in procedure today. Under the rules, I was recognized and I have to question why it changed. It seems to me we have a change in the procedures around here whenever it's convenient and I vehemently oppose it.

In the last minute available to me, let me make one point. My bill at no time recommends a preferred mode of governance. I am not asking for one city. Most of the criticism that has come forward has been against the fear of a one-city structure. I violently disagree with the submissions made by the member for Nepean with regard to the non-ability of the agricultural areas to opt out.

The question remains that the local opportunity is there in the next five months and any arrangement that can be worked out, a triple majority is reached, can be ratified. The opportunity for the rural municipalities to be allowed to remain on their own or to join with Almonte and Carleton Place to the west, or to Russell to the south, is still available. I find it very, very disheartening to hear the comments that have been made.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I want to say at the outset that I support this bill in principle. I think we've had enough of the kind of reaction in part that we've heard, of people digging in their heels. They can't think bigger than just their own local municipality.

The bill is not perfect; I think that was pointed out by the member for Carleton. That's why it's important at committee that the committee do some work and listen to people and listen to their views.

As the member for Rideau talked about, I won't go over the history. It's been covered quite sufficiently by two or three members. But I must say I was disappointed to see the undercutting and the less than honourable behaviour of certain municipalities towards a very distinguished, competent and dignified group of citizens that were not getting paid for this particular job and who were selected on the basis of their past contributions to the community. I think that's got to stop.

There is no question that all the municipalities had endorsed having a commission or a commissioner in the event that the panel, or the municipalities themselves and the region, could not come up with a particular set of proposals.

So this bill, as I see it, is like an insurance policy, because there is still time, there is still seven months. I received a notice this morning, and there's some activity going on between the region and a few cities, some discussions. They're looking at having what I gather are some public hearings to continue this particular process. So at the end of the day it is highly possible that this bill will not be required.

One of the arguments I heard yesterday, from some of the people from Nepean of course, was that if we put in this bill, it will discourage people and they'll just sit back and wait. I suggest the complete contrary. Knowing there is this bill, people have not backed off. They know this is a last-ditch effort to resolve this issue, finally, after more than two decades, that will place pressure on the municipalities and people to get together and come up with a home-grown solution, which everyone agrees is the best possible solution.

There are some concerns related to the bill, and I'd like to identify those quickly. I only have a minute and a half. There are some related to whether this will be one commissioner or whether it should be two or three. These are the issues that have been raised and I think that should be discussed. I don't have a particular preference. It's fine with me whether it's one good person or three good people to come up with and propose the final options, if required, to cabinet.

There were other concerns that had to do with community identity, but that doesn't come out in this bill. This bill provides that in any solutions that come up, that's got to be considered. Of course there's the whole area of strong public participation, and in talking to the mover of this particular motion I'm convinced that's what he wants to see, and that's what we all want to see: Let's get the ball moving and let's get things on the road again.

The extent of consultations is one of the strongest points that have been made. I, for one, and I think all of us, want to see that happen. I recommend that this go to committee. At committee there will be plenty of activity. I suggest that we have some of the hearings at the committee stage, and I think some of those hearings should be in the Ottawa-Carleton area, which will give full opportunity for people to do this.

At the end of the day, the regions and the municipalities can take action. They're doing that now. I hope they continue to do it and come up with a suggestion so we do not need this particular bill at the end of the day.

Mr Bisson: I rise as the municipal affairs critic for the NDP caucus and I want to speak in that capacity. I want to put on the record up front that this party is going to take a very consistent stand when it comes to amalgamations, and that is that the province should not be forcing amalgamations through the Bill 26 process.

I really get offended as a local citizen in the community where I come from, Timmins, when the government and some of the government members seem to be saying that the only way amalgamation could ever happen in the province is if the province comes in with their omnibus Bill 26 and forces the amalgamation to happen, because: "Those municipal people just can't get it straight. All they do is turf protection and they're not going to be able to do anything on their own because they're not going to do the responsible thing." Well, excuse me.

Municipalities across Ontario over the past number of years, way before Bill 26 and way before the Mike Harris government was ever elected, have done amalgamations themselves without having the province drive it.

I come from such a community. About 25 or 26 years ago, what is now the city of Timmins used to be Timmins, Mountjoy township, South Porcupine and Whitney. The same arguments I hear today in the debate around Ottawa-Carleton were made at the time by those for and against that amalgamation, as were the arguments we heard when the megacity debate went on. Those arguments were going on, but they were going on within the community. The councillors of the day decided it was in the best interests of the citizens and the taxpayers of our community to amalgamate into one city.

We had the heated debates at the local council chambers of the various municipalities. I remember quite well the debates going on in the public and what was written in the paper, in the Timmins Daily Press, and what was on CFTL-TV and CKGB and CFTL radio. In the end, it was the local municipality that made the decision. It was the residents of the community who made the final decision. The councils of the area put forward to the citizens the plan they had put together, and by way of referendum, the people of the area of Timmins voted to become an amalgamated city of Timmins. It was locally driven.

Thunder Bay, Port Arthur - that wasn't forced by the province. The good citizens of the area of Port Arthur and Thunder Bay came together themselves. They recognized the need to amalgamate, for a number of various reasons. Again, it was a locally driven process. The councils drove it, and the residents of those two particular communities decided to come together and force the amalgamation themselves through a democratic process.

My objection to the bill we have before us today about Ottawa-Carleton is that we seem to be saying that we can't trust the local municipal politicians and we can't trust the local citizens to do what might be the best thing. Who are we to decide? That is a decision that should be made by the area municipalities and the residents. In the end, it is their community, it is not mine, and I don't think that we as a Legislature, through Bill 26, should enact any kind of provision that forces amalgamation without the consent of the local citizens.

I listened to the debate earlier from both the Liberal caucus and from some of the Conservative members, saying that Nepean and Gloucester and Vanier and others had taken a position at council. But it's interesting to note that there have been referendums on this issue. In the referendum in I think the city of Nepean, I don't remember the exact numbers but something like 75% or 80% - it was actually higher - of the residents of Nepean said no, they don't want a big huge city of Ottawa.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I'll come to the Liberal position in a second. Don't worry.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): There is one?

Mr Bisson: Oh, they have a position. I'm quite disgusted by what's going on here.

The point is that the referendum was done and the people of that community said no, they do not want to come together as one municipality, that if there's any amalgamation, they want to amalgamate with the community next to them. Let that be a local decision.

The other point I want to make is that I think there's an economy of scale when it comes to cities.

Before I get to that, I think we can all agree here in this Legislature that Ottawa is one of the nicest cities in Ontario. Ottawa, Vanier, Gloucester, Nepean, Kanata - that whole Ottawa region is one of the nicest areas in the province. Those municipalities are clean and well run and they're safe communities to live in, and they've got some good programs at the local level to help move the economy of the area.

Mr Cullen: They are run by Liberals.

Mr Bisson: Maybe not after this, let me tell you.

The point is this: Why did the regional municipalities around Ottawa become what they are? Because those local municipalities were able to make their own decisions. Nepean, for example, was able to say what it is they want to focus on as residents within that area of the Ottawa region, and they focused quite well on what was good for them. The people of Gloucester made some different decisions about what they want to focus on. What you managed to do is build quite a dynamic area in and around the Ottawa region with all those municipalities.

It happened, in my view, because those municipalities were small enough that they were able to focus on what is important to their communities and to the citizens and to focus on the priorities that are important for their own region.

If you look at what happened here in Toronto, the government forced amalgamation into the now city of Toronto of a number of communities like Scarborough, Etobicoke, Toronto and others. We said that somehow that was going to be better. Has anybody taken the time to go and watch some of those council meetings lately? My Lord, they're sitting there now and they can't deal with the big issues of the city because they have to deal with such issues as where a red light goes, where a stop sign goes, and "Can I get a permit to dig a tree out of my yard?" and all those issues best dealt with at local council.

The darned thing is so huge, the municipal council, that it's not efficient any more to deal with the matters that come before the council.

The point I would make as a New Democrat is that it's more important to have councils that are manageable, that are able to deal with the local issues in an efficient way for those municipalities. I believe there's an efficiency of scale.

Je veux dire très simplement que la position du Nouveau Parti démocratique est très claire. La position dit que si une fusion va être faite localement, par les municipalités, ça doit être un processus local et non celui de la province à travers la Loi 26, qui tout à coup pousse le processus au point à ce que la province rentre et dit ce qui va arriver. On sait, avec ce projet de loi, que c'est ça qui va arriver.

I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of people from the various communities of Kanata, Nepean, Vanier and Gloucester. One of the things I'm concerned about is the way this thing is being brokered. There is a sense out there, and this is my read on it, that the city of Ottawa, along with the region of Ottawa, is trying to control this process.

Interjection: They can't.

Mr Bisson: This is the perception, all right? The perception out there is that there are two communities that are trying to push this process, and the process set up under this bill makes it virtually impossible for the local communities to come to an agreement about how they're going to be able to amalgamate together and puts the municipalities in the position of having to have a decision imposed on them by the restructuring commissioner appointed under Bill 26.

Mr Cullen: This was a year ago.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: The Liberals are heckling. Let me get to where your position is. The Liberal position is most interesting. I remember that when omnibus Bill 26 came into this House the Liberals, along with the New Democrats, forced the situation under Bill 26 by sitting in the House and not allowing the vote to take place. Why? Because -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It was the Liberals who sat in the House; Alvin sat in the House.

Mr Bisson: The last time I checked, the New Democrats were here a long - anyway, I'm not going to debate with you guys.

The point is that the Liberals and the New Democrats opposed Bill 26 on the basis of a number things, but one of them was that we didn't believe in the changes that were being made under Bill 26, how municipalities are forced to merge and to amalgamate. We thought that was the wrong position for the government to take and that we should allow the process to be driven locally. The Liberals sat in the House with us and opposed the Tory government when it came to Bill 26.

We then got into the debate around the megacity. The Liberal position then was the same as the NDP position is now: that they didn't believe for one second that the cities of Toronto, Scarborough and the rest should be forced into an amalgamation by the province of Ontario. They believed, the Liberals of the day, that the local area municipalities in and about Toronto should be the ones to make the decision about how big the amalgamation should be and when it should take place. They were very clear.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): So why is Ottawa different?

Mr Bisson: That's the point: Why is Ottawa different? All of a sudden the Liberals are saying by way of this bill - because they have a bunch of Liberal councillors in the city of Ottawa and a whole bunch of other places who all of a sudden are taking a party position, they've flip-flopped their position. The Liberal caucus is now saying that they favour Bill 26, that they favour amalgamation and, "What we did when it came to the city of Toronto, oh, well, that was then, this is now."

Mr Shea: Shameful.

Mr Bisson: "That was different. What happened in Toronto, that wasn't amalgamation; that was a forced amalgamation." Well, what do you think this is going to be? Do you think for one second the process being derived under this bill is going to allow a local solution to be brokered? You're going to end up forcing those municipalities under a deal done by the Minister of Municipal Affairs through his commissioner. That's what's going to be happening over here.

The game you're playing, you're saying, "Let's allow this bill to go to second reading so we can have public debate." The reality is that the government would carry the bill because they have the majority at the other end. If you were to vote against this bill today, at second reading at private members' hour you would have a chance of killing it, because there are some Tories who are voting against it, and we could muster our members into this House in order to try to kill this bill at private members' hour. But you're playing politics with this.

You're allowing this bill to go through the second reading process so you can get it into committee and play politics with what's going on in the cities of Ottawa, Vanier, Nepean, Gloucester, Kanata and others. I think that's wrong. I think you have to take a position - I don't know what the Liberal position is any more. But I believe you should take a position.

I understand the Tories. If the Tories are voting for this, they're being consistent. They believe in Bill 26 and they believe in a forced amalgamation. Ideologically I disagree with the position of the Tories, but I respect them because it is a principled stand.

New Democrats are saying the same as before: We don't believe in forced amalgamation; we believe in local solutions. We believe the municipalities should drive the process and it should be their decision and then they should come to us and ask us to pass the enabling legislation with the result.

But what's happening over here is that my friends in the Liberal caucus are taking a position where they say, "Oh, megacity; people are opposed to it. We're opposed too." Then in Ottawa they figure that people are in support, so they're saying, "We're in support, too." They're playing both sides of this issue.

I predict that the minute the commission comes down with the work it's doing to force this amalgamation, the people in the Ottawa region are not going to be in favour of the imposition of what the commission's report is going to do.

I also want to know one thing. Where's Dalton McGuinty today, the leader of the Liberal Party? Where's Dalton McGuinty? He's a member from Ottawa and I would expect that the Liberal leader, the principled individual that he is -

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa Centre on a point of order.

Mr Patten: It's out of order for any member to identify any other member as to whether they're here or not. I'd ask him to withdraw that comment.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, he is right. I am against the standing orders and I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, it is unparliamentary.

Mr Bisson: I cannot say that a member is not present and I won't, but the point is, I would like to see where the leader of the Liberal Party is going to be on this issue. He's not in the House. I hope they're rushing him to the House as we speak so he can take a position in not only representing his community but being the leader of the Liberal caucus on this particular issue.

That's one of the things that bothers me. I've got to go back to this point. I disagree fundamentally with a number of the issues that the Tories are doing as a government. I fundamentally disagree with what you're doing with the tax cut, what you're doing with amalgamation and what you're doing with a number of other things, but at least you're consistent. At least you guys stand for something and you're going forward. I believe we have a principled position as well. At least it's a position. The Liberals in this case are demonstrating yet again that whatever way the wind blows, that's the way the Liberal Party is going to vote and it has absolutely nothing to do with a principled position.

I repeat, the issue here is simply this to me: Should the process be driven locally or should the process be driven by the Legislature of the province of Ontario? I vote for the people; I vote for a locally driven process where the communities themselves are able to come up with a process that they then bring back by way of referendum to their citizens so that the people in their community can decide, as they did in Timmins and other communities, when it comes to amalgamation, what the future of their community should be. That's what we should be doing.

When the process is finished and the local politicians have come to an agreement about what they think is right, they should give the local people by way of a referendum the ability to support the deal or refuse the deal and allow democracy to take place because, as I believe, this process is government-driven in the end. The communities are not going to be able to come to an agreement because of the way this bill is structured. It's going to be an Ottawa-region-driven process and I think municipalities are going to be hard-pressed to come to a deal.

You're going to shove amalgamation down the throats of the people of Kanata, of Gloucester and all those other municipalities which quite frankly I think will not be served well under one big city.

With that, Mr Speaker, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to debate on this most important motion.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Kingston and The Islands on a point of order.

Mr Gerretsen: I think it ought to be said, in light of what was just stated by the last member, that the major difference is that the Toronto municipalities did not want it -

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa-Rideau for his two minutes.

Mr Guzzo: Let me say in the final two minutes, since we're going to maintain the rules now, to the speaker from Cochrane South that when it comes to local decisions, I commend you for your consistency. The last changes to the RMOC Act were made under your government, the Rae government. You took the mayors off regional council: No consultation; done here and imposed like a dictator. You stand up here today and lecture anybody on consistency? You're a fraud - not the biggest fraud I've seen, but you're a fraud.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Ottawa-Rideau to withdraw that term, if you would, please.

Mr Guzzo: Do you want me to say he is the biggest fraud I've seen? No, you don't want me to comment. I apologize. You weren't in that cabinet. The man who did it is playing golf on the Rideau lakes when he isn't on Bay Street practising law these days.

As far as the referendum in Nepean is concerned, let me make one quick point. Read the question that they voted 84% for. Did it ask if they wanted 12 city halls? Did it ask if they wanted a reduction? No. Read the question, please.

I want to say, if I might, to the Minister of Environment, my colleague from Carleton, I thank him for his comments and for coming here this morning. To the members for Ottawa East, Ottawa West and Ottawa Centre, I commend them for the same vision and the same opportunity that I recognized in the early 1970s from the then mayor of Eastview. I think it's time we move ahead. I think we give them five months in this bill.

As far as the conditions suggested by the member for Ottawa East, I'm in agreement and I accept them. I look forward to the submissions at the committee.

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the tax burden on middle-class families should be reduced.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): In accordance with the rules, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Hardeman: I want to start off by saying that a number of years ago, when we started the campaign for bringing forward the Common Sense Revolution and suggested to people that it was a platform that would benefit Ontario, I knocked on a lot of doors in Oxford county and I talked to a lot of the people. One of the things that kept coming forward was that the people believed they were overtaxed, in fact, not just by the provincial government but by all levels of government. They were paying taxes beyond their capabilities and they were not getting value for money.

They did not believe that the government was spending the money wisely. They felt they could spend that money far better than the government could.

These people who we were talking to were 90% lower-middle-income people in Ontario. These are the people who work for a paycheque and who will spend that increase in their paycheque when taxes are reduced. These are the small business owners in the province of Ontario and the entrepreneurs; the people who create and, incidentally, do most of the new jobs in the province.

There is a myth that small business people have a lot of money and they don't need any assistance. I want to point out that this is a myth. Stats Canada says that entrepreneurs earn a median salary of $15,000 less per year than a median of the employees in the same households. Incidentally, to achieve that they must work 13 hours a week more.

I suggest that, as we heard from the people, the question has to be, why did the people feel this way? I guess it's fair to say that the total tax burden in Ontario, including the taxes levied by all provinces, is among the highest in the Dominion of Canada, and it has increased faster than the national average; in fact, between 1981 and 1993 it increased from 31.8% of GDP to 37%.

I want to point out that high tax rates contribute to weak economic performance by cutting into the consumers' purchasing power, reducing the incentives for entrepreneurs and making it more difficult for firms to attract and keep highly skilled employees.

To explain that, we have to look at the past. In the 10 years prior to that visit to the households, taxes had been increased in Ontario 65 times. Between 1990 and 1992, taxes were raised 14 times. Despite these increases, Ontario's tax revenues decreased, not increased, by $2.1 billion and Ontario's economy lost 300,000 private sector jobs. Between 1995 and 1998, prior to last Tuesday's budget, our government has decreased taxes 30 times. Tax revenues have increased, not decreased, by $3.3 billion, with Ontario's economy creating 339,000 private sector new jobs.

I think that points out that tax cuts stimulate the economy, create jobs and promote confidence and spending. This boost to economic growth also boosts tax revenue.

In Ontario, private sector employment rose by 268,000 since the tax cut of July 1996, and by 261,000 jobs in the last 13 months. Ontario leads the country in job growth. In the last 13 months, 60% of the private sector jobs created in Canada were created in the province of Ontario.

When the plan of tax reduction and job creation was started, there were some people who were somewhat sceptical as to whether this approach would work. I just want to point out that I had a number of people in my office requesting examples of where this approach had worked. At that time, a number of examples had to be used that had been done in other jurisdictions outside Canada. I'm happy to say that today we can use the example of what has happened in Ontario. In fact, we are a shining example of how reducing taxes can create jobs and create consumer confidence.

In return, as more people are working, more confidence is created, more people are working - it's an ever-revolving circle - and we have economic growth.

The example of real economic growth in Ontario last year was 4.4%. I think this would prove that the process is working. When you leave people with more money in their pockets, particularly middle-income people, it tends to encourage them to spend that money, in turn creating more jobs.

Incidentally, going through the figures of Tuesday's budget, I was happy to read that in Oxford county, for the people I represent, the tax reductions, when fully implemented in July, will mean $35.5 million more in the constituents' pockets. That will also mean $35.5 million in the economy of Oxford county. I think this highlights the importance of reducing taxes on middle-income families.

I just want to point out the reason for my resolution. I think it's important that we have a position put forward that would be supported by everyone in the House, including the Liberals and the NDP. As we go over the debate that has gone on here for a number of months, we hear suggestions, first of all from the Liberal Party, that if they were to be put in the position that the provincial government is in now, they would not reinstate those taxes. From that, I must assume they feel that reducing the taxes on middle-class families in Ontario is an appropriate tool to use to bolster the economy and to make life better for all the people of the province.

I hear from the New Democratic Party at great length that reducing taxes would be an appropriate approach if it affected middle-class people, but their concern is that it is going to the higher-income as opposed to the middle-class and lower-class people in the province. I would suggest that this motion, on that basis, would also be supported. Looking at that, I hope we could ask for their support on the motion.

In the few moments I have left, I would just like to read into the record a couple of statements that were made just recently related to the tax cuts in the budget that was presented on Tuesday.

"Salesman John Janisse, 34, agrees `absolutely' with the tax cut. `I'll be buying a new Chrysler vehicle this year,' he said while shopping at the Devonshire Mall Tuesday. `It's not so much the amount of extra money in your pocket, it's the economy overall.'"

Another comment: "The general manager of the Devonshire Mall (Doug Wolfe) said a psychological boost from a tax cut fuels the retail sector. `We're seeing the effects of that confidence. We've had a steady growth of 5% to 7% per year over the past couple of years.'"

And last: "Any tax cut will be a good thing. Lower taxes gives us more money to spend and that stimulates the economy, you know." That was a comment made by a group of seniors in Windsor as they were shopping.

I would point out that it is not only my opinion that tax cuts work but in fact a lot of people's in our economy.

Again, I would ask all the members of the House to support the resolution to give a tax break and to continue the tax breaks that the province has been putting forward for the majority of the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): First of all, I'd just like to congratulate the member for Oxford for bringing this resolution forward. If I've ever seen apple pie and motherhood in this House, this is certainly it this morning. At the outset, I would just like to say that I will certainly be supporting it.

However, I did notice that when the member indicated a number of quotes he has received on the budget, there was nothing there from northern Ontario. I would just invite him to go into northern Ontario and take a look at some of the quotes that were created around the budget up that way.

I have to say I would have been much more enthused had the resolution included that the House also call upon the Harris government to cut the $37 vehicle registration tax that the Harris government imposed on northerners in the last budget. It would have been probably a lot more attractive had he maybe attached that to his resolution as well, because he knows that I'm from a constituency made up of middle-class taxpayers and middle-class earners in terms of the entire constituency.

I must say as well that the folks up north don't mind paying what they consider their fair share of taxes. I've heard that many times. But I guess the real concern I find from my constituents is, are they getting the return on the value of the taxes they are actually paying?

Again, there's a very closely knit group of middle-class constituents throughout northern Ontario. I have one community in particular, the community of Ear Falls. They're middle-class taxpayers; they're all hardworking people. But today they don't have a doctor in their community; they don't have a clinic in their community. Both have been taken away from them. They're saying: "Yes, we pay our fair share of taxes. Should we not expect this kind of health care as a middle-class taxpayer?" Again, who could not agree with a reduction in taxes, but I must remind the member that we have an obligation to those citizens in a community like Ear Falls who don't have medical services.

The member will remember that I asked the Minister of Health a question just the other day regarding psychiatric services in northwestern Ontario, in northern Ontario. We have at the present time psychiatric patients who are being locked up in jail. Again, is this a fair return for them as people who are needing medical services in northwestern Ontario? When I listen to my friend over there talk about middle-class wage earners, they're expecting the services as well.

I go back to the Common Sense Revolution, that famous document where Mr Harris made a great number of statements. One of the statements he made was that there was only one level of taxpayer out there, there was only one taxpayer, and any actions they would take would not result in an increase to local taxpayers. I'd like the member to go up to some of my communities and tell people that, people who are facing greater user fees when they take their kids down to the recreation centre, who are facing tuition fee hikes unseen in this province before when they send their children off to post-secondary education.

Again, I guess the biggest slap in the face that we've seen from this government is the return of the vehicle registration fee. At least we had a government before that saw the uniqueness of northwestern Ontario and northern Ontario when it came to that fee. We don't have public transportation in northwestern Ontario as you would have here in Toronto, as you have in other major centres - the Golden Horseshoe, Ottawa. We don't have that. We pay prices for gas that you would not believe throughout northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario, gas prices that are always a great amount higher. At least at one point that was being recognized.

For Mike Harris to turn around and say, "No, we're not going to recognize that any longer. We're not going to recognize the long distances that you travel in northern Ontario. We're going to ask for that $37 back" - again, that's something I would have liked this member to have in his resolution, recognizing that these are middle-class taxpayers who are paying that, along with the many user fees that I've mentioned.

When we come to the local taxpayer, take a look at what the Harris government did in terms of dumping $650 million in provincial services on to the backs of the local taxpayer. That's coming through to the local taxpayer in that they now have to pay for social housing, for their policing costs and a number of other services that used to be paid for through the provincial tax system. Now it's dumped on to the local middle-income taxpayer. I go back to Mr Harris's statement, who always said there was only one level of taxpayer, and we're certainly seeing them being hit.

Another group of people I see suffering because of this government - and a good number of them could be middle-class taxpayers - are of course seniors and some of our disabled. Go back to some of the statements made by the present Premier before he became Premier. He indicated very clearly that aid for seniors and the disabled would not be cut, but today we have $225 million in new user fees in terms of the Ontario drug benefit plan.

I ask the member for Oxford, where does he see that group fitting in? Where does he see them, now having to pay that additional $224 million in new user fees imposed by his government, by his Premier, by his Minister of Health, on to folks I would consider as middle-income taxpayers?

We also remember this party suggesting to the middle class that classroom funding would be guaranteed. Well, in any school I go into, one of the major concerns in that school from the front-line workers - the teachers, as well the parents, the parent councils - is that classroom funding isn't there. It's not in the classroom. They're not getting that. We're talking about the middle-class taxpayers getting their dollars back. They're just not.

When we have 22 school boards cancelling junior kindergarten because of the Harris cuts, when we have 53 school boards - this was brought to my attention yesterday in Dryden when I was speaking to a grade 10 history class. They said, "What about the elimination of special education within the school boards?" their school board in particular. I had to tell them, "Yes, 53 school boards in the province now face great difficulty." I am talking of middle-class people in northwestern Ontario, in Dryden, for example.

The elimination of adult education: If we know of anything that is important to the middle class, it would be courses to enable them to move ahead, courses they could take in the evening as an adult. Some folks may be collecting employment insurance at the time, looking for these courses - again, eliminated.

I go back to something I hear often, and it's something I am sure every member in this House will hear as we move through the summer and get closer to September, and that is the increase in the tuition fees. A middle-class wage earner, trying to send two or three, possibly four children at one time - we have a member in the House who has four children attending post-secondary education. That's hurting the middle-class taxpayer.

Who could disagree with this resolution? I certainly will be supporting it, but I must caution the member that there are many unique aspects of northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario that he might want to study and encourage his Premier and the cabinet to take a very close look at. I can tell you, the quotes you gave us today out of some of your newspapers in your area or in southern Ontario are not the quotes you'll find in newspapers from northwestern Ontario, because that budget did not sell to my constituents, to my middle-class taxpayers in northwestern Ontario.

Mr Speaker, on that note, I would like to thank you for the time I have taken here this morning.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity to rise this morning and put a few thoughts on the record re this piece of business before us, this resolution by Mr Hardeman.

I say at the outset that I don't think there is anybody in this province who would disagree that the middle class in Ontario has been put-upon, has been hard-done-by and punished over the last 10 or 15 years when it comes to carrying the freight, carrying the mail for all the things we do together as a community and that they should be given some relief, some assistance, some way of dealing with all that's coming at them and their families.

At first blush, who wouldn't support a resolution that says, "Let's give the middle class a tax break?" because that's indeed, in many ways, what they want. But it's never that simple; it's never as black and white as this government across the way would present it.

Even though I have great respect for the member putting the resolution forward this morning and don't want to impute motive in any way, I just can't find it in my heart - having lived under this government for the last two and a half years, having sat in this place and watched what they've done to all the services the middle class in this province have come to expect to be there to support them as they try to make a living and support their families and offer their families opportunities to participate actively in the economy and the life of this province - in all good conscience, to support this resolution.

It is cynical to the max; it's hypocritical to the max; it's more of the public relations pap we've come to expect from this government as they try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this province and say to them, "We are giving you a tax break; we are presenting to you a tax break," while at the same time they are whacking them every time they turn around with user fees, with copayments. With all the things going up, it is costing people, middle-class people in particular, more than they ever will realize in the tax breaks they will get by the tax scheme this government has put in place that will hammer the communities and the people and the families of this province.

Let's go back a little way in the history of Canada and talk a bit about what it is that the tax system, which we have put in place together over a number of years, provides us and why it is that we've chosen, by way of the tax system, to support it in that way. Before I do that, though, I want briefly to be a bit more specific about what I'm presenting by way of the tax scheme and the reality out there.

On one hand, we're told we're getting a tax break, that we're getting a 30% cut in our taxes. Most middle-class Ontarians have not recognized that tax break in their paycheque, and if they have, as some people have said, it pays for no more than a cup of coffee or maybe a six-pack of beer every couple of weeks. It is so minimal and so insignificant when you compare it to the increase in user fees and copayments that the middle class in Ontario are asked to pay.

Look, for example, at the increase in tuition fees for any student going to college or university in this province over the last two and a half years, increases in tuition fees at the post-secondary level that are astronomical and massive in comparison to any other time. Let's have a look at the activity fees now that are being charged to students who go to secondary schools particularly across this province. There probably isn't a school any more that doesn't, when a student comes through their door, charge them somewhere around $100 a year for activity fees.

That's a user fee; that's a copayment; that's a cost to middle-class Ontario that wasn't there before this government took over and introduced its tax scheme.

Let's look at health care, the shift from institutional hospital care to the community that these folks are presenting to us now. Don't get me wrong: I think we need to go in that direction, that there are lots of plusses to more and more health care being done in the community. However, under this government, what's happening is even more subtle. Health care, in the way we've come to know it, was covered under a federal act that saw the government pay for most, if not all, of the procedures required - it will now be shifted to a home care program that is no longer covered by those acts and those regulations.

So we see a privatizing of health care that will continue to cost middle-class families in Ontario more and more to cover the costs of health care for themselves and their kids, not to speak of the ever-increasing cost incurred because of aging parents who need health care.

We only have to point at the cost of drugs for our senior citizens. That used to be free to senior citizens in this province. There's now what we call a copayment. As we all know, because we've said it so often in this House, the Premier, who was leader of the third party under the last government, used to say: "A copayment, a user fee, is a tax. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you look at it, it's still a tax."

The tax scheme that this government presents to us as a relief somehow for the middle class of Ontario, that the member today is suggesting that we continue to support, is in fact a smoke-and-mirrors exercise that in the end is going to cost middle-class Ontarians and Ontario families more than it is costing them now, and they will get less service for that cost.

Let's look for a second at some of what's happening across the province.

Property taxes: In my own community of Sault Ste Marie, there was a statement made at the last council meeting that our property taxes are probably going to increase somewhere between 11% and 12% this year to pay for the download of services that this government has reneged on delivering, that this government has decided is more cost-effective to put on the shoulders of property owners across this province, who happen to be, for the most part, middle-class Ontarians.

The reason you're not going to see a huge hue and cry in the immediate future in the Toronto area is that the middle-class families of Toronto, because they were able to politically persuade the government to give a little relief in the short term, have been bought off by way of a cash-managed solution for the moment. But don't be fooled, because it won't be long down the line when you will be hit as well, any of you who live in Ontario, not just small communities like mine that are being hit this year with 11% and 12% increases, but you will probably be hit with increases on a more massive scale.

New user fees: Travel immunization is no longer covered by OHIP. Women with no complications will be billed if they want more than two Pap smears a year. Pregnant women will be billed if they want more than one ultrasound during pregnancy. Ambulance rides to the hospital have gone up to $45. The province changed rules to make it easier for municipalities to charge a wider range of user fees for everything from garbage pickup to emergency response. Some regions have adopted different policies such as user fees for fire department service, traffic accident responses, fire cleanup and safety inspections.

For user fees for counselling of men who abuse their wives, fees range from $1 to $75 per hour.

In the Waterloo region, municipalities are charging an administration fee of $25 for assisting an organization to obtain licences, $25 for those applying to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for a licensed outdoor patio. The charge for a copy of Waterloo's zoning bylaws and accompanying map goes to $75 from $50. Tax certificates in Waterloo go from $20 to $25. The charge for cheques returned NSF goes to $20 from $15.

In my own community of Sault Ste Marie, along with the property tax increase we're seeing an increase in the cost of a plot to bury your family member from $395 to $688. It even costs more to die in this province now than it did, under this government's tax scheme.

User fees for prescription drugs - I have already spoken about that.

On Manitoulin Island, there are increased fees for Boy Scout camps. In the Kingston area, sports facilities increase fees by 5%. Residents requiring approvals for patios, street closures, driveway widenings and other items can expect to pay engineering fees of $100. Home alarm system owners must register, with a $100 fee. The list goes on and on.

It's interesting when you put this in the context of the history of this country and how a few years ago a Liberal government in Ottawa, under the stewardship and guidance of then Prime Minister Trudeau, thought it would be in the interest of all Canadian citizens that we have first-class health care in this country that covered everybody from sea to sea to sea and that the government, through its tax system, would pay for that. He knew that this country and this province was strong enough, had the industrial integrity, to support that kind of program.

He also knew that if you brought in a well-delivered and financed health care system that provided supports to all the people in Ontario, it would be economically an advantage as well. We have come to know, by the studies that have been done, that one of the reasons that industries come to invest in Canada and Ontario is the benefit derived from the fact that we have a health care system that provides health care for all of its citizens.

We know the comparators that have been done of industries in the United States having to pay for health care for its workers compared to what industries in Ontario and Canada pay for its workers. The difference is significant. That's one good reason industry decides to choose Canada and Ontario as places to invest.

Mr Trudeau, with the support of people like Tommy Douglas, a well-known New Democrat in this country who started medicare in Saskatchewan, decided this would be good for the whole of the country, and Ontario as a province bought into that.

It's interesting that not long after that, along comes a Conservative government in Ottawa which decided that industry and the wealthy were paying too much to make sure that we all benefited from a first-class health care system, a first-class education system and some social structures that were valuable to everybody. They began a process of dismantling the tax system that would shift the cost of programs, the cost of doing business, the cost of quality of life in this country and this province more and more away from those who could actually afford it, those who were more well-off, shift it from the shoulders of industry and business on to the shoulders of the middle class.

That's why the middle class in Canada and Ontario today are creaking under the weight of the cost of all these programs, because the tax system in place is not fair, is not progressive. It's not cognizant of who's making the profit and making the money in this province. It is overwhelmingly being more and more put on the shoulders of those who can least afford it.

Then you get the Conservative government of Ontario over the last two and a half years, which has taken what was already a bad system and made it even worse through the tax scheme it's presenting and justifying by way of some of the comments Mr Hardeman has made here in the House this morning, which some of our Liberal colleagues have supported, which we believe will, if it's allowed to go much further, diminish the level of very important infrastructure: health care, education, roads, our ability to do research and development, and so many other things that we collectively in this country have found ways to fund through our tax system.

It will in the not-too-distant future diminish our ability to continue to support and to have those things in place.

Will that create more jobs? Will that make for a better economy? Will that make for a situation where the middle class and their families in this province will be better off? I daresay that is not the case. Talk to the middle-class constituents in your area, Mr Hardeman, and I say that to every other member in this House, and ask them how they feel today about their future: Are they confident? Do they feel there's a stability out there that they can count on by way of the systems that we've all taken for granted?

I suggest they'll tell you overwhelmingly no, that they're feeling more and more uneasy, that there's somebody in their family or their neighbourhood or their circle who no longer feels comfortable that there is a future for them. They're working in contract positions in short-term opportunities, and the opportunities that used to be there that were to some degree supported or paid for by the tax system we had in place are quickly disappearing. What has been put in its place? A market system that is Darwinian in nature.

Yes, we'll see the survival of the fittest, the survival of the richest, the survival of those who are better placed, and a diminishing of the opportunities for those who are less well-off. I suggest the less well-off in this province are becoming a larger and larger group and -

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I'm very pleased to address this resolution.

Prior to the last election, the economy and people of this province were under a dark cloud, a could created by 65 tax increases dumped on the taxpayers of this province by the Liberals and NDP. It was a depressing cloud: It depressed initiative, it depressed risk-taking, it depressed hard work, it depressed ambition. It drove hundreds, perhaps thousands, of taxpayers underground and it exhausted the rest.

Ontarians were fed up with having to pay gross amounts of taxes to four levels of government which, for the average family in my riding, amounted to close to 65% of their total family income, including income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, parking lot taxes, large building taxes, tire taxes, business filing taxes, excise taxes, probate taxes, land transfer taxes. If you want to go out and buy a new car, you pay sales tax, air-conditioning tax and even a tax on the size of the engine.

There are more. I could go on but I see the Liberal members' eyes lighting up.

Many of our talented, creative entrepreneurs pulled up their roots and left Ontario to pursue their fortunes in New Brunswick, Alberta, South Carolina, New Mexico. In other words, they went to lower-tax jurisdictions. They packed up their energy, their ideas, their entrepreneurial spirit and they left. Perhaps most disastrous of all, they took jobs and the potential for more jobs with them. Others decided not to work. I don't mean low-income people and those on social assistance; I'm talking about well-off entrepreneurs who simply gave up their ventures because they didn't see the potential return for their risks and their labours.

Some of my own neighbours asked me, "Why should I work for Bob Rae?" Others worked less because they were completely de-motivated, because even if they got a promotion with a raise, the difference it made to their take-home pay was absolutely minimal. Even if they worked overtime for a family vacation or new school clothes for their children, it made little difference to their paycheque after the high taxes were deducted.

In fact, before our government came to power, I knew many families who had combined incomes over $100,000 who found it impossible to save money for a family vacation where they could spend some quality time together, or for post-secondary education for their children. That's what this is about. It's about quality of life.

High taxes and the demands that businesses have been forced to put on employees to produce more for less just so they could keep up with the high business taxes have been eating away at the quality of life for Ontarians and their children for years.

My constituents, thousands of them, get on the QEW or the GO train every morning, every workday, in the dark, and work hard all day, many through their lunch-hour. They come home in the dark exhausted, many bringing work with them.

What's been the result of all this? For five years, starting in 1990, the NDP were the government of Ontario and in those five years the number of people employed in Ontario did not increase, and yet the population was growing. Ontario clearly was heading backwards.

On the other hand, in the past 12 months alone, from February 1997 to February 1998, there have been 265,000 net new private sector jobs created in Ontario, the greatest record of job creation in one year in the history of this province. I hope everyone would agree that a job is the best thing that can happen to a family wracked with financial and emotional troubles caused by unemployment.

Between 1995 and 1998 our government decreased taxes 30 times, and our budget proposes 36 more tax cuts. The reason? Tax cuts create jobs. They stimulate the economy. They promote consumer spending. Lower taxes mean more money in household budgets for family outings, for education planning, for the little extras, or a breather from debt at the end of the month. Most of all, what the tax cuts have done is given people optimism - the optimism that comes from the feeling that they have greater control over their finances, that they aren't just working for the government, that they're working for themselves and for their families.

It's a feeling of empowerment that comes from knowing that the days when four governments can raise their taxes, confiscating the majority of the fruits of their labour without their agreement, are over. For many families in Ontario there was too much month left over at the end of the money, and it should have been the other way around.

Personal tax cuts mean there is extra money in their pockets, creating the opportunity for them to pay off debts sooner, increasing their net worth, future savings and buying power. This means lower stress on families and a more secure environment in which to raise children.

Our government is giving every Ontario taxpayer a tax cut. As of July 1, 1998, provincial income taxes will be eliminated for 655,000 modest-income individuals and families. The hard-hit, middle-income earners who make between $25,000 and $75,000 a year will receive the largest share of the tax savings at almost $3 billion a year, money which they will put back into our economy, creating more jobs.

Our government's income tax cuts mean that a two-income family with two children and a net income of $37,000 would save $2,810 a year, while a two-income couple with two children and a net income of $60,000 would save a total of $3,550 in Ontario tax - their money for their priorities.

We also know that there are too many children leaving for school in the morning from an empty house and coming home from school at the end of the day to an empty house because their parents work such long hours just to keep the family afloat.

In this budget, we've introduced a tax credit for working families of up to $1,020 for each child under the age of seven. This supplement for working families both recognizes their efforts and eases the financial pressure for those parents who have wished they could have stayed home with their children in their formative years.

Yesterday we announced child care initiatives that will triple the number of children who benefit from child care assistance to an estimated 450,000 children. This will enable more families to balance the demands of work and home more easily.

These are the people who are benefiting from the Common Sense Revolution, the people who work hard, live by the law, trying to save for their future and their children's future and trying to enjoy a better quality of life today.

These are the people who understand that out-of-control spending by governments has to stop if we are to preserve everything we hold dear. They understand that the $9 billion a year Ontario was paying just on interest on debt in 1995 is much like the interest they must pay when they carry a debt on their own charge cards. That interest on onerous debt is what prevents parents from being able to afford a new pair of track shoes for their son or daughter to go to school with, or an evening out with their family, just as the interest the province was obligated to pay when we first took office prevented us from spending the kind of money we would have loved to spend on health care and education.

The tide is turning. Today we continue to chip away at the deficit - it's well over half gone - and to lower taxes for Ontarians. As a result, we are all starting to enjoy brighter days.

The promise is even brighter still. There is no question that the tax burden on Ontario families has to be lowered. Ontarians' freedom, feelings for personal gain, their ability to be independent, their ability to provide for the future and the ability to enjoy the quality of life they so richly deserve depend on it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I will be delighted to see tax relief in the form of user fees being reduced for members of the middle class, user fees which have gone up tremendously.

I have now counted 264 tax increases by this government. You say, "How could that possibly be?" That could be this way: Mike Harris, when he was just leader of the Conservative Party and was not the Premier, told me and everybody in Ontario that a user fee is a tax. I believed him on that occasion and when he said that I applauded him. The member for Kingston and The Islands was in full applause at that.

I was just going through it. That's all I could find. I only found 264 tax increases since the Mike Harris administration took office. There are probably more but I found that many. As I say, if you follow what Mike Harris said, and I know you all do on the other side, you would know that a user fee is the same as a tax, because Mike said that, and I agreed with Mike on that particular occasion.

So, if the member is talking about reducing user fees, then I would say he's probably on the right track. User fees tend to hit the middle class. If he's talking about property taxes, as he would know, being a municipal individual, there was a huge downloading on municipalities of financial responsibilities. As a result they've had to either cut their services - again, services which largely benefit the poorer people, the people who are not as well off, and the middle-income people rather than the rich people - or implement significant increases in user fees or increase property taxes.

That really does not take into account a person's ability to pay. If you are a very wealthy person - I won't mention names, as I sometimes do - then it doesn't matter that much if there are user fees, because you can afford those user fees.

If I were the member for Scarborough Centre, Mr Newman, I might think that's a good idea, but I am not he. Mind you, he had a good resolution in this House a while ago, because when he talked about tax decreases, he was talking about targeted ones; instead of one large one, he was talking about targeted ones.

I was listening to the chief economist for the Royal Bank and the chief economist for the Bank of Montreal, who both dismissed as nonsense this contention that the provincial income tax cut had any perceptible influence on the Ontario economy. In fact, they said it was the low interest rates in the US, which have that economy booming, and the low interest rates in Canada which are helping us out, and the low Canadian dollar, which really helps our exports. They said: "You want to know what's really making the difference? That's what is making the difference." I agree with those two. They're neutral. They're people who certainly aren't going to be arguing on behalf of the opposition.

I went through some of the user fees as well. You think of provincial parks, the average person trying to go to a provincial park. Conrad Black can afford these increases, but others may not be able to afford them. We have various tourist attractions that one has to go to, the St Lawrence Parks. In education there have been some; in environment and energy there have been some; in natural resources there have been some. There have been all kinds of user fee increases.

I know that's what my friend who proposed this resolution was worried about: those user fees being caused by the Mike Harris government. That's why I appreciate his resolution. Listen, that's why I'm going to support it, because I think we've got to cut these user fees and these property taxes.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: That's what I said. I thought, "Well, he has got a good idea there." But it really means, then, that the Mike Harris government is going to have to assume the responsibility it has refused to have.

I was thinking of kids playing hockey. In St Catharines, they were telling me that to play on an all-star team or a travelling team it now costs $1,000. Even in a house league it's $250 to $300. That's okay for people who have money, but it isn't okay for lower-middle-income and lower-income people. But that's what happens in Mike Harris's Ontario. Just as we see in the United States a greater polarization between the very rich and the very poor, we're seeing that here in Ontario.

I've been listening to the arguments that have been put forward by the member and I keep thinking of those tuition increases. Now the government is going to allow universities to deregulate certain tuitions. The debt burden, the debt load on these middle-income people who have to write the cheque for their kids to make up the amount needed for tuition and other costs - because of course you're ending rent control, so those students are going to have to pay more money when they rent.

All kinds of costs are going up in Mike Harris's Ontario. If you're very wealthy, you don't worry too much about that, because you got your big income tax cut, an income tax cut which in actual dollars benefits the wealthiest people in this province. So I'm all for lowering those user fees, and I think the member is on the right track if he's talking about that.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm extremely pleased to be able to respond to the motion put forward by the member for Oxford, "that in the opinion of this House, the tax burden on middle-class families should be reduced." To hear the member for St Catharines so enthusiastically supporting this motion, he being a Liberal, I'm very, very pleased to see that kind of support.

I'd just like to quote a little bit from the Fraser Forum in their July 1996 edition. They point out that in 1996 here in Ontario the average family, which I understand makes somewhere around $55,000, would be paying $29,450. That's way over 50% of their income going to taxes and it's just about time that something was done about that. That's extremely unfair.

I think it's interesting to note also, on page 8 in this report, the change in the tax freedom day. That's the day when all your income has gone for taxes and you can get an opportunity to start spending something on yourself. In 1985 it was May 25 and in 1990 it moved to June 21. I always thought that tax-and-spend were the Liberals and the NDP, but it only moved five days from 1990 to 1995. So what I understand from that is that the Liberals are the tax-and-spend and the NDP are the spend-and-borrow, because that's when our debt doubled. So just reading this helps to clarify and understand the different parties in opposition.

On page 9 it talks about tax rates and the percentage of taxes based on income. It's interesting to note again that it reconfirms this: From 1985 to 1990 that figure moved from 39.5% to 47.1%. That's when the Liberals were there, the tax-and-spend party. But it only moved 47.1% to 48.3% when the NDP was there. That's the spend-and-borrow party. It's rather interesting to see these figures and they're here in hard, cold print if anybody wants to make reference to them.

Then there's a neat

article on page 11. It talks about British Columbia. That's a province on the Canadian left coast. It says, "British Columbia is headed down a dangerous path." This was predicted in July 1996. When I was there in March this year, they didn't know I was a politician; they just knew I was there from Ontario. My, how they wanted to move to Ontario with what was happening in Ontario, just anything to get out of the Canadian left coast.

Then on page 12 I read, "when, during the recent BC election, both Premier Glen Clark and the Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, promised to cut taxes or resign as Premier...." Just as you noticed in the last budget "Promises made, promises kept," out on the Canadian left coast that isn't true, and it's sort of consistent with socialist governments.

I think it's interesting to note that from 1965 to 1995, a period of three decades, the federal government revenue increased by 1,569%, direct taxes went up some 2,501% and indirect taxes increased by 975%. I'm sure you'll say, "What happened to inflation in that period?" To put it another way, the tax freedom day in 1961 was May 3. From there on, you could work for yourself. That has now moved to June 30 because of all the payroll taxes the federal Liberals have laid on us in the meantime.

Yes, we have cut taxes. Why are people saying, "Where is that tax cut?" It's because of all the payroll taxes that the federal Liberals have laid on and people can't identify. It's good that the Liberals keep talking about our tax cuts, because when you look at your pay stub, it's hard to find where that tax cut really is.

What happens with these high taxes to our middle-class people? From the early 1960s to now, we have tripled the underground economy. It's estimated that it has gone from some 5% to 15%. That's the kind of thing that high taxes create. In a country like Puerto Rico, just to give you a different look, in 1987 they decided that they would cut their big, high income tax at 67.6% to 41%. Do you know what happened? The revenues increased that year by 28%; 30% more people were identifying the fact that they had income and they owned up to it. Most people, if the taxes are reasonable, want to pay their taxes, pay their fair share for their respective social programs.

There's no question that tax cuts are indeed a win-win. You create more jobs, you get more people working, there's more money coming in as revenue. As a matter of fact, the province of Ontario, from the 1994-95 budget till now, increased revenues by $6 billion. Why? Because of the tax cuts that have stimulated our economy.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oxford has two minutes.

Mr Hardeman: First of all I'd like to thank the members for Halton Centre, Algoma-Manitoulin, Northumberland and St Catharines for their kind words or their encouragement for the resolution and recognizing the problems that overtaxation for middle-class families in Ontario creates.

I also wanted to make a couple of comments. As the resolution was prepared and the statement I made in conjunction with that, we pointed out that overtaxation is not only a provincial problem; it is all the taxation that is going on that falls on the shoulders of the middle-class families, which of course includes, as the member for St Catharines aptly pointed out, municipal property taxes.

As I talk to our local constituents, they too are concerned with the level of taxation to their municipalities. I'm encouraged by the fact that a lot of municipalities in the last number of months and the last couple of years have been working very actively in trying to find ways of reorganizing and doing their administration and finding ways to deliver their services more cost-effectively and efficiently and in that way hopefully being able to reduce the property tax burden on their taxpayers.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the member that a tax transferred is not a tax reduced, and I think that the resolution points out that the intent of this resolution is that we want to reduce the taxation that is crippling and creating a great burden for the middle-class people of the province.

Again I would like to thank all the speakers who spoke in favour of the resolution and look forward to their support as we bring the resolution to a vote. Thank you very much for the time.

The Acting Speaker: I made a ruling earlier this morning when Mr Guzzo and Mr Baird - I recognized Mr Guzzo because he was on his feet first. I was reminded of the practice of this House that the member carrying the motion has 10 minutes at the beginning and two minutes at the end and that I should have changed, and did change, my recognition to Mr Baird. I felt that you deserved to know the reason for that change on my part.

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 7 standing in the name of Mr Guzzo.

Mr Guzzo has moved second reading of Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide Savings to Taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton Region.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will deal with this after we put the question on the next matter.

TAXATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 8, private member's notice of motion number 3, standing in the name of Mr Hardeman.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be up to a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Ballot item number 7.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Boushy, Dave

Chudleigh, Ted

Cullen, Alex

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Gerretsen, John

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Sterling, Norman W.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Galt, Doug

Kells, Morley

Martin, Tony

Newman, Dan

Saunderson, William

Silipo, Tony

Smith, Bruce

Tilson, David

Wood, Bob

Wood, Len

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28; the nays are 15.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Pursuant to standing order 95(j), should this be referred to the committee of the whole House?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'd ask, if I might, that it be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Guzzo has requested that it be referred to the standing committee on general government. Is this the wish of the House? It is agreed.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you could explain, if the vote was 28 to 15, why there are more than 43 members in the House currently, because I believe that four members walked in before you decided how this matter should be disposed of.

The Acting Speaker: If you will allow me, there was one door inadvertently left open and that is why. We will wait for 30 seconds and the members will take their seats.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Those doors were not inadvertently opened.

TAXATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 8, private member's notice of motion number 3, in the name of Mr Hardeman.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Chudleigh, Ted

Cullen, Alex

Danford, Harry

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Martiniuk, Gerry

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): They ayes are 47; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried unanimously.

The time for private members' business has expired. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD FIND

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I ask all members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing Child Find Ontario's Green Ribbon of Hope campaign during this month of May. The Green Ribbon campaign highlights the plight of missing, runaway, lost, kidnapped and abducted children in Ontario and in Canada.

Each year more than 50,000 Canadian children are listed as missing according to RCMP statistics. Needless to say, this issue is of serious concern to us all. Fortunately, with the support of the community and in partnership with law enforcement, customs and immigration officials, more than 90% of the children are successfully recovered.

Members of my caucus are wearing the Green Ribbon of Hope today as a show of support for Child Find Ontario's programs and services, which are carried out throughout the province by a team of 1,100 volunteers in 25 local Child Find chapters.

The services include working with everyone involved in the search for a missing child, quickly producing and distributing posters with photographs of missing children, alerting the public through TV and other media, providing emotional support to the parents, operating a 24-hour, toll-free national telephone line to collect tips and reports on missing children, and undertaking preventive measures by providing education on child safety to parents and children and by sponsoring programs like the Kid Check fingerprinting program and the All About Me Baby ID footprinting program for infants.

Members of this House, join me in acknowledging this particular day, and especially on May 25.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Could I ask members to remove their ribbons. In accordance with the Speaker's ruling, unless you have unanimous consent, they must be removed.

Mr Sergio: That's what I asked, Madam Speaker. I would be more than happy to ask for unanimous consent in order that we can wear the green ribbon.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Go ahead. Could you briefly explain -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Sergio: I'll be more than happy to try. This is with respect to recognizing the Child Find campaign which goes during the month of May and especially on May 25.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed then? Agreed.

Mr Sergio: I thank the House and the members.

LANDS FOR LIFE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on the Lands for Life. There is a common refrain emerging from my riding of Cochrane North and indeed the rest of northern Ontario, and that is, "Scrap the Tories' Lands for Life process."

Over the legislative recess, I heard from hundreds of constituents regarding this issue. If anything, this Lands for Life debate has been remarkable in that it has been able to forge a consensus among many different groups of stakeholders.

On April 23, in Constance Lake, 1,000 residents attended the Boreal East public meeting. Several hundred people showed up at a similar meeting in Smooth Rock Falls the following day. A petition gathered over 1,400 signatures calling on the Conservative government to put an end to this folly.

The people of Cochrane North have real concerns with the process and the potential impact of Lands for Life. Indeed, one of your very own panel members said it best:

"One of the failures of the process is the time line. We don't have time to debate intelligently, only to react adversely. We are missing a great opportunity to get ideas. The MNR promised to deliver the socioeconomic impact but they couldn't deliver," and we haven't heard the results of that yet.

Over the weekend, the chairperson of the Lands for Life round table in northeastern Ontario stated, "I don't think anyone is endorsing any one of the five options," as outlined in the Lands for Life initiative.

You can't get it any clearer. Lands for Life should be shelved now.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's Mental Health Week in Ontario. There are over 350 community-based mental health programs in our province. Services for individuals include social rehabilitation, case management, crisis management, day care, self-help and clinic-based counselling.

These programs are intended to reduce the frequency and duration of admissions to psychiatric facilities, replace inpatient treatment with outpatient services and reintegrate patients back into a community environment.

In discussing the importance of mental health care in Ontario, I would like to recognize two outstanding mental health programs in my riding of Northumberland.

The community mental health centres in Campbellford and Cobourg play a vital role in Northumberland in improving the quality of life for people who require mental health services. These agencies are effective promoters of mental health issues and in advancing mental health reform through the Northumberland County Mental Health Task Force.

I applaud Gene Duplessis and Brenda Weir and the rest of the staff at the Campbellford and Cobourg centres for their enthusiasm and initiative in developing activities and offering services in addition to the programs already provided.

Thanks for this opportunity to recognize Mental Health Week and the role that mental health programs play in our communities. Thank you for your attention.

TOURISM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This week's budget stated that tourism was one of Ontario's most important industries, employing over 200,000 people. The government's going to invest $120 million over the next four years, which is only $30 million per year.

Ontario, as the speech went on, was once a leader in tourist promotion. That was until this Reform-Tory government cut the tourism budget of the province some three years ago.

Elaine Viner, chair of the Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce, slammed her fist on the desk when Attorney General Harnick visited yesterday. She stated: "We need tourism dollars. They say it's a good news budget, but that's not good news and not good enough for us. I can't emphasize enough that Kingston desperately needs tourism funding."

In Kingston we have Fort Henry, the Thousand Islands, the general ambience of the city. None of these were mentioned in last week's budget speech by the finance minister.

The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is going to take a Yours To Discover Ontario tour within a week to decide where to spend the money, the Attorney General said, and this includes Kingston.

We don't need travel shows. What we need is the money. Give the money, the tourism promotion dollars, to the local organizations. They know how to spend it best. They know how best to spend the money to promote their own areas. Do that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On May 1 the Harris government took another swing at social assistance recipients, this time at families or single employable individuals living in accommodation owned or controlled by their parents.

These recipients are no longer entitled to a shelter allowance if they rent from a parent. They must seek accommodation elsewhere. But this government will still pay shelter costs, only to a different landlord. This is ridiculous. I believe the regulation violates the Human Rights Code which says you can't discriminate in accommodation based on family status.

Harvey and Penny Auger of Capreol rent a house to their son, his partner and two young children. They recently wrote to Mike Harris about this change: "My wife and I are very disturbed by your government's new welfare strategy as of May 1, 1998. This is with little or no notice to inform welfare recipients that if they live in separate dwellings, but owned by their parents, they will have their May 1 cheque listed as board/rent, plus a $50 living allowance. This reduces their normal amount to approximately 50%. Your reasoning is that you do not believe that the Ontario government should be making mortgage payments.

"How wrong you are, because as a parent and landlord we pay heat, hydro and repairs to the tune of approximately $250 a month. This allows our son to live within your rent guidelines.

"We are proud as parents who have helped our son through a very difficult time. He is now going to Cambrian College for grade 13 upgrading and gets very high marks. This has allowed him to apply for an OSAP grant and go for a three-year technical instrumentation ticket next year. This should allow him to get into a strong new work field.

"If this is your idea of showing a new kinder and gentler government, you have sent our entire family the wrong message."

PRINCIPAL FOR A DAY PROGRAM

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I want to tell you about something very special which I was invited to and took

part in yesterday, the Principal for a Day program at Dixon Grove Junior and Middle School. I want to take this opportunity to thank Principal Collette Dowhaniuk, as well as the teachers and students who made my visit so enjoyable.

Dixon Grove has 63 staff members serving 865 students from over 33 countries, speaking more than 44 languages. Together, their mission statement, as outlined in the school's strategic plan, is to "recognize the diversity of individuals, to develop confident and responsible students who value learning and equality, and to teach in educational partnership with our community the skills required to be successful students.

During my visit, I toured the school, spoke with the students and listened closely to the thoughts teachers shared with me. We discussed the issues they face daily and the goals to produce the best possible students at Dixon Grove. Part of our discussion included ways to maximize spending in the classroom, and I know the dedicated teachers at Dixon Grove will be pleased to make use of the additional money for textbooks announced in the recent provincial budget.

I want to again thank everyone at Dixon Grove Junior and Middle School for their kind hospitality, and particularly the staff for their devotion to helping students reach their full potential.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the deep anxiety and scepticism felt in the Ontario francophone community over Bill 108.

Bill 108 will give municipalities, by agreement with the Attorney General, more authority over the prosecution of some provincial offences. The problem is that the Attorney General is not willing to guarantee existing French-language rights.

Over a decade has passed since a Liberal government in Ontario passed the French Language Services Act. Support for our francophone community remains strong. In a recent poll 77% of anglophones said Ontario should become officially bilingual. The government needs to send a clear signal to all of our country, not just Ontario, that they believe in equal rights. I will remind you that the Calgary framewo