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

December 16, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L262a - Tue 16 Dec 1997 / Mar 16 Déc 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

CRAAYTECH PAINTED PLASTICS

TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS DANS LE SECTEUR RURAL RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

CHARITABLE GAMING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GIBRALTAR SPRINGS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

HOME CARE

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

LAND USE PLANNING

PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS

HOME CARE

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR DISPUTE

PETITIONS

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

CHARITABLE GAMING

PAY EQUITY

EDUCATION REFORM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ABORTION

EDUCATION REFORM

AMBULANCE SERVICE

EDUCATION FINANCING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

ABORTION

BEAR HUNTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Last Friday, when this Legislature was not sitting, the Minister of Finance announced the fifth edition of his provincial downloading numbers. For Ottawa-Carleton's 11 municipalities and regional government, it means $229 million in additional costs with a funding shortfall of some $43 million according to the minister's own figures. Clearly, for the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton, this is nowhere near revenue neutral. However, what adds insult to injury is the total absence of any transitional funding for Ottawa-Carleton.

The minister's downloading announcement included $1.3 billion in transitional funding for Ontario municipalities, including the $570-million community reinvestment fund, the $77-million special circumstances fund, the $75-million special transition assistance fund, the $50-million municipal restructuring fund and the $573-million municipal capital and operating restructuring fund. But none for Ottawa-Carleton.

I'm joined by my colleagues Richard Patten, MPP Ottawa Centre; Bernard Grandmaître, MPP Ottawa East; the honourable Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Opposition and MPP Ottawa South; and Gilles Morin, MPP Carleton East, in saying that it is totally unfair that Ottawa-Carleton, with over 8% of Ontario's population, receives absolutely none of the $1.3 billion in transitional funding to help ease the cost of downloading.

Quite frankly, we are being shafted. We call on the Harris government to honour its promise of revenue neutrality and provide taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton with their fair share of the $1.3 billion in transitional funding.

HOME CARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This government is engaged in a cruel attack on seniors across Niagara region. The community care access centre in Niagara reports that it has had to drastically cut its provision of home care services because this government simply refuses to fund the increased demand for home care in Niagara, which has one of the most aging populations in all of Ontario; indeed, in all of Canada.

This isn't just about percentages. Let me tell you what it means in real terms to real people: our parents and our grandparents. Gertrude F., a resident of St Catharines, is 80 years old. She has suffered multiple strokes, she's barely ambulatory and definitely housebound. Prior to this government's attack on seniors, she received a modest six hours of home care a week. That home care meant cleaning her room, changing her bedding and bathing her.

That home care has now been reduced to one hour a week: an 80-year-old woman, suffering from the affliction caused by those strokes and old age, receiving but one speedy sponge bath a week, and risking not even having her bedding changed on a weekly basis. I tell you, that's nothing for this government to be proud of.

In its passion to provide a tax break for the wealthiest of Ontario, it is attacking seniors in St Catharines, Welland, Thorold, across Niagara region. I tell you, the people of this province had better make a decision: Is it Mike Harris or is it our parents' and grandparents' welfare?

CRAAYTECH PAINTED PLASTICS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased to inform all members of this House about another positive business expansion in my riding. Craaytech Painted Plastics of Peterborough, a maker of custom mouldings and specialists in the area of painting plastics, recently announced their operation would be moving to a new location in the city, a location which is three times the size of its current plant.

Craaytech president Mr Paul Peterson indicated that an increase in the company's business machine and hardware production fields warranted the move.

Craaytech is yet another example of a good Ontario company reaping the rewards of an improved and vibrant economy, so much that this new expansion has led to 10 new workers being hired, bringing the total workforce to 45.

In September we heard from Ontario's finance minister that consumer confidence in the province has increased for the sixth straight quarter. Customers and a great many companies in this province are experiencing positive economic growth, and Craaytech Painted Plastics is no exception.

Please join me in congratulating president Paul Peterson and all of the workers at Craaytech for their hard work in making this company's expansion a great success story.

TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS DANS LE SECTEUR RURAL RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : La semaine dernière j'ai fait parvenir une lettre au ministre du Développement économique, du Commerce et du Tourisme afin d'inscrire Prescott et Russell au sein d'une initiative de partenariat Accès aux télécommunications.

Je veux apporter à l'attention de la Chambre le fait que certaines communautés de Prescott et Russell, comme les régions de Hawkesbury et Embrun, ont parmi les pires services de téléphone de la province. Les fournisseurs de l'Internet reçoivent plusieurs plaintes, les utilisateurs de l'Internet sont frustrés et les gens d'affaires ratent des opportunités à cause des équipements démodés.

Bell Canada a fait des améliorations et a promis de poursuivre la mise à jour de son équipement. Cependant je crois que, avec ce programme d'accès aux télécommunications, il serait possible de faire progresser ce dossier plus rapidement.

The minister says that the information highway is transforming the ways in which Ontarians live and work. I have read about the project put forward in Lanark county and I want the rural communities of Prescott and Russell to get the same kind of help from the TAP initiative. I want to see all communities in my riding take full advantage of what the information highway has to offer. As I wrote in my letter, this is a project that needs to go ahead as soon as possible and therefore requires the minister's quick intervention, considering the rapid evolution of the information highway.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Yesterday representatives of the Ontario Coalition Against Gambling Expansion were here at Queen's Park. They were visiting with MPPs, talking to them about their concerns, from the local community perspective, about the expansion of gambling in the province.

Also yesterday in the House, questions were again put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have to tell you, as someone who has been raising this issue on behalf of the constituents of the Beaches, one of the communities that has been designated by the provincial government to have a charitable casino foisted on us, I was very disturbed by the answer the minister gave. He said, if I can paraphrase him: "Why would we listen to those referendums that were held in the communities? They were municipal referendums. They were municipal plebiscites. Surely we should be dealing with the municipalities."

When this government chose the 30-some-odd sites across the province that they were going to force charitable casinos on, they didn't consult with the municipalities, they didn't consult with the residents. They did a marketing study and determined that that's where the money was.

I have to say that these casinos are very different than the commercial casinos, where you draw in tourism dollars. These casinos by their very design, if you read the consultant's report, are to be built to take money out of local economies. That's local businesses, local communities, local families that will suffer.

This government should begin to listen. If you believe in referendums, listen to the results, listen to the people. Put a moratorium on progressing with these charitable casinos.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): This government has repeatedly stated its commitment to improving the province's health care system by eliminating administrative waste and duplication and enhancing patient care services. We've always been receptive to innovative community-based ideas and how this process should be undertaken and accomplished.

It gives me great pleasure to share with the members of this House the details regarding the exercise completed by Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in terms of restructuring its facilities.

In 1995, the third floor of the hospital became vacant following restructuring. The board felt that an alternative use for the facilities could be found. The Ministry of Health approved the board's plan to convert the floor into office space for community agencies involved in health and social services as well as physicians' offices.

As of February 1, 1998, the entire third floor of the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital will be occupied by a satellite office of the children's aid society, a satellite office of the community care access centre of London-Middlesex, Family Service London in Middlesex County, Madame Vanier Children's Services, SMGH Speech-Language Pathology and a variety of doctors' and surgeons' offices.

Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, as a result of its restructuring, developed and implemented its own solution without additional cost to the taxpayer.

This is a success story for the individuals who spearheaded this exercise, and as MPP for Middlesex, I extend my sincere congratulations to them on their achievement.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): To the minister responsible for seniors: Thousands of couples over the age of 65 are involuntarily separated because their spouse resides in a nursing home. In most cases, the spouse living in the nursing home has his or her income pay the care facility and they are eligible for the $2 user fee for prescription drugs. This often leaves the spouse remaining at home with an income below the $16,000 base and results in these seniors having to pay the $100 deductible user fee and the higher $6.11 user fee.

These seniors live at home alone and are involuntarily separated from their spouse by circumstance. As a result, they no longer have the same income as when their spouse was living with them. However, they're being charged a significantly higher drug dispensing fee than their spouse who is living in a care facility. We've been advised by the Ontario drug benefit plan that only legal separation or divorce is recognized for each to be considered on their own.

Minister, I call on you to take action and correct this inequity. In the situation I've described, the federal government considers the couple separated. Couples who are involuntarily separated not only lose the companionship of their spouse but also lose the economic benefit of cohabitation. This places a hardship on that segment of the population. I urge you to do the compassionate and correct thing and recognize involuntary separation, the same as legal separation or divorce.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This statement is directed towards the Minister of Labour. Hans Brasch, a retired miner from Inco, has written a fascinating book called A Miner's Chronicle: Inco Ltd and the Unions 1944-1997.

This book clearly describes the constant danger in which the miners worked. Mr Brasch has documented the deaths of 674 workers since the turn of the century in the mines around Sudbury. One of those workers was a 13-year-old boy who worked at Inco's predecessor company. In those days there were no age limits and few safety rules. Industrial accidents were commonplace and relief for miners' families rarely occurred.

In the early 1940s workers fought to organize and bring unions into the mines. Mr Brasch makes clear how important the unions were in improving workplace health and safety. Federal and provincial governments slowly realized they had a serious responsibility to regulate industry and to ensure employees were not abused and could work safely.

The NDP government continued to improve working conditions by passing Bill 40, which was among the most progressive labour legislation in Canada.

What a change from this government. They repealed our progressive legislation and brought in Bill 7, the most worthless piece of legislation I have ever seen.

I want to personally thank Hans Brasch for this important piece of work.

GIBRALTAR SPRINGS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It is with great pleasure that I stand today to share a good-news story about a business on the brink of expansion in my riding.

First, I'd like to tell all the members in here that in the back room in the lobby there is water for them right here from a company in my riding and there's free water for everybody in the back rooms if you'd like to get some. They're bottles of Gibraltar Springs natural spring water for each member straight from the top of Blue Mountain and captured by Gibraltar Springs in the bottles being placed before you, but they're in the back room right now.

Gibraltar Springs, in the heart of Grey county, has been in production and sales of this natural resource for three years and public demand is on the rise. To meet this demand the company is investing $1.2 million in state-of-the-art equipment, constructing a new 12,000-square-foot expansion and trying to hire additional employees. As Gibraltar Springs draws its labour locally and purchases many supplies and services in Grey county area, the spinoff from its continued growth is good news for the community and in turn good news for the province.

Gibraltar Springs water contains less salt than any other bottled spring water. It is ozonated, bottled and sealed at the source and boasts a shelf life of two years. One sip and you'll know why the US export market for this product is booming. Even the Americans want to taste the good life in Grey county. My congratulations and best wishes to the staff and management of Gibraltar Springs for continued success in the future.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): It's the first time you've spoken to me in a low voice for a while. That's why I was taken aback. I apologize, sir.

The Speaker: You have to read the report. I don't want to hear about the voices in your head. Go ahead.

Mr Guzzo: I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 164,

An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 15, 1997, the bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Carroll moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement .

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

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): This bill is designed to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require that all gasoline used in Ontario for motor vehicles has a 6% minimum content of ethanol, an environmentally friendly, clean-burning and renewable alternative to fossil fuel. Ethanol-blended fuels mean a cleaner environment, less dependence on crude oil, an expanded market and economic opportunities for rural Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, I want to ask you a question on behalf of the people of Toronto. Quite simply, it's this: What have you got against Toronto? This week, you delivered the latest body blow. Despite your solemn promise to the contrary, the people of Toronto are now going to be hit over the head with a $164-million property tax hike. This morning the mayor was here, and he told us this translates into an average $200 property tax hike. It turns out that Toronto's share of the total provincial download is 33%.

The important thing here is to compare that with the fact that only 22% of the population lives in the city of Toronto. Quite simply, Premier, I have to ask you, what have you got against the people of Toronto?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think all Torontonians and all Ontarians and certainly all members of the Legislature would know that I've moved my family to Toronto. We go to public schools here in Toronto. We are enjoying what I think is the greatest city in the world very much. I might add that's not to take anything away from the great city of North Bay, Ontario, where I also have a residence.

I want to say very directly to the leader of the Liberal Party that Toronto has never seen such low tax increases in such booming times, with such job creation, since we threw you guys out of office.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier lends great comfort to the people of Toronto. It's clear that he doesn't understand that if Ontario is going to do well, so must Toronto. Put another way, Ontario can't do well unless Toronto does well. This is a global economy, and Toronto now has to compete with major cities from across the planet, not only within our province. Right here in Toronto, we're continuing to lose jobs throughout your term of office to the surrounding areas. A major factor in locating a business, as the Premier well knows, is the taxes. Quite simply, why are you causing taxes to increase in Toronto? Once again, what have you got against the people of Toronto?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you will realize that we do not believe any action we've taken would cause an increase in the taxes in Toronto. The only tax increases I have seen over the first two years of our office, and I stand to be corrected, I believe have come from spiralling education tax increases. As you know, we've stopped that from ever happening, not only in Toronto but all across the province over the next few years.

When I think back to the Liberal times, the massive property tax increases, the offloading, the commercial concentration tax, taxation and spending that cut the heart out of Toronto, and here we are, putting the heart back into Toronto; we're putting jobs back into Toronto; we're putting growth back into Toronto; we're putting hope and opportunity back into Toronto. The future has never been brighter since back in 1985, when we had the unfortunate electoral event of seeing the Liberals elected to destroy not only Ontario but particularly the city of Toronto.

Mr McGuinty: It's perfectly clear that the Premier simply does not understand the impact of his policies on the people of Toronto. First of all, he forced the megacity on them against their will. That represents a huge challenge in terms of preserving services and the quality of life. Now you're hitting them over the head with a $164-million property tax hike.

This leaves the municipal representatives only two choices, and you should understand this: Either they hike property taxes and scare even more jobs away or they cut services and reduce the quality of life enjoyed by the people here and cut the heart out of the city of Toronto. That's the net result of your policies. Once again, what have you got against the people of Toronto?

Hon Mr Harris: Actually there is a third alternative, and that is called doing more for less; that is called facilitating doing more for less. We had six mayors, five of whom are on the new council that will come in in January. One is mayor. Four others signed the document delivered to me that said: "We can find $240 million in savings. We can deliver all the programs and we can find $240 million in savings." We have allowed them to take a significant portion of those savings for tax cuts.

We ask them to get down to the job of doing the work, as every other municipality is doing, as hospitals are doing, as school boards are doing, as this government has done in leading by example - and yes, we're asking them to find three cents of waste on the dollar, and we know they can do that.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Premier as well. I want to ask you a question on behalf of Ontario students and their families. Their reality up until yesterday was that students were facing an average $25,000 debt load when they finished college and university.

You had increased their tuition fees by 30%, and they were facing unemployment - youth unemployment in the province was getting close to 20%; that's been on the rise steadily since you took office - so yesterday those families and those students held up their arms to you, and said, "Help us." You know what you said to them? "We're going to help you by allowing universities and colleges to raise tuition fees by another 20%." You told Ontario students and their families that you're going to be responsible for increasing tuition fees when all is factored in, and it's compounded by 60%.

That's been your response to youth unemployment in Ontario.

My question is quite simply this: Why are you making it harder for Ontario's youth to pursue post-secondary studies when we all know that's what they're going to have to do in order to get a job?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): There are a few things I want to put on the table and the Minister of Education may have a few things he wishes to talk about as well.

We recognize that student debt is a problem. That's why it was one of the number one priorities of premiers and first ministers across the country, and a commitment by finance ministers, federally and provincially, and a commitment by premiers and the Prime Minister at our meetings last week in Ottawa, that we would deal, this budget year, with the problem of total student debt. In the meantime, we have added $600 million to a bursary fund for low-income students. We have insisted that of all tuition fee increases, many of which are optional, 30% of those go to help low-income students.

We are facilitating more students the opportunity to go to college and university, and we are holding universities and colleges accountable by saying they must find the wherewithal to fund each and every student in this province who meets the qualifications.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier would be interested in disguising what happened yesterday. The fact of the matter is that he said tuition fees are going up another 20% in Ontario; it's as simple as that. Added to the 30% that he has already allowed for, that he has already implemented in Ontario, we're talking about a compounded increase of 60% at a time when youth unemployment in Ontario is 17%. At a time when Ontario families are asking themselves, "How can we afford to send the kids to school?" this Premier says, "I'm increasing tuition fees by 60%."

My question to the Premier is, how can he look those families and those students in the eye and say, "I'm going to help you by increasing tuition fees by 60%"?

Hon Mr Harris: I know the Minister of Education wants a chance to respond.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): A couple of facts off the top: It's interesting that when the Liberals were in power they increased tuition fees by 35%, but I guess there's a different view of things in this day and age.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can't hear you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand the dynamic here that the Premier and the Minister of Education have put into play. First of all, they take $400 million away from college and university funding. That's a 15% cut right across the board. Our colleges and universities are starved for revenues. We are now last-place funders in Canada. We fund our students on a per capita basis lower than any other province in the Dominion.

Last year 48 out of 50 American states increased funding to their publicly funded universities. They understand what the Premier should understand: If we are going to get ahead in a knowledge-based global economy, we've got to invest in our young people. It's as simple as that. Now what they've done is cash-starved our colleges and universities and what is effectively happening is our students are funding the tax cuts. That's exactly what's happening in Ontario today.

I am going to ask you a question again on behalf of Ontario families and students. How can you hit them over the head with a 60% tuition fee hike at a time when they're asking for your help?

Hon David Johnson: The Minister of Finance has indicated that the support for universities, colleges and students will rise some $80 million over the next two years, from $2.76 billion to $2.84 billion. That extra support is going to our students across the province of Ontario. But in addition, there is the 30% increase, the 30% associated with any tuition increase, which will go to assist the students in need. Students who are able to afford a little more will pay a little more.

Those students who are not able to afford the basic tuition will get more help than they've ever had in the past, more help through the 30% portion of the tuition increase, more help through the student opportunity fund, some $600 million.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. This morning the mayor of the new city of Toronto and several city councillors from the new city of Toronto came here to brief MPPs on the impact of your government's downloading on to the new city of Toronto.

What was truly insulting is that absolutely no one from your government, no one from your cabinet, none of your MPPs came to that meeting. You're downloading over $164 million on to Toronto taxpayers and no one from your caucus or your government came to listen to them today. Premier, why did no one from your government come to the meeting? Don't you think that the new mayor of Toronto and the new councillors of Toronto have anything worth listening to?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First New Democrats accused me of meeting too much with Mel Lastman; now you accuse me of not meeting enough with Mel Lastman. From 10 to 12 today was the scheduled time for our final caucus. I indicated that to Mr Lastman when he said he wanted to come at 11. I said, "If you want to come before or you want to come after, we can be available."

In fact, Mr Leach did meet with a number of officials before the 11 o'clock meeting. The Minister of Finance has offered to meet, officials are meeting and I stand ready to meet. But I did have a small commitment to 82 - 81, with the Speaker removed - of the most important people to the province of Ontario, and that is this caucus that has brought the marvellous change: the jobs, the hope, the opportunities, the prosperity and putting the heart back into the city of Toronto.

Mr Hampton: I always thought that the most important people were the people we represent. I'm sure the 2.3 million people who live in Toronto will really appreciate learning that they're not very important to you, that they're not important at all.

But one of the questions that the new mayor of Toronto and the city councillors wanted to ask is this: They're being downloaded upon to the tune of $163 million a year, yet they were totally shut out of your so-called community reinvestment fund and they were totally shut out of your so-called special adjustment fund; they haven't been able to find out what the criteria were for those funds, so they don't even know why they were shut out. Can you tell us what the criteria were for those two adjustment funds? Can you tell us why the 2.3 million people of Toronto were shut out from those adjustment funds?

Hon Mr Harris: I know that the Minister of Finance can.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The criteria for the community reinvestment fund were basically that some municipalities in this province - and he should know better than anybody else, coming from the area of the province that he does - simply do not have the tax base and the financial resources at their disposal to deal with some of the costs they are going to have to assume. Larger municipalities are more able to find cost efficiencies because of (

a) the size of their operation and (

b) the tax base, especially the commercial and industrial tax base, that they have at their disposal. Coming from the Fort Frances, Rainy River area of the province I would assume that you know that better than anybody else.

Mr Hampton: I was asking for the criteria by which Toronto was shut out. What I gather from the minister's answer is that 22% of the people are going to carry 33% of the downloading effort.

There's something else you talked about yesterday. You announced that you've got a $786-million restructuring fund, as you call it. I suspect it's a slush fund, a slush fund that you intend to throw around in the next year to buy yourself out of political trouble. But besides that $786-million slush fund, you're taking over $600 million from municipalities.

Minister, can you explain this: Why not take your slush fund and apportion that to municipalities so that they are dealt with fairly? Why do you download over $600 million on to municipalities at the same time as you've got a $780-million-and-some slush fund?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, it is not a slush fund; it is a sum set aside for restructuring costs, the same as we did last year. It's $900 million. I would say to the leader of the third party as I said to the media yesterday, with the pressures we have in the health care system particularly, the restructuring costs and capital costs identified by Dr Sinclair's commission, and with respect to education in Ontario, there are plenty of significant restructuring cost pressures that I'm sure will easily be able to find places in areas of priority to Ontarians to spend that $900 million in restructuring costs that, in the long run, will benefit all people in the province.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Back to the Minister of Finance. It's intriguing to learn that you're going to take $600 million from municipalities, yet you've got this fund sitting over there with $800 million in it that you're simply going to allocate as you see fit. I don't see the justice or the fairness in any of this, and I don't think any other people see it either.

You also announced yesterday that you're going to set up a two-year funding scenario for schools, hospitals and your other transfer partners. Then we looked through this blue book and we couldn't find the number anywhere for hospitals. Hospitals have no idea how much money they're going to have to operate on next year. Can you tell us, Minister, how much money hospitals will have to provide health care next year?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I can tell you that we have increased the amount of operational funding in health care from just under $18 billion this year to $18.2 billion the year after and $18.3 billion the year after that. Those are operational funds. Obviously, the exact amounts for individual hospitals in the province will be dealt with by the Minister of Health in due course.

Mr Hampton: This gets to the heart of the problem. We know this government signed a deal with doctors and we know that deal with doctors is going to cost the province about $250 million a year, about what you've put into the health care budget. So don't try to play the $250 million four ways. That's going in to pay for the higher fee adjustment for doctors. If you take that out, the health care funding doesn't cover inflation, doesn't cover a growing population and doesn't cover an aging population.

Since that kind of shortfall is developing and you said in your document yesterday that you were going to give hospitals a two-year funding envelope, and since there's no new money, they want to know how much money they are going to have to work with this year to provide the health care services that people need. It's nowhere in the blue book you released yesterday. How much is it?

Hon Mr Eves: The announcement yesterday was not intended as a specific announcement for every single hospital in the province. Surely the member must understand that. We inherited a health care system where the operational funding was in the neighbourhood of $17.5 billion a year. We've increased that to date to about $18 billion a year. We have committed that it will be no less than $18.2 billion the year after and $18.3 billion the year after that.

I think his very question, though, identifies some of the pressures on the health care system we have in Ontario, exactly why in his previous question we talked about $900 million being set aside for restructuring and capital costs that will have to be directed, in my opinion, in the priority areas of health care and education in the province.

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

Hon Mr Eves: I think we have increased health care funding significantly in the province. We understand it is a priority for Ontarians and we will continue to develop -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Here is the scenario that the Minister of Health is setting up. This government announced in 1995 that they were cutting $1.3 billion from hospitals. So far they've cut almost $800 million from hospitals. They announced this summer that they weren't going to take the further $500 million this year but they refused to come clean with hospitals across the province as to exactly what funding they will have for this next year.

The minister comes in here yesterday and brags that he's going to increase health funding, yet when you look at the numbers, there is in fact going to be a cut. The doctors have already spoken for the little bit of new money that's coming in. Your health budget doesn't keep pace with inflation, it doesn't keep pace with the growing population and it doesn't keep pace with an aging population. That means the home care operators, the community care operators, the long-term-care operators and the hospitals are all going to have to compete for less money.

Hospitals want to know how much you are going to cut them by. They can tell there is no new money here. How much are you going to cut the hospitals by? Tell them, so they have some idea how they are going to manage this in the new year.

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party very directly, hospitals will not be cut next year.

HOME CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health, who hopefully can answer more directly, about the circumstances that affect the health system. We have in Ontario a Mike Harris health care system that is cutting care away from individuals, individuals like Kim Taylor, who is a young mother with epilepsy in Ottawa, and you're going to take away two days worth of home care from her. You're going to take that away to save money.

You're also going to take away care from an 88-year-old who had a stroke, whose daughter writes to you that the reason for the cuts to home care, according to your staff, is to stay within budget. Patient needs and family support needs do not appear to be part of the equation. Government cuts to home care and health care are seriously affecting the lives of her father, herself and her family.

Minister, will you stand in your place today and give a guarantee that this man, Mr Jesus Leon, and Kim Taylor will receive continued home care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the member opposite, my assistant deputy minister met last evening with the executive director of the Ottawa CCAC and we have indicated to them that there is to be no reduction in services. They have been advised and they will be notifying their clients accordingly. We're also going to be working with the CCAC to ensure that they do use best practices because, as you well know, they do get an adequate share of money. If we take a look at other jurisdictions, they are doing very, very well per capita.

Mr Kennedy: The minister has told us that at the eleventh hour she's going to give funding back to some of the families. I want to get the same assurance today for people in Niagara region; for an elderly couple, Michael and Mildred, 84 years old, who are undergoing surgery and are being told they are going to lose their care. They are going to have to depend on themselves or be left alone.

Minister, there is no magnanimity on your part. There is $75 million you've taken out of Ottawa. There is $30 million you've taken away from the health care system in Niagara. You've created these needs and now you're cutting back and trying to compare it to somewhere else. These are real people, Minister.

How are we to believe what you're going to do, Minister, when last year you promised all kinds of money? Your ministry said they would give more money for home care. Instead, to these people, to Michael and Mildred, they need to know you cut $4 million last year out of home care. You didn't increase it, so why should we believe you now? Will you guarantee today that Michael and Mildred will get continued home care and you won't take it away from them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at the situation, we actually have committed to invest an additional $170 million into home care. We have put $5 million -

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I've just indicated, we have and we are reinvesting $170 million into community care. These are additional dollars.

I want you to also know that as far as demand for service is concerned, obviously it continues to increase. In fact, we have actually increased spending on home care in this province by 55% over the last five years and we're going to continue to work with the CCACs throughout this province. We are endeavouring to make sure that each community has equal funding. I guess I would ask you, do you want me to remove -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also for the Minister of Health. Minister, your admission that the government has no vision for health care is quite astonishing when we look at the changes you've already made in the health care system.

Today I want to ask you about your plans for health care delivery in the north. Health officials in the north are very clear that the benchmarks laid out in the northern and rural health care framework are not appropriate in the vast regions of the north, where a 40-kilometre trip between hospitals is rare. They speculate that using the definition in the framework, the north would have only two class C hospitals rather than the six or seven which operate now. Moreover, you say you will let the district health councils do the planning but you've thrown them into disarray by restructuring them at the same time.

Then there's the wild card of the health care restructuring commission, which apparently overrides all other decision-making when it comes to its directions on restructuring and reinvestment.

Minister, tell us, does your vision of health care in the north bear any relation to reality at all and will you guarantee that the decisions on restructuring will meet the unique needs of northern communities?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, I certainly can assure you that we're going to continue to work with all of those individuals in rural and northern communities to ensure that the needs of their populations are addressed. I also want to share with you the fact that the benchmarks are not yet final.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Let me be a bit more specific and focused. I've been meeting with the health care coalition in Sault Ste Marie and just last week I visited the Elliot Lake hospital with Sister Sarah Quackenbush. They are concerned about their diminishing ability to deliver the health care that their citizens need. This very disturbing overlap of jurisdictions and lack of any clear direction and agreed-upon benchmarks has them even more concerned.

In Sault Ste Marie we've been restructuring for about six years now and some say that we've done too much. The hospitals have applied to your ministry for money announced in this year's budget by the finance minister to help in that. Will you at the very least agree today to make sure that money flows so that there's no more stress to the system of hospitals in Sault Ste Marie and area?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We certainly are aware of the fact that throughout the province there are hospitals that have very differing needs. We're quite prepared to meet with the individuals involved and certainly see if we can address some of the issues of concern to them.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Grey county has reached the final stages for approval of its new official plan by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Unfortunately, there is one obstacle standing in their way: the Minister of Agriculture. Your ministry has a province-wide policy stating that minimum acceptable farm size is 100 acres. According to Sharon Johnston, a ministry official, 50-acre rural lots can't be considered bona fide farms.

Minister, why are you turning your back on this government's commitment to allow municipalities flexibility to meet local circumstances, forcing Grey county to go to the OMB?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's always a pleasure to hear from my colleague from Grey, who represents some of the best farms you'll find anywhere in Ontario.

As my colleague and as members of this Legislature know, the government has taken steps to allow municipalities to take more of the decisions that affect them and take them out of Queen's Park.

We repealed the previous government's land use planning policy and replaced it with a one-window approach to streamline the approvals and process planning decisions. Through this new one-window planning system, the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is to provide technical advice and comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on planning matters.

I certainly will work with my colleague from Grey to make sure that we can meet some of the needs that are facing his farmers.

Mr Murdoch: According to the report of the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development, any changes to provincial planning legislation must realize that rural Ontario is not a uniform region where municipalities have uniform priorities. Individual municipalities must not be limited in their options for determining appropriate growth and development strategy.

Bill 20 was implemented with the one-window approach to streamline the approvals process and give municipalities greater flexibility in their planning decisions.

Also worth noting is that the Grey County Federation of Agriculture actively participated throughout the entire official process and did not file objection based on lot size or any other issues.

Minister, I want you to tell us today that you will help Grey county in this problem so that they won't have to take their plan to the OMB. In the past, the government used to do that; now my municipality is going to have to do that, unless you can get control of Sharon Johnston.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We appreciate that there has been a lot of discussion in Grey county. There's been a slight bit of disagreement from a number of municipal politicians and from the federation of agriculture, and that's very healthy. I think the discussion and some disagreement -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's not even intelligent heckling.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I had the opportunity of checking the statistics for 1996. They show that in Grey county there are 3,134 farms, and some 572, or 18%, have less than 70 acres, so that indeed does provide some startup real estate for those who want to become farmers.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: That's not a joke. That's very important, because if we don't have farmers start up, our city people will be a little short of food. I know you people really don't care about that, but OMAFRA is fully supportive of the one-window approach. I certainly fully intend to work with my colleague from Grey to try and solve the dilemma.

PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Hundreds of thousands of teachers, parents and students have tried to tell you that your education Bill 160 is a bad bill. Now it seems even you are recognizing it's a bad bill. You're holding off making some parts of it law, at least until you're under a little less pressure.

Specifically, you're holding off on your decision to punish principals and vice-principals by stripping them of all their rights and their seniority as teachers if they choose to remain as principals and vice-principals and not return to the classroom. Obviously, you are afraid you're going to lose a court challenge on this and you're trying to avoid the embarrassment of yet another loss. But you are still planning to force principals and vice-principals to make their choice on April 1.

The only difference is that you're leaving them hanging until March 31, the day before they have to make their decision, before they know for sure whether you're going to go ahead with this. Why do you not just repeal this part of the bill and let principals and vice-principals continue as effective educational leaders?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It's not unusual to proclaim different aspects of a bill on different dates, particularly for a bill of this size. For example, the class size restrictions and instructional time aspects will not come into effect until September 1 of next year.

In terms of the principals and vice-principals, we thought it prudent to go through a consulting process, as I think I've mentioned in this House a number of times, perhaps even in response to your very own questions. We will, through a work group, be consulting on employment conditions for principals and vice-principals over the next three months, and that aspect of the bill will be proclaimed on March 31. I think that's just prudent planning. We intend to proceed with the bill and the proclamation on that particular date because it avoids the conflict that principals and vice-principals find themselves in today.

Mrs McLeod: You passed a law and then you hold it over their heads dangling while you carry out something you want to call a consultation. Minister, you have created incredible confusion and enormous anger in the way you've dealt with principals and vice-principals. You were going to leave them alone until they dared to protest against your government's attacks on education, and then you changed your bill to punish them by stripping them of their rights as teachers and forcing them to decide on April 1 whether to return to the classroom.

Hon David Johnson: In terms of the employment conditions for the principals and vice-principals, that is a matter that will be worked out. There is a work group that is in the process of being established. That group will be meeting with principals and vice-principals and their representatives from across the province. We want to ensure that principals and vice-principals are dealt with fairly, that their employment conditions are appropriate for their status, which is very important to this government.

In the first instance the principals and vice-principals were taken out of the union through the bill because of a conflict situation they find themselves in. On the one hand, they're a member of the union; on the other hand, they have very direct responsibilities. But they're still key to our schools across Ontario, they still have a leadership role and we want to make sure that, through this discussion process, they're dealt with fairly.

HOME CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your government's insistence upon a competitive marketplace delivery scheme for community-based home care services has caused enormous anxiety, especially among employees of the Red Cross and the seniors who depend on their services. Many workers have been told by the Red Cross that it could be forced to close down its home care services by the end of December.

As you know, my leader and I have been asking for months for the Minister of Health to meet with us on this issue. In October the Minister without Portfolio for seniors issues told this House that the jobs and pay of the workers would be protected. That was helpful, but workers and their clients are still worried.

Minister, we know this problem can be solved without destroying anybody's pay equity rights under the law if you'll just get off your competition and privatization bandwagon long enough to solve the problem. I'm calling upon you to guarantee today that there will be no interruption to the Red Cross home care services that people across this province depend upon.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, through you to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I fully share the concern about the Red Cross situation and the homemaking. I am pleased that the Red Cross and the pay equity office, at our request, have been discussing the matter. There will not be a disruption of services. I am assured by the Red Cross that they will have their staff continuing to work. I am looking forward to the final advice concerning the outcome of the discussions between the Red Cross and the Pay Equity Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This is indeed a health care question. The health care of the many vulnerable frail elderly and disabled people in the province is threatened. Their ability to stay in their own homes is threatened because of the government's desire to privatize the services and to cut wages.

This is not really a pay equity issue. The Red Cross has been subject to pay equity for over 10 years now. It became a problem when this government changed the funding to a competitive model to be in line with your privatization approach.

The former Minister of Health wouldn't meet with us about this issue and now the crisis has landed in your lap. Time is running short. People in Sault Ste Marie and across Algoma district and the rest of the province want to know these services will continue into the new year. Will you take the responsibility now and assure us not only that the services -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I am pleased to confirm that both the Red Cross and the pay equity office agree that a disruption of service will not occur and that they are committed to working towards a positive solution that ensures clients receive the quality care that is important in many communities in Ontario. If I may quote from the memo from the Red Cross to its staff:

"While there is much work to be done to finalize the details of a solution, we want to assure our staff and clients that daily operations will proceed as usual while that work is in process. We will provide homemaking services during this time, without disruption."

I might add, this is despite the fact that my predecessor in this ministry and I both wrote to the leaders of the opposition parties in October and November and asked for their cooperation in solving this important pay equity problem, and received none.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Consumers and in particular the seniors of the province of Ontario are facing telephone scams from time to time in the province. Most recently we've seen a case where consumers receive mail indicating they've won a contest and are told that if they want to get their prize they should dial a 1-800 number. When they dial the number, they find it is transferred over to a 1-900 number and then they're being charged $3 a minute without their knowledge. I wonder what your ministry is doing to prevent such scams so we can protect the people of Ontario.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Wentworth East for the question. It's very timely, because as we head into the Christmas season, more of these types of scams start to appear - scratch-and-win cards that come.

This 1-900 scheme the member so appropriately describes: We have been in touch with the CRTC, and there are some safeguards in place for the consumer. If the consumers complain about this non-disclosure, the CRTC will contact the phone company and ask them to cease and desist, and if they fail to comply they will cut that off. The consumers can also, as I understand, contact their phone companies for a one-time waiving of charges with respect to this.

We believe the impact of telemarketing fraud in the province to be in the range of about $20 million this year. We're involved with Phonebusters, an initiative we have done with the Solicitor General's office to combat this type of fraud. Very recently we launched a Seniors Busters to help seniors combat this, with a reverse boiler room. I was there with the minister responsible for seniors, Mr Jackson, and it is another initiative. Seniors particularly should be on guard against this type of fraud that takes place during the holiday season.

Mr Doyle: Minister, this is particularly good news for the elderly and the vulnerable. However, analysing the success of such programs is something we'd like to know about too. Can the minister assure the House that these types of initiatives are working? Are the consumers in this province learning how to avoid these telemarketing scams?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member is quite correct that the way we need to combat this is through education. We expect to have a decrease of this type of crime in Ontario by about 41% this year.

I'd like to share a quick story here. I want to congratulate Fred Sampson, who is 73 years old. He is in Port Hope. He is a senior, obviously. He was contacted and told that he had won three of five different prizes: a cheque for $2,500, a 20-inch satellite dish, a cheque for $5,000, a $3,000 government bond or a trip for two to Hawaii. They told him that what he had to do to get this was send a cheque for $1,600 to them. This was his response: "`I told them to deduct the $1,600 from the first $2,000 prize and send me the rest of the prizes I won,' Mr Sampson said with a laugh."

There's a general rule here that if you don't enter a contest, you don't win a prize. I congratulate Mr Sampson for being aware and taking steps to make sure he wasn't sucked in, as many people are.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Your so-called revenue-neutral exercise in dumping on municipalities equals a $43-million shortfall for Hamilton-Wentworth and Halton. There are some great suggestions. Trevor Pettit, your member for Hamilton Mountain, suggested that we hike user fees for disabled, for kids, for seniors, to make up for the shortfall.

Once you remove the fixed costs, it would mean a cut of 35% in the budget of Hamilton-Wentworth to make up for the shafting you have given them. In Halton, in Burlington, they would have to shut down the whole recreation department. They can't get hold of Minister Cam Jackson, so they have asked me to ask a question.

They cannot do what you have asked them to do. Every pool, every arena, every rec centre in Burlington would have to be closed down to make up for your shortfall. You have screwed Hamilton-Wentworth and Halton out of $43 million. I have an invoice for you of $43 million you owe the people -

Interjections.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member of the opposition party, let's look at what we're really asking the municipalities to do. We're asking the municipalities to find three cents out of every dollar of their expenditures. Cut that and they're absolutely even. That applies to Hamilton. That applies to Halton. That applies to all the municipalities in Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, you must allow the minister to respond to your question.

Interjection: We can't hear him.

The Speaker: You can't hear him? I've got a good idea.

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Speaker, that's a very good suggestion. They would learn a whole lot more by listening, and it would be a new experience for them as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Don't help me, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: We're asking the municipalities to save three pennies on a dollar of expenditure. If they do that, there is absolutely no need for any tax increase in any municipality in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is to the same minister. We spoke with the city of London today. Like Moses coming down from the mountain, Mike Harris said to the city of London, "You need to cut $14 million more or raise property taxes." The city of London has already lost $40 million over the last two years out of a total $300-some-million budget. This is a huge hit to the city. But the worst

part is that they can't get any information from your ministry because you're not returning your phone calls.

In fact, most municipalities cannot get access to the information they need to finish this budget process. What the treasurer of the city of London said is: "We've got them on speed dial. They've got us on voice mail." When are they going to get accurate information from you?

Hon Mr Leach: As the honourable member knows, most of the information was sent out last week. If there is some difficulty in contacting the regional office, I will commit to look into that for the member.

London is another good example. London had a consultant's report this last year that showed how they could come up with millions of dollars worth of savings and avoid the need for any tax increase in the coming year. London is asked to save three cents on every dollar of expenditure. If there is a municipal councillor in London who doesn't think they can find three pennies on the dollar, they should go and look for another job.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On November 23, the strike at Goldcorp in northwestern Ontario became the longest strike in Canadian gold mining history, 18 months. The communities involved, Balmertown, Red Lake and Cochenour, are truly struggling. The workers are suffering, the families are suffering and small businesses are suffering. This is all happening because your government passed labour law changes that permit scabs. The work that's being done at this mine is being done by scabs, many of whom aren't even from the province.

My question to you is, will you come to Red Lake and Balmertown? Will you meet with the workers? Will you meet with the communities? Will you see how much damage is being done in this community by your government's decision to allow scabs?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I share the member's concern about the significant economic impact this dispute is having on the local community. My ministry, the Ministry of Labour, has expended substantial effort to assist the parties in these negotiations. I understand that the strike commenced many months ago, in June 1996. The Ministry of Labour mediator has remained in touch with the parties but no talks have been held in some months. The ministry and its mediators remain available to help resolve the dispute.

Mr Hampton: You are the new Minister of Labour. You don't have to repeat the mistakes of your predecessor. We're talking here about 6,000 people who live in the area. We're talking about children who don't have enough money to buy new clothes for school. We're talking about families who are having trouble paying the heating bill. We're talking about a corporation, Goldcorp, that has basically said it doesn't care about this community, it doesn't care about these workers. It's going to bring in scabs from outside the province to do the work at this mine.

Minister, you've got an opportunity to correct the mistakes. I put it to you again: Will you truly be a new Minister of Labour for this government? Will you come to those communities and see how much damage is being done to families, to workers and to the community as a whole by your government's decision to allow scabs in the workplace?

Hon Mr Flaherty: This government continues to believe in and support the collective bargaining process. The best solutions, as the member opposite knows, are those reached by the parties through negotiations independently and in a self-reliant way. The ministry provides mediation services; the ministry mediator has been involved since last year in this matter.

As I indicated earlier, the ministry stands ready to continue to provide mediation services to help the parties reach the solution that only they can reach to make the workplace harmonious.

PETITIONS

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is in the best interests of the public to have open market competition among professional accountants; and

"Whereas, under the Public Accountancy Act, only chartered accountants have full access to public accounting licences in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario restricts certified general accountants more than all other provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island; and

"Whereas certified general accountants, whose training is identical to that of chartered accountants in the province of Ontario, have a statutory right to practise public accounting in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, are free to practise in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, can be licensed to practise in Nova Scotia and have considerable public accountancy rights in the province of Quebec; and

"Whereas this has created a monopoly in the province of Ontario since 1962 that is not only unfair to the public but also results in additional expenses, particularly to small business owners; and

"Whereas the monopoly results in NAFTA inequalities for certified general accountants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas according full professional rights to certified general accountants would lower costs to business by creating competition in accounting and auditing services, which is consistent with the current government's initiative to introduce measures designed to reduce government interference in the private and business lives of Ontario residents;

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, petition the Legislature to grant the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario their request for overdue amendments to the Public Accountancy Act to allow certified general accountants full access to public practice licences and to eliminate the present monopoly."

I'm happy to sign my signature to this as well.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas Mike Harris during the 1995 election promised voters he would not allow more casinos without holding a community referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario has designated the Beaches community as one of 36 new permanent charity casino sites without holding a referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris says these permanent casinos are simply replacing roving charity casinos;

"Whereas roving charity casinos can only be set up for a maximum of three days, can't stay open all night, have no more than 30 tables and take a maximum bet of $10. On the other hand, the new casinos are permanent, operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with 40 tables, 150 video slot machines, and maximum bets of $100;

"Whereas Mike Harris dismisses concerns, saying the total number of gaming days in Toronto won't change;

"Whereas the nature of gambling will change dramatically with the introduction of the highly addictive video slot machines and much higher dollar volume operations, it being evident by the government's estimate that the new permanent casinos will see about $1 billion a year wagered;

"Whereas Mike Harris says the new permanent casinos will be safer and more accountable;

"Whereas at the Windsor casino extra law enforcement resources were provided by the province and the Harris government has made no such commitment for the new casino in the Beaches;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease any bids for the Beaches casino site, to fully consult with the community and not to force a casino site on the community against its wishes."

I am in complete agreement and have affixed my signature.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): This is a petition about the Pay Equity Act and its effect on the Red Cross's homemaker service. There are 272 signatures on this petition, not all of which are from Simcoe Centre.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public with respect to Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government,

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I'll sign my name.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from my community in Hamilton.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

I continue to support my constituents who call for this public inquiry.

ABORTION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition from roughly 200-and-some people from my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe in the sanctity of life, from conception to natural death; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not an illness; and

"Whereas the freedom to speak against the abortion of innocent and silent human beings is being subverted by prosecuting conscientious objectors to abortion;

"Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to (1) stop the funding of abortion clinics; (2) stop funding doctors for performing abortions through provincial medicare schemes; (3) do not provide funding for the training of abortionists; and (4) stop the prosecution of conscientious abortion objectors before the courts."

I sign my signature to this.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of students at Hillcrest high school in my riding of Thunder Bay who held a funeral march to mourn the passage of Bill 160. They have sent me these and they read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas sections of Bill 160 allow the government unprecedented centralized control over education in Ontario; and

"Whereas sections of Bill 160 remove our democratic rights as citizens to comment or respond to education reform; and

"Whereas sections of Bill 160 allow the government to make further massive cuts to education funding without public consultation or debate;

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

"Amend those sections of Bill 160 listed above."

I concur with that and will sign my name.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is a petition signed by over 1,000 people who live in the area of Fort Frances who are vitally concerned about health care. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the Fort Frances ambulance dispatch not be moved to Kenora."

As I indicated, there are about 1,000 signatures and I have affixed my signature as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Whereas Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from members of the USWA, CAW, CUPE, UFCW, OPSEU and CEP from all across Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and on the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

On behalf of my NDP caucus, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): This petition was delivered to my office by Ms Cheryl Stewart of Bolton. I present it now. It's to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society, and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature to (

a) pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care, and to (

b) pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have a petition here signed by people from Smiths Falls and Nepean, the riding of Norm Sterling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government would remove up to 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

ABORTION

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition from the Anderdon Malden Amherstburg Sportsmen's Association to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy, with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals, and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Wayne Samuelson, the new president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has begun a process to fundamentally alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations with the release of the discussion paper A Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas these changes threaten to deregulate the health and safety protection for workers and reduce or eliminate the rights of workers and joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the ministry intentionally organized meetings in a manner which allowed only marginal opportunity for workers to discuss with the ministry the issues raised in the discussion paper; and

"Whereas workers deserve a full opportunity to be heard regarding the proposals that threaten the legislated provisions that provide them with protection from workplace injury, illness and death;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the deregulation of workplace health and safety and any erosion of the protection provided workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that province-wide public hearings be held once any amendments to the act are introduced."

I proudly add my name to those of these workers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

Mr Baird, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des mesures de création d'emplois et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997 et à apporter d'autres modifications à des lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Finances ou qui traitent de questions fiscales.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Mr Speaker, I would indicate at the outset of my remarks that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Durham East, the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. I will only be speaking for a very few brief minutes.

This bill arises out of the May 1997 budget and its central component is to help create jobs and encourage economic growth in the province of Ontario. Some suggest that at the provincial level you can't do much to help the Ontario economy, that you can't do much to create jobs. That's not something we on this side of the aisle believe. We believe the government must do everything it can to help create a climate for job creation.

This bill does a whole host of things, whether it's programs to help address youth unemployment, a concern to everyone in the province of Ontario; measures to assist small business in their economic development, because we know on this side of the House that small business is where we find job creation in Ontario; and, in addition, measures to help research and development in our ever-important high-technology area. These areas are very key to job creation and economic growth in the province.

When you look at where we're going on job creation, it's quite substantial. We've seen more than 204,000 new private sector jobs created in the province just this year, in the first nine months. We're actually finding out a remarkable thing, that when you cut taxes you bring in more revenue. This year the government of Ontario, in cutting provincial income tax rates, will bring in more retail sales tax revenue, more corporation tax revenue, the big corporations paying more taxes under Mike Harris. Gasoline tax revenue is up, fuel tax revenue is up, land transfer tax revenue is up, mining profits tax revenues are up.

The one thing that is down is the Canada health and social transfer. Last year it was $4.8 billion; this year it's going down to $3.9 billion because the federal government is cutting health care, cutting hospitals. Jean Chrétien can't stop cutting health care, can't stop cutting hospitals. But there's no problem, because Mike Harris and Ernie Eves are finding more money for health care to replace the money that the federal Liberals have cut. That's very good news for the health care system in the province of Ontario.

In fact, not only have they replaced the money that the federal Liberal government of Jean Chrétien has cut for health care, they've actually found new money. Health care spending in Ontario in this fiscal year, in this budget, was increased by more than $1 billion to what it was two years ago, and just yesterday the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, stood in this place and announced half a billion dollars of new money for health care, so more than replacing the federal cuts made by the federal Liberal government.

The economic update presented by the Minister of Finance, which relates directly to Bill 164 in the budget presented in May, is good news. We're seeing an incredible amount of job creation. In the second quarter of this year we saw economic growth in Ontario of 7.2%, an unparalleled success. Something is going on in Ontario that just isn't taking place in the rest of Canada. Something is going on in Ontario, economic growth, and it's in large measure because of the economic environment assisted by the policies of this provincial government.

Some people have said, "Is it not the North American economy that's booming?" People have told my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea that. But it's funny: The American recovery started in 1992 and Ontario was left out. Ontario did not benefit from that economic revival in the United States and other parts of North America in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. It only began to happen in the latter part of 1995. It began, we turned the corner in 1996, and now we're seeing solid job creation and economic growth in 1997.

We are concerned that there are a number of things we could do to help job creation. That's why we're instituting in this bill an Ontario new technology tax incentive, an Ontario film and television tax credit, a graduate transitions tax credit and a cooperative education tax credit. There are a lot of students getting their first employment and some real job experience through co-op programs across the province, a lot of students getting that education at the University of Waterloo and coming to work at Northern Telecom in Nepean, creating jobs indeed.

The film industry is a big employer here in greater Toronto: Ontario computer animation, with Sheridan College doing an excellent job; Algonquin College in Nepean doing an excellent job in that area -

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Humber College.

Mr Baird: Humber College in Toronto, the member for High Park-Swansea said. There's another story. He's always spreading the good news about Humber College.

We're seeing some solid economic growth and Bill 164 will help build on that economic growth. Bill 164 will help youth unemployment. It will help young people get that first job through a number of initiatives. It will help small business and in Ontario we know the importance small business plays. Most important, it'll help research and development in our high-technology industries.

Mr Speaker, I yield my time to my colleague the member for Durham East.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I want to thank the member for Nepean for sharing his time with me. For those watching, Bill 164 is simply creating jobs and working with small business. It's our commitment to the people of Ontario: Bill 164, the Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act.

The bill will implement 1997 budget commitment investments, among other things, in research and development, new technology and youth employment. By responding to the ideas from Ontarians and people in my riding of Durham East, we've made initiatives and we've taken action.

Bill 164 will support creating more well-paid, leading-edge technology jobs for Ontario's youth. By enhancing the cooperative education tax credit, it's just one example of taking action to support youth employment, and there is the Ontario computer animation and special effects tax credit, working with the community college and the small business sector. It will also implement the Ontario business-research institute tax credit which will forge stronger links between the private sector and the Ontario post-secondary research institutions, and the Ontario new technology tax incentive, which will provide an incentive to acquire new technologies in Ontario.

Bill 164 enhances our commitment in our budget to give small business incentives to provide jobs and hope and opportunity for Ontario's young people. It will increase the tax credit rate for small business for both the graduate transitions tax credit and cooperative education tax credit. The member for Scarborough will outline that in his comments, I'm sure.

These tax credits will increase job opportunities for Ontario's youth by encouraging business to work more and to take the experience and opportunities for students and institutions for a strong partnership in our future for our youth.

Our Minister of Finance, Mr Eves, in his economic outlook, the statement made yesterday, reviewed the outlook, the forecast. Look at the evidence: 204,000 new private sector jobs have been created in Ontario in the last nine months. Real economic growth is forecast at 4.4% in 1997. Indeed, confidence in Ontario's economy is stronger today because of our minister and our Premier and the leadership in this province. The initiatives in Bill 164 are part of our plan. With the advice of our constituents throughout Ontario, we're working to help young people.

What I'm really trying to share with those listening today, in the bill I'm going to focus more specifically on one section,

section 43.6 of the act, which implements a budget commitment to refund graduate transition tax credits for qualified expenditures in employing underemployed Ontario post-secondary graduates. This is so important for the young people who have spent and committed their time and their personal desire in education and yet they have no job.

What does this provide, for both the graduate student who is unemployed and the employer? "A corporation that complies with the requirements of this

section may deduct from its tax otherwise payable under this part of the taxation year, after making all the deductions" in other sections.... "The amount of a corporation's graduate tax credit for a taxation year is the sum of" the following.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): How come there's more people out of work? Could you explain that?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order, member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr O'Toole: Going further, to subsection (4), "If the qualifying employment commenced after December 31, 1997 and the total of all salaries or wages paid by the corporation in the previous taxation year is greater than $400,000, but less than $600,000, the amount is the amount determined in accordance with the following formula...." Clearly from 15% to 20% tax credit, up to I believe a maximum of $15,000, therefore working in partnership with small business to create jobs for university students who today don't have jobs.

There's one other

section that may go unnoticed but it's a very important section. It's called

schedule G, the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Act.

Schedule G goes on to outline that every municipality in Ontario is a member of the corporation first, and the statutory duties now performed by the assessment commission under the Assessment Act will be transferred to the corporation. The corporation will work with municipalities and indeed the province to administer the assessment system across Ontario.

We've listened. Clearly this is not a new idea. In fact the Liberal government produced this bill, Bill 156,

An Act to establish the Property Assessment Corporation, back in 1990. Unfortunately, because they called a quick election, they didn't get time to carry it through. We're delivering. We're prepared to listen to good ideas. The difference between us and the Liberals is we actually do something about it. This is exciting news.

We use as a constant guide this document here, this document that many Ontarians realized they'd never deliver on. But there were good ideas in here, fundamental ideas. What did they say? Introduce a balanced budget. I don't know how they were going to do it. They were going to have to reduce the same deficit as us. They wouldn't have done it. Clearly the evidence is they wouldn't have done it.

Tax and spend, that's their strategy. Scrap the 5% auto insurance premium. Abolish the annual corporation filing fee. Done. Reduce the corporate tax rate on small business. Done. This is what we're doing here. Introduce the Ontario operations job check. They wouldn't have done that. Clean up the Workers' Compensation Board by hiring a qualified CEO, also health and safety. Bill 99, we've already done it.

Going back, not to fault the previous government, the NDP government also brought in a document. Here is, "Property assessment to be paid for by municipalities." Clearly this is not new. If you look at our

schedule G, you'll understand that we have taken the steps to introduce this new corporation to manage the whole issue of local assessment.

Thank you very much for allowing me to contribute to the discussion this afternoon. I'm looking forward to the comments made by the member from Scarborough. I'm sure he'll expand on a few of the comments that we've made this afternoon.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure today to speak on third reading of Bill 164, the Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act, 1997. I think it's important that when we look at Bill 164, we look at everything else this government has done in terms of its budget process since taking office in June 1995, in fact being elected with a majority government by the people of Ontario.

When you look at Bill 164 and look at everything else we've done, the tax cuts, the cuts in government spending, we're doing everything we said we would do when we ran for office in 1995, in fact doing everything we said a year before the election when we released the Common Sense Revolution.

What does Ontario look like today with the effects of the Common Sense Revolution?

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Prosperous.

Mr Newman: It's very prosperous, the member for Brant-Haldimand says, and he's absolutely correct, because real economic growth in this province was at 4.4% for 1997 so far. What has that brought about? Two hundred and four thousand net new private sector jobs in the last nine months alone.

When I look at the 1997 Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review and look at the numbers - I know the member for Durham-York cares very much about these numbers, and she pointed out to me today that when you look at Ontario and the rest of the G-7 in terms of employment growth in 1996, Ontario was 1.5% and Canada was 1.3%, so we were ahead of the rest of Canada, but more important, we were ahead of the rest of the G-7. France had a zero per cent increase; Germany a net loss of minus 1.2%; Italy an increase of 0.5%; Japan a 0.4% increase; the United Kingdom a 1% increase; and the United States a 1.4% increase. Ontario was 1.5%, leading Canada and leading the G-7 in job growth.

Mr O'Toole: Clearly the plan's working.

Mr Newman: As the member for Durham East says, the plan is indeed working and many people have said that.

Mr O'Toole: Tax cuts create jobs.

Mr Newman: Tax cuts do indeed create jobs. We've seen a 27% increase in new housing starts in the province. We've seen higher consumer confidence and better business confidence numbers. In fact, at this time of the year when the shopping malls are probably at their busiest, why are they busy? Because more people are working today. There's a confidence that they're willing to spend dollars and to go shopping. One need only look at the traffic jams in the city every day, because there are more and more cars on the road, more people working, going to and from work.

What has this all done? It's all helped to reduce the deficit in this province from a projected level of $6.6 billion for this year to $5.6 billion. That's a deficit figure of $1 billion less. That's almost cutting the deficit in half from when we took office from the NDP, when the deficit was almost $11 billion in this province.

Our measures have had a great impact in this province, and we're seeing the positive results from it. They're not the tax-and-spend ways of the previous governments. The debt in this province doubled from 1990 to 1995 under the NDP and it actually tripled in the 10 years ending in 1995. What we've seen is that 65 tax hikes on the part of the other two parties did not bring about job creation in this province. In fact, if we look at the NDP and their 32 tax hikes, they actually reduced the number of people working in this province by 10,000 jobs.

I know many of my Liberal friends across the way talk about the number of people working or not working in this province. The fact of the matter is, there are more people working in this province today than ever before. The reason they're using some of the numbers they use is that more and more people are coming to Ontario today to work, because Ontario is indeed a province that is beginning to once again lead the economic engine for the rest of Canada.

I too like to look at the Liberal red book of 1995, as my friend for Durham East does. Let me read to you what the Liberal red book said on balancing the budget: "High deficits and a big public debt are job killers." I couldn't agree with them more. "Rising deficits mean that instead of having more money in their pockets, Ontarians are paying more interest on the debt." Right now, we're spending $9 billion a year on interest alone in this province. That's absolutely out of control. "Business considers a province that can't control its spending a poor place to invest." We're getting our financial house in order here, and that's bringing jobs to this province.

"Ontario has now had four deficits in a row of more than $10 billion." The four deficits they would be talking about would be under the NDP government. "Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces in Canada that did not reduce their deficit in 1994-95. The total Ontario debt has more than doubled to a staggering $90 billion."

This is the best part, and I know they are trying to be very serious about this, but it says, "A Liberal government will both preach financial restraint and practise it." I guess that's their attempt at humour. But what it says here is, "Through the Ontario Liberal balanced budget plan, we will balance the provincial budget within four years."

It goes on to say that government must not balance the budget by raising taxes. I absolutely agree. That's why we've had 30 tax cuts since we've taken office. We have had 30 tax cuts in this province.

A Liberal government will cut government spending. It says, "A Liberal government will cut government spending by more than $4 billion while preserving health care and education." That sounds familiar.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): What page is that on?

Mr Newman: That's on page 7.

"Our spending cuts and savings fall into five categories: program reductions, leaner government, public/ private sector partnerships, job growth and welfare reform" - their plan of mandatory opportunity would have actually seen the welfare rates of some people in this province cut by 30% - "and cutting political spending." It goes on to say they would scrap the Interim Waste Authority; they would end the failed Jobs Ontario program.

This is one of my favourites: They would cut grants to big business by 60%. So they would still give grants to big business.

Mr Baird: Just not as much.

Mr Newman: Just not as much. They'd have 40%. What have we done? We have cut corporate welfare to nothing -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre is the only one in here who is supposed to be talking. The rest of you, be like me and just listen, please.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering, and I'm sure that you can assist me on this because you have assisted me so often in the past, is it important that we tell the truth in this House? Is that important? Because I have severe reservations -

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. That is not a point of order. This is not question period.

The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, because it gave me more time during that break to find more interesting promises here in the Liberal red book.

They were going to scrap the Interim Waste Authority and the failed Jobs Ontario program; cut the grants to big business by 60%, as I mentioned - that is corporate welfare and we have ended that in this province; scrap the royal commission on the Workers' Compensation Board - done; scrap the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board bureaucracy. This is just unbelievable, but this is the red book that's saying it here.

It is important to know that all the things the Liberal Party said they would do is what we're doing. They continually vote against every single measure that we bring forward. Every measure to create jobs, to create prosperity, growth, hope and opportunity in this province, they vote against.

That's what Bill 164 is all about. It's about tax credits to create jobs. It's about the graduate transitions tax credit. It's about the cooperative education tax credit, the community small business investment funds program, the small business investment tax credit, the Ontario business-research institute tax credit for R and D, the Ontario new technology tax incentive, the Ontario computer animation special effects tax credit, the Ontario film and television tax credit, the Ontario book publishing tax credit, the child care tax credit, and the return of property assessment to municipalities.

We can see that Bill 164 is all about creating jobs through tax credits and tax cuts. That would be 30 tax cuts on the part of this government since we took office in June 1995. We talked about income taxes being cut and returning that money to the pockets of Ontarians. I think everyone forgets that those hardworking Ontarians were the ones who earned that money in the first place. They ought to be keeping more of that money. We have seen, and the numbers have proved, that when you cut taxes you have more revenue, and not only do you have more revenue but you have more people working in this province.

In spite of everything we've done - I know and I'm confident, and I'm sure all members on this side of the House are, that we will indeed balance the budget - today we're still spending $640,000 an hour more than we take in in revenue. Think of the interest we're paying in this province. We know individual families could not afford to do that, businesses could not afford to do it, and governments cannot afford to do it. All we're doing in government is trying to get our own financial house in order for the good of the province.

I think it was important yesterday to keep in mind what the finance minister said when he said that in health care alone we're spending about $18 billion this year alone. We made a commitment in the Common Sense Revolution to have spending of at least $17.4 billion. When you go through the red book, they promised $17 billion.

Just before I close, I think it's important to note that health care funding for 1998-99 will be at least $18.2 billion; in the year after, 1999-2000, it will be $18.3 billion. None of this amount has to do with capital or restructuring costs.

In closing, I will be supporting Bill 164, as I have all of the other budgetary measures on the part of this government, because in the end what they do is create jobs for all people in Ontario.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on third reading of Bill 164 and add my comments to those of my colleagues. In doing so, Mr Speaker, because I know you like us to abide by the rules, I'll try and stick to Bill 164, unlike some of my colleagues, but I know their enthusiasm for the red book has got the better of them.

I want to touch on a couple of things in Bill 164. I'm anxious to see how the Liberal Party will vote on third reading of Bill 164, because as we have seen, so many things in this bill address the issue of creating jobs and helping the economy, and so many things in this bill really carry out some of the promises that were contained in the red book.

I want first of all to mention that this bill is chock-full of measures that will help small business, chock-full of measures that will help the development of research and development in Ontario businesses, chock-full of measures to enhance the opportunities for businesses that are in the new technology field to employ more people. Also it's got many measures in it that will help the cultural industries that are such a big part of my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. It is especially directed at providing jobs for young people. For those reasons I would think that the opposition would be quite anxious to support this bill.

One of the key measures in the bill is the enhancement of the Ontario film and television tax credit. This actually has a significant impact in my riding because in the last few years in Muskoka-Georgian Bay there's been quite a development of the film industry. You'll see it especially in the summer months, although last winter, as some people will recall, there was a very significant major film in Muskoka. Unfortunately there was also a major fire that occurred as a result of that film, but we're all happy to see that Windermere House has been rebuilt.

One of the reasons the film industry comes to Ontario has to do with the availability of young talent in the film and related industry in Ontario. One of the things this bill will do is enhance the opportunities for those very skilled people who work in the film industry and who the international film industry knows are located in and around the Toronto area.

As set out in the bill, there will be an increase to the tax credit rate, for those people who qualify under the Ontario film and television tax credit, to 20% from the 15% currently provided. It is estimated that will raise the annual tax credit limit for corporations from $2 million to $3 million. That should certainly create additional incentive for the film industry to invest in film productions in Ontario, and it should also provide additional jobs for those skilled people, most of whom would be in the young category and those are where we really have to focus our efforts.

I want to remind viewers that in the past six months 39,000 jobs have been created for youth in this province, which accounts for over 90% of Canada's youth employment gains in recent months.

I also want to comment that one of the good reasons to support the bill is that the tax credits that will go to employers who reach out and employ young people who have graduate or post-graduate degrees have been enhanced from 10% of salaries, wages and benefits for those people hired to 15%. So it's a 50% increase in the benefit available to employers of post-secondary graduates, and that should enhance the opportunities for young people who are available to work in those industries. It should also help the leading-edge technology industries in general.

The research and development aspect in the bill is also something that's worthy of support. I'd certainly encourage all my colleagues to take a close look at that

section of the bill because it's going to enhance the opportunities for companies to deduct from their income those eligible costs for businesses that are in the research and development field.

I'd like to point once again to the tax credit for the Ontario book publishing industry. This is something our government has a great interest in. We want to encourage the book publishing industry in Ontario and encourage the development of more domestic children's books, especially for those talented people, many of whom are young people, in the province of Ontario.

In conclusion, I would like to provide my own ringing endorsement of Bill 164, which I'm sure the opposition should pay close attention to because it has so many measures that will provide economic growth and jobs for the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gerretsen: Let's first get it clearly on the record that all that the members have talked about are items contained in one of the seven schedules of this bill. They haven't talked about the other six schedules at all. We support those measures. We support those tax credits. It's the other sections of the bill we're concerned about.

Let's get a couple of other things quickly on the record. Number one, the number of people who are unemployed in this province are 3,000 more than when you took office, and it is contained right here in the Ministry of Finance statistics that your government is putting out. In June 1995 there were 499,000 people unemployed in this province, and in November of this year there were 502,000 people unemployed in this province. So yes, it may be better for some people, but for an awful lot of people things are actually a heck of a lot worse.

Finally, and I cannot sit down without saying this, how did this bill get here? We're implementing a budget that was introduced in May of this year. The government did not bring in its budget legislation until about two weeks ago. The bill was given second reading last week, at which time it was referred to the finance committee here at the Legislature. A time allocation motion was brought forward so that the finance and economic affairs committee could not even debate the bill. All they could do was vote on the different sections as contained in the bill.

This is a sheer mockery of the democratic system. They have brought in time allocation once again for I believe the 20th time on a major piece of legislation, and for the first time they have in effect said to a committee that even though the matter has been referred to the committee, they can't even debate it. Shame on you. You're undemocratic. All you are is just one big bully.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): There are two points to this bill in terms of what the government is doing. One point is the undemocratic process they're following as a government when it comes to how they run this House. The second issue is the incompetence of the government and the government House leader.

I've been around this Legislature, as have other members, for a number of years now, and we all know that when it comes to budget bills and interim supply bills, which we're going to have to debate a little later, the government normally has at least enough common sense to organize its House calendar in such a way that members of the House are given the opportunity to debate those interim supply bills and budget bills in a timely fashion and to make sure they have them passed on time, which is very important.

When I look at the work of the government House leader under the Rae government, the House leader under the Liberal government and the House leaders under the Bill Davis government and other Conservative governments before that, at least they knew how to get it right. But these guys - I say that because that's mostly what they are, a bunch of Reformer-type guys - come to this House, think they're smarter than everybody else and, quite frankly, cannot figure out how to pass legislation through this House in a timely process.

It puts us in the undemocratic stage now that they have to come into this House with a whole bunch of time allocation motions to pass their bills. As if that's not bad enough, they had to come to this House in August this year to change the rules of the House because they didn't know how to operate within the context of a democracy. Instead, they changed the rules of the House. To do what? To give themselves the power to do exactly what they're doing now: to fix their incompetence, to fix up their bungles, as they're called, so they're able to pass these bills at the last minute, because they can't get their act straight when it comes to how to run a House in a democratic system.

I say to the government, on two points you've failed: You're totally undemocratic and incompetent when it comes to running the business of this House.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I'm very pleased to offer a couple of comments in relation to the discussion today. The critical issue we're really discussing here is job creation, how it is that a government can provide the climate for job creation. Through this legislation and through a number of other initiatives, that's what we have undertaken and what we are delivering on in this province.

It becomes clear when you look at what the issues are. One of the very first issues was to deal with the need to reduce the cost of hiring. It became very clear that that put us in a most uncompetitive position. The opportunity to decrease the workers' compensation premiums by 5% sent out a clear message that we were looking for opportunities to reduce the cost of hiring. We also have reduced the employer health tax by limiting it to those businesses over $400,000 in payroll.

By reducing the personal income tax, we are making ourselves competitive and allowing the opportunity for people to invest in this province. It's through that investment that job creation comes. It's interesting to note that in this current year we're looking at a $1.1-billion increase in personal income tax revenue.

The tax credits outlined in Bill 164 speak further to this issue of job creation, especially the opportunities it presents for young and creative Ontarians. In conclusion, I just want to add my comment that Bill 164 speaks very clearly to our goal of job creation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The problem the government has is that it puts what we call hostages in all these bills. There are always some items in the bills that are supportable. Some of the government members, if the opposition votes against it, will try to characterize it as a vote against certain provisions of the bill. But those who watch the legislative channel, millions in number now, will know that the problem is that the government includes in the bill many provisions about which people are concerned.

For instance, local councils in the Niagara region were all condemning, last night at their meetings, the aspect of this bill which censors the councils, which does not allow the councils to put on their tax bill the reasons for the increases that may be forthcoming. They've asked me to vote against the bill. They said, "Look, we understand there are some good things in the bill with which everybody might agree, but you can't agree with this bill unless the government amends it to take out the part that prohibits municipalities from putting the necessary information on the tax bill."

They're also concerned that this is again Mike Harris raising taxes. I mentioned 197 tax increases. I found out it's 198, because it says, "setting up new fees for appeals of tax problems." Once again, wealthy people will be able to appeal their taxes, but people of modest means will find it difficult to do so because of the financial requirements. That's contained in this bill.

The Province of Ontario Savings Office is going to be privatized, or at least the skid is being greased for its privatization under this bill, and I've had numerous telephone calls from people who said, "Please get the government to amend the bill so this doesn't happen." What could be a supportable bill is ruined by many negative provisions.

The NDP has the floor next.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.

Mr Baird: I'd like to thank the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Cochrane South, and the members for Durham-York and St Catharines.

The member for Kingston and The Islands said, "We're in favour of most sections of the bill." However, last night in committee they voted against every

section of the bill when they had the opportunity to vote in favour of any one section, which I found most interesting. When Bill 164 came for agreement in principle, every single MPP who wanted the chance to speak had the chance to speak. There was even time left over that people hadn't used. Every MPP had as much time to debate this bill as they wanted to, and they used it.

The member for Cochrane South will like this. I do want to comment that I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television last week. I like the Leader of the Opposition; he's a good fellow. He said he was seriously considering giving himself the power to appoint candidates in various ridings, just like Jean Chrétien. I guess on the advice of Matt Maychak and the other whiz kids in the Liberal leader's office, he wants to bypass the traditional, time-honoured democratic process of riding-by-riding nomination meetings.

Matt Maychak and the leader of his party want to sit behind closed doors at their offices at Queen's Park and decide the futures of elected, sitting Liberal MPPs. They want the power to determine who wins and who loses in the redistribution process. They want to be able to take the right away from individual MPPs, riding associations and party members. It's absolutely astonishing.

Normally, with the NDP and the Conservatives, we can find out who wins the nomination by going to a nomination meeting. What you're going to have to do is sit with the media in a scrum outside Matt Maychak's office to find out who's going to be a Liberal candidate in the next election, because over there in the Liberal leader's office, in the Liberal Party, they don't trust the individual decisions of the riding association to democratically elect the candidates. We on this side of the House and our good friends in the New Democratic Party are going to be watching this process very carefully.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like your ruling on this matter. You may recall that the time allocation motion that was passed with respect to this bill said specifically that the finance and economic affairs committee would meet last night at 7 o'clock in the evening and without debate deal with each and every section.

We have just heard from the member for Nepean that they had debate at that committee hearing -

Mr Baird: Check Hansard. Check Hansard.

Mr Gerretsen: - and therefore they were in violation of the closure motion. I'm just wondering how you would rule on that, how we could allow debate when the motion clearly said that they shall be dealt with without debate. Is the bill therefore illegal? I would like to address this point to you and I'd like you to rule on that, and tell me whether the bill is illegal -

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat so I can.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm ready to now. Please take your seat.

If there was a problem about the procedure in committee, then it should have been brought up as a point of order at that time and ruled on by the committee chairman and so on. I will not entertain that right now. It is not a point of order.

Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to continue the debate on Bill 164. I would start by saying that I hope the public understand the chaotic process the government is following here. This bill was not allowed to be debated for any amendments - no amendments. I think the public should know the reason that this is important. The government put this bill before us on November 25. It's that thick. It amends literally dozens and dozens of acts here in the province. It is a huge bill.

I will just say there are serious, serious questions about freedom of information in this. This bill will provide virtually unlimited access to previously confidential information that will be available now to the private sector. The only information the government has that will not be available is your psychiatric records and your health records. Everything else will be available, with no protection.

The freedom of information office has not had a chance to comment on this, contrary to what we were told. We were told in a briefing that the freedom of information office had reviewed this and had no problem with it. We then phoned the freedom of information office and they said, "We have significant concerns with this," but they had the personal assurance of the deputy minister that this bill would be amended early next year, early in the new year. Well, the government has no intention of doing that. So I will say to the public: Last night we wanted an opportunity for the freedom of information commission to come before the committee and outline its concerns.

Here are three pages of proposed amendments from the freedom of information commission. This process we go through is a sham, a total sham. This bill is introduced and there is not one opportunity for any amendments to this bill. It's literally rammed through. We thought we at least had it going to committee so we could have an opportunity to amend the bill, and then the government used its hammer to say that as soon as it got to committee, it would be voted on and brought back here; no amendments, no changes, nothing. I say to the backbench members of the Conservative P