Hansard Transcript 1994-Mar-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I want to take this opportunity to introduce to you and the other members of the assembly a young gentleman named Brian Yam, who is in the members' gallery. He is an MPP for a day. He is a grade 11 student at Jarvis Collegiate in my riding and is part of a program of a number of other students. I do want to thank also his teacher, Elizabeth Finlay, who has chosen him to be the MPP for a day.

I think he is a fine representative of his school. Some of what he's involved in: He's a senator in his student council, a member of the cross-country team, a member of the darkroom staff for the school yearbook, a multicultural editor of the school newspaper, a junior vice-president of the business club, assistant coach for the girls' hockey team and involved in the track and baseball teams. He is spending the day with me as an MPP for a day.

He did, however, ask me to pass on one concern that he has in general about the quality of education. He said if he had an opportunity to ask a question as MPP for a day, he would ask a question about making sure that the quality in our schools is maintained and enhanced. His experience is that year to year it's been getting slightly worse. He, however, is doing very well as a grade A student and as a fine and upstanding representative of both the riding and his school.

KIMBERMOUNT VILLAGE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am pleased to congratulate the Affordable Housing Action Association, AHAA, in Mississauga for its innovative new concept in affordable housing.

In partnership with Daniels Development Group Inc, the AHAA is building Kimbermount Village, 30 apartments that cost between $78,000 and $130,000. Persons with incomes as low as $22,000 will be able to own their own homes in Kimbermount Village, without non-profit housing subsidies or rent supplements. This may sound like a miracle, but it is the result of creative thinking and cooperation among several organizations.

A shared equity arrangement between the purchasers of the AHAA allows people who lack the income or savings for traditional financing to buy a home. The Jet Power Credit Union of Mississauga will provide first mortgages because the AHAA has obtained funds for second mortgages from the Canadian Alternative Investment Cooperative, a social investment fund of Roman Catholic priests and nuns.

I wish the partners in Kimbermount Village every success in this exciting endeavour. When 64,000 Ontarians are on waiting lists for affordable housing and non-profit housing subsidies exceed $1,000 a month in urban areas, a project that provides affordable home ownership without government assistance is a reason to celebrate. Again, congratulations to all involved.

NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): March is nutrition month. The focus of the 1994 National Nutrition Month campaign is children's nutrition and some of the special challenges facing parents and care givers of four- to 12-year-olds. In this, the International Year of the Family, the Canadian Dietetic Association is asking all Canadians to help "nourish our children's future."

Children are our most valuable resource. Childhood is a time of rapid growth and constant change. It is a time of development, physically, emotionally, sexually and socially. It is a time when the very foundations for adulthood are being shaped. Their nutritional health and wellbeing during childhood has a major bearing on whether they reach their full potential.

In my riding, the Perth district public health unit celebrated nutrition month in many ways. One of the most popular events was a fishing competition held in our local mall. The youngsters fished for good nutrition. They hooked cardboard models of food which they matched to sections of a rainbow-coloured Canada Food Guide.

1340

In Canada today there are approximately three million children between the ages of four and 12, and 20% of Canadian children under age 18 live in poverty. Getting adequate amounts of nutritional food can be a challenge.

Regardless of economic status, parents and other care givers are eager but often unsure of how to give their children the best and healthiest start on life. In Stratford through the corporate sponsorship of the Lori-Jo grocery store, the health unit provides a shop-smart supermarket tour for consumers. They promote healthy eating by helping shoppers read and better understand product labels, make wise use of their grocery dollars and buy nutritional products.

Eating well, being active and feeling good about themselves are just about the most important messages we can give our children. When we nourish our children's future, we also consolidate our own.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am directing this statement to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and asking the minister to amend the Municipal Act in order to ensure that the physically challenged in Mississauga have reasonable transportation.

Currently, Transhelp in Mississauga contracts for specially equipped taxi service to provide assistance for the physically challenged. I have been informed that the use of specially equipped taxis gives Transhelp a flexibility in improving service while at the same time reducing costs.

However, under the present wording of the Municipal Act, the city of Toronto can prohibit within its borders the pickup of the physically challenged by Mississauga cabs. This results in a situation where specially equipped cabs in Mississauga can transport the physically challenged from their homes in Mississauga to a point in Toronto such as their doctors' offices but those same cabs cannot pick them up in Toronto.

Therefore, the person who is physically challenged and has a doctor's appointment in Toronto must be picked up by a transportation service in Toronto, transported to the Toronto-Mississauga border, dropped off at the border and then picked up, if you can believe it, by Mississauga transportation and taken to their home.

This is wrong. It is inefficient, it is cumbersome and it must be stopped. I believe this has resulted in a major inconvenience for those residents in Mississauga who are physically challenged.

It is necessary for the minister to amend the Ontario Municipal Act to prevent the city of Toronto from unilaterally acting in a way which hinders the physically challenged in Mississauga.

SENIORS' DENTAL CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Many senior citizens in Ontario, like Mr Harold LeGard of Orillia, have high levels of unmet dental needs because they're on fixed incomes and are not covered by private dental plans.

Mr LeGard and many other senior citizens are frustrated because dental plans for the elderly were highly publicized during the last two provincial election campaigns, but the implementation of such a plan has been a low priority with the former Liberal and current NDP governments.

I know Ontario is experiencing tough fiscal restraints, but I believe that if the government managed its existing resources more effectively and efficiently, we could provide the free dental care targeted to all Canadians over the age of 65 who are most in need.

This OHIP-registered plan could concentrate on diagnostic, preventive and emergency care similar to that available under current private plans. Dentists could bill the government for services rendered according to the Ontario Dental Association suggested fee schedule and the ODA could administer the plan as it currently does for the thousands of social assistance recipients who presently receive free dental care.

As I noted earlier, senior citizens like Harold LeGard know that times are tough, but they also know a limited dental care program targeted to seniors most in need could be implemented if the NDP government would only manage its existing resources more efficiently and effectively.

Get your spending priorities in order and put a stop to the costly abuses of our social assistance system.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On March 15 of this year I had the great pleasure of assisting the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Frances Lankin, in an announcement of an infrastructure grant for Commercial Alcohols Inc. This grant will allow the construction of a $160-million ethanol facility in the city of Chatham.

In October 1993 the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and now Rural Affairs, Elmer Buchanan, announced that Ontario will allow a 14.5-cent excise exemption for ethanol fuel. The final hurdle for the project to begin is to guarantee that the federal excise exemption will be extended for 10 years.

It would appear that the federal Liberal caucus is being influenced by a group of oil company lobbyists who are worried about the competition.

This project will create 1,150 person-years of construction jobs, 90 permanent high-skilled jobs at the facility, 400 spinoff jobs in the agricultural community and a market for 20 million bushels of Ontario-grown corn.

The people of Chatham-Kent are trying to encourage the Liberal government to act on this exemption and to help the local economy. My constituents are sending letters supplied by the Chatham Daily News to Ottawa.

I am sure that since I hear daily from my friends across the floor that they are committed to job creation, they will support the people of Chatham-Kent and the agricultural economy of Ontario by signing one of these letters, which we will collect and send along to the federal cabinet.

I would ask that a page distribute these letters to the members opposite to sign them, and have the page return them back to me so I can forward them to Ottawa. May I have a page, please?

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A president of the United States in years gone by, Abraham Lincoln, once said that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I can tell you that it's not for lack of trying, that this government is attempting to achieve that fooling. As I picked up the news clips today, I saw that a freeze which was really a 2% cut was accepted as a freeze, because it says here: "NDP Move Hailed as Good News." "Floyd Stands Pat." "Ontario Backs Off Austerity Moves."

Of course, they were using the old Larry Grossman trick with the Conservative budget of 1983 -- the Speaker will remember that well -- where he paints a very dismal picture, where they let out hints that there might be a lot of cuts, where they say that welfare might even be chopped, where they in effect say to the transfer agencies, "Well, we're going to kick you in the face," and then, when they kick them in the shins, they're supposed to say, "Thank you."

I can assure you that university and college students across this province have not been fooled. Here we have a government which has pleased management -- the presidents -- and of course the people who are the victims are left behind by an NDP government that claims to be a government of social justice.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am extremely concerned about the edict by the board of directors of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency demanding that the Tourism and Hospitality Industry Health and Safety Education Program, the College, University and School Safety Council of Ontario and the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association merge under the control of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

When these three organizations presented a joint counter-proposal under which they would merge, but not under the control of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, the WHSA board responded by ignoring this proposal and issuing a threatening letter on January 28 demanding that they merge under the board's plan by March 31 or have their funding withdrawn. The letter went on to say that these agencies, if they challenged this edict, would receive an immediate withdrawal of their funding.

This dictatorial approach is a serious abuse of power and will not achieve the aim of making workplaces safer. It is imperative that the Minister of Labour take immediate action to mediate a compromise solution.

The WHSA's authoritarian approach to this issue and its failure to even attempt to negotiate a solution clearly illustrates that this board is out of control. It leaves no room for compromise and makes a complete mockery of the idea that it is a cooperative labour-management agency. I urge the Minister of Labour to take action to accept the counterproposal.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH PROJECT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): On March 2, Premier Bob Rae came to Hamilton to announce the Hamilton-Wentworth plan, a comprehensive plan to deal in part with the controversial Red Hill Creek Expressway. However, this plan is much more than a compromise regarding a road through the Red Hill Creek Valley. It is a creative package that ties together the economy, the environment, our culture and heritage and our transportation networks.

The province will contribute $3.2 billion to help accelerate the development of a comprehensive network of trails to connect the Niagara Escarpment trails all the way down to Lake Ontario.

1350

My constituents will also benefit from the $1.5-million fund which will assist them with energy, waste reduction and water conservation in their homes.

Another $10 million will establish investment funds for new technology in green industries and for the cultural sector.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Abel: Well, Mr Speaker, obviously he doesn't think very much of the plan.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Mr Abel: Many residents in Wentworth North have spoken to me about the Hamilton-Wentworth plan and they're pleased with the proposed package.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. I caution the member for York Centre to please come to order.

Mr Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For your own information, I'd like you to know that I have spoken to many residents in Hamilton-Wentworth and they're pleased with the proposed package. They're interested in new ways to tie together our economic future with the ecological future. This plan is a comprehensive and balanced strategy that will benefit all residents of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Speaker: It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro. As we all know, the clock is ticking and the nuclear power facilities begin an orderly shutdown beginning tomorrow.

Over the last few hours, I've been hearing from a number of municipal electrical utilities across the province, and let me tell you what these deliverers of hydro-electricity are telling me: Never before on the eve of a potential strike or lockout at the giant utility have the municipal electrical utilities heard so little from Hydro. They have truly been kept in the dark as to what the contingency plans are going to be from Hydro and from your government. In fact, general managers from these utilities are telling me that they're hearing nothing. When they speak to their area and regional Hydro people, who normally know something in this situation, those Hydro officials are saying they know nothing. They only know and can only refer to what's been in the paper.

My question to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro: What, sir, are you and Ontario Hydro telling the municipal electrical utilities across the province as to how they must plan for a potential shutdown or slowdown of Ontario Hydro next week?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The municipal electrical utilities will know that in the past, historically, in a negotiation between the now Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro, in most cases it's in the last few days of the collective agreement that bargaining reaches a settlement. That has been historically the case.

We are working diligently to ensure that the municipal electrical utilities will continue to receive the power they receive from the grid from Ontario Hydro, because in all likelihood there will be a negotiated settlement.

Mr Conway: We all hope and pray for a negotiated settlement, but the fact of the matter is, as of this moment, we do not have a negotiated settlement. Within a very few days, Ontario Hydro will begin to shut down its nuclear power plant which now provides over two thirds of the juice to the system.

The general managers of the various municipal electric utilities with whom I have spoken in the last few hours are very, very concerned, because they have never been in a situation like this before. They know nothing about your contingency plan. They are hearing absolutely nothing from their Hydro contacts out in the field, contacts who previously were much better informed and who could tell them about the backup plan, the contingency plan.

Minister, I ask you again, in view of the fact that we are now just a very few days from the potential shutdown of two thirds of the electricity supply to the province of Ontario, what are you and Ontario Hydro telling the deliverers of this power to most of us in the province, namely, the municipal electric utilities, as to how they are going to manage a potential and dramatic loss of electricity provided by the giant utility, Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Wildman: I reiterate that we are confident that the municipal electrical utilities will continue to be able to deliver the electrical power to the customers of this province, because the members of the Power Workers' Union and the management of Ontario Hydro are working diligently, along with the staff of my colleague the Minister of Labour, to achieve a collective bargaining agreement prior to the expiration of the current agreement.

Mr Conway: We all of us expect and believe there to be due diligence and goodwill on all sides, but we have watched this process unfold over days and weeks and we still at this hour do not have what we all want, which is the negotiated settlement.

Never before has the Ontario Hydro system been so dependent on its nuclear supply, and that's why this situation is so different than all others. We are this month depending on the nuclear power program to supply 65% to 70% of the electricity to the province.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): And I wonder why that is.

Mr Conway: I hear the caterwauling of the Minister of Health, but the people of the province want to know what the government of Ontario is doing, what steps it is taking to ensure that there will be a continuous supply of this most vital resource, electricity, to the hospitals, to the schools, to the farms, to the homes, to the industries and to all other outlets in Ontario.

Minister, I ask you again at this very late hour, what is your contingency plan? What are you and Ontario Hydro telling, specifically, your very important partners, the municipal electric utilities out there, that they should prepare for and what they might do in the event of a slowdown or a shutdown of Ontario Hydro next week?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member can assure the representatives of municipal utilities to whom he has been speaking that this government is working very hard to ensure that the two sides are able to achieve an agreement prior to the end of the current agreement.

I met this morning with Paul Gardner, the director of mediation services in the Ministry of Labour, who reported to me that the parties worked into the small hours of this morning, diligently, on the major issues to try to reach an agreement and to avoid a disruption. He pointed out to me that in the past in these negotiations, seldom has there ever been an agreement reached prior to March 25. He is working along with his colleague John Mather to assist the parties.

It is true that the union and the management are taking very seriously the health and safety of the people of this province and, in compliance with the AECL's requirements, will take whatever measures are required to ensure the safety and the integrity of the system.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question to the same gentleman in his capacity as minister of garbage, and my question concerns Toronto garbage.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is the question to the Minister of Environment?

Mr Conway: If I have offended the tender sensibilities of my friend the member for Ottawa Centre I withdraw. I would never, ever want to ruffle the sensibilities of the Minister of Housing.

1400

The Speaker: To whom is your question addressed?

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Environment and it concerns Toronto garbage. There are reports this very day quoting officials very close to your office, sir, that clearly leave open the possibility that there may be a possibility that the garbage from greater Toronto might find its way to Kirkland Lake, Ontario.

Can the minister confirm that there is still a possibility under his government's policy that the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto may, under certain circumstances, find its way to Kirkland Lake, Ontario?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm glad that the member has given me the opportunity to clarify what in fact was a misquote in the media. In fact, my assistant informed the reporter in question that the matter remains, as it always has been, that a proponent could, if a proponent wished, proceed with an environmental assessment on a proposal related to Kirkland Lake and rail-haul, but the Environmental Assessment Board would have to rule and would have to take into account the government policy and the law as it is in place in the province.

Mr Conway: I bet you appreciated the opportunity to make that response. Help me understand your policy. You are in fact then confirming that it is the policy of the Bob Rae government to ensure that Metropolitan Toronto garbage must go to deep holes costing tens of millions of dollars dug into some of the most fertile agricultural land in all of Canada, in the northern riches of York region, and it cannot be exported by rail to Kirkland Lake, though in fact it can be exported to Ohio with all of the attendant employment and economic spinoffs that the Ohio export in fact might produce.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'll confirm that any proponent can carry out or proceed with an environmental assessment in cooperation with the branch on any proposal. The board would have to take into account government policy. In regard to the question of Ohio, I understand, and I don't want to misquote anyone else, that in media reports today Ohio officials have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to GTA waste. I don't think that's very likely. However, I'm not sure what their processes are for approvals.

As a matter of fact, as was indicated in the House yesterday, I've expressed to the federal minister my desire for her to take action to close the border to ensure that the IWA process will be maintained in its integrity and that we will proceed to proper environmental assessments and that only those sites that are environmentally sound, as the Environmental Assessment Board finds them, could be approved.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I regret profoundly that the official from my friend's office apparently was misquoted, because it was the first breath of fresh air in this crisis that we've experienced over the course of the past three years since Bill 143 was passed.

Let's just set out where we are. The minister's predecessor arbitrarily established that Metro's garbage was going to be dumped in York region and now in the city of Vaughan. Metropolitan Toronto rejects that solution. The people of York region reject that solution. The people of Vaughan reject that solution. A number of other proposals have been put on the table. The position of Metropolitan Toronto is that it will have to wait for the defeat of the NDP government before it gets on with it.

Yesterday, we were given to understand by the minister's officials that the Earth was changing a bit and that Metro could urgently get on with a consideration of the Kirkland Lake proposal.

I ask the minister simply to acknowledge and accede to Metropolitan Toronto's request, which would be supported throughout York region, and allow that environmental assessment to take place to determine whether or not the Kirkland Lake proposal is a viable one. Is that too much to ask of the minister? Is it too much to ask that this proposal --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- be assessed by the best scientists and the best environmentalists in the world to determine whether it is better than digging a hole in the best farm land --

The Speaker: Would the member please conclude his question.

Mr Sorbara: -- in Ontario and dumping Metro's garbage there? Is that too much to ask?

Hon Mr Wildman: If I can work through the member's verbiage about garbage, I will simply say to him what I've said for the last year and what my predecessor said before me, that if Metropolitan Toronto wishes to proceed as a proponent with an environmental assessment on a proposal to haul waste outside of the GTA, it may do so, but the Environmental Assessment Board will of course take into account government policy and the law.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to follow up with the Minister of Environment on this whole issue of garbage and Metro's garbage and the eligibility of shipping to Ohio and maybe the eligibility of Kirkland Lake or not and the confusion that exists now in the minds of many people in Ontario.

Minister, can you confirm to me that there is nothing in your government policy or illegal about Orangeville shipping its garbage to the United States as it is doing today?

Hon Mr Wildman: Unfortunately, since the federal government opened the border, that is the case.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Orangeville can do it, but Metro can't. What a policy.

Mr Harris: Can you explain --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You're dead wrong.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Can you explain to me why it is okay for Orangeville to have its garbage finally deposited in the United States but it's not okay for Metro?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't think it's okay, and apparently, through media reports, neither do the people in Ohio, at least.

Mr Harris: Then, Minister, if you don't think it's okay, why don't you stop it?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member will know, I mentioned in the House yesterday that I've written to the current minister and suggested an interim approach that might make it economically less viable to ship to the United States. I requested the current minister as well to close the border. I requested the previous two ministers as well to close the border.

Mr Stockwell: Orangeville garbage doesn't smell as much.

Hon Mr Wildman: I wish that the members across the way would join me in taking a responsible approach and encouraging their federal colleagues to ensure that we deal with our waste here --

Mr Stockwell: Oh sure, what about Orangeville?

Hon Mr Wildman: -- responsibly in this province rather than shipping it to neighbours elsewhere.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order. New question.

Mr Harris: There is absolutely nothing about your approach to Metro's garbage that anybody of a sound mind could call responsible or consistent or fair or the best possible --

The Speaker: Would the leader place his second question, please.

Mr Harris: -- for the environment. You have no policy.

LORING DEER YARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources and just about everybody else in the government, my question --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Hey, take that back.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Elmer's there.

Mr Harris: I said "just about everybody else." My question is to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day.

On Little River Road near North Bay there is a deer viewing station that's been built by volunteers and government dollars. The deer viewing station is there so that the public, parents with their children, can come in and view the largest deer yard, I believe, in North America, certainly the largest concentration of deer in the province.

Approximately 12,000 deer winter in the Loring yards. The Ministry of Natural Resources and other groups for a period of years, with volunteers and government dollars, have, when there are winters that are extreme, been feeding the deer. This year, they have been feeding these deer, which are suffering from starvation because of the very harsh winter.

Madam Deputy Deputy Premier, 15 of these deer have been shot so far this winter, yet the Ministry of Natural Resources is refusing to lay charges. How long does your government intend to allow the slaughter of these baited deer, coming to find food because they're starving, to go on?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I hope the member will understand that I don't have full information with respect to this item and that I would hope the Minister of Natural Resources on his return could provide you with a fuller answer.

My understanding of the issue, and this is only from personal knowledge in reading the newspaper articles up in the Almaguin news area, is that a number of deer were shot by members of the aboriginal community in that area and that in fact, unless it is in violation of policy after investigation of waste or whatever, there is an entitlement to take deer, although it is a practice with respect to the feeding station in this area that has been deplored by the chiefs of the aboriginal communities there.

I can't tell you at this time whether or not the Ministry of Natural Resources has concluded any investigation as to whether there were any improprieties. I would reference that question to the Minister of Natural Resources and undertake to get you a full answer from him.

1410

Mr Harris: Madam Minister, the Ministry of Natural Resources admits there is a safety risk. At an area where they used to encourage parents to bring children in to view the deer they are now posting that the public and their children may be in danger. Earlier this month a deer was shot less than 500 metres from where a man and his 15-year-old son were watching the deer. Families can no longer safely take their children to the viewing station. Yet the Ministry of Natural Resources and your government have made no move, either out of safety to humans or to the deer, to stop the slaughter.

I ask you this: Does something serious have to happen here to public health, as well as the violation of all principles of wildlife management, before you're going to take action to stop this?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am aware, certainly, that there have been signs posted in the area and of the most unfortunate situation of the deer that was killed in very close proximity to a person who was there. In fact last weekend I had intended to go to the Loring yards and decided, with the friends I was with, not to take that visit because of the shooting activity that had gone on in the area. So I am very aware of this.

What I'm unfortunately unable to provide the leader of the third party with is a response as to whether or not any investigations by the Ministry of Natural Resources have been concluded. It's not that I'm trying not to answer your question; I genuinely don't know the answer to that. As soon as the minister returns, we will undertake to get you that information.

Mr Harris: The Ministry of Natural Resources says it's completed its investigation. They're warning people not to go near because their safety may be in danger. That's the action they say they are going to take, or can take, at this point. Our offices, both myself and the member for Parry Sound, have been contacted by natives who are as upset at these shootings as we are. Two members of the Dokis first nations have said, and I read a quote from the North Bay Nugget:

"We are absolutely appalled at the thought that possibly someone from an aboriginal community is responsible for this reprehensible act. We, as aboriginals, applaud the efforts of those involved for their humane efforts to sustain the deer yard. Many aboriginals who believe in the interconnectedness of nature know full well the value of the efforts of the MNR staff and the volunteers."

I would ask you this, Minister: As the one in charge today, will you personally investigate and put a stop to the slaughter of defenceless deer, many of them pregnant, many of them starving, that are seeking food to get through this winter, and will you do it immediately?

Hon Ms Lankin: As I indicated in my response to the member's first question, I fully acknowledge the leadership position taken by the chiefs of the aboriginal communities in that area, who have deplored the action of these individuals, whoever they may be. It is very gratifying, the commitment that there is to the protection of deer and to building the herds and the conservation approach that exists in all communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in that area.

I reiterate the commitment I have made in the responses to the first two questions, to undertake to raise this issue with the Minister of Natural Resources and ask him to respond directly to the member opposite.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and in my mind it gets perhaps right at the heart of the credibility of the Rae government. Yesterday, Minister, you will be aware that in the House the message was that the grants to municipalities and other of our partners were going to remain the same next year as this year. That was the message.

Today, as we make phone calls to ministry officials, we find that is not the case. We find that actually the grants are going to be reduced by 2%. The message we got yesterday was completely incorrect. The ministry officials and the Minister of Education say they were misquoted. It came straight out of the Ministry of Finance that the grants are being reduced by 2%. As I say, it gets right at the heart of the credibility, because I think most municipalities across this province breathed a sigh of relief yesterday.

Can the minister confirm that this is in fact what is happening, that you are not holding the grants at the level they were last year into next year, but that you actually are reducing the grants to municipalities by 2%?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can tell you that we're holding them at the 1993 level, which is what we told them last year. The Treasurer and I met with AMO representatives this morning. They're very happy in fact with the announcement we made yesterday and I can confirm that they went away quite pleased at the responsible way in which this government is handling things under tough times.

Mr Phillips: I go back to the credibility issue because, as I say, we took at face value the message you had yesterday, and that was that the grants to municipalities and school boards would remain the same next year as this year. The numbers we have would indicate that the school board grants are being reduced by 2%, that they aren't being held the same. The grants to municipalities, to use the language that the minister would use, the unconditional grants, are $700 million in this fiscal year. In the next year, the year that's just coming up, they will be $660 million, partially as the result of a 2% reduction in the grants.

What we want is a clear, straightforward answer from the government, because the answer we got this morning from ministry officials specifically was that there has somehow or other been a misinterpretation and that the grants are actually being reduced by 2%, that they're not being held even. I wonder if the minister might clarify that because it's right at the heart of credibility for the government. Are you holding the grants at the same level or are you reducing them by 2%? Can you give us a clear, unequivocal answer on that?

Hon Mr Philip: We're honouring our commitments. Last year we gave a one-time-only 2% grant, which they clearly understood. They understood it. You may not have understood it, but they understood it. They understood it this morning. They understood it last year.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, since your government took office in 1990 you have reduced accountability in Ontario's welfare system, and you've expanded eligibility over the course of the last three and a half years. One example is the removal of home visits and expanded eligibility criteria and others.

The Ontario PC caucus, under the leadership of Mike Harris, has pleaded with you and your government in this House to better monitor a system which is growing too quickly, without the fiscal integrity the taxpayers expect of a $6.4-billion expenditure for 1.4 million citizens on social assistance.

Last year, I shared with you an eight-point plan from our caucus to improve integrity in that system, but faced with the lack of leadership from your government, municipalities have had to go it primarily on their own to develop systems of increased integrity for our social assistance system. Communities from across the province are reporting millions of dollars of savings based on those initiatives.

My question is simply this: A year ago I tabled in this House a report from the province of Quebec that indicates changes in provincial legislation which provide for an almost 75% ability to catch fraud and overpayment in the system when eligibility officers are empowered with this legislation.

After a year of sharing this with you, can you report to this House if you're prepared to make legislative amendments to assist the eligibility review officers in municipalities all across Ontario so that they can catch the fraud and return the taxpayer dollars to the provincial treasury?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): What I can tell the honourable member is that we take the issue of dealing and having to deal with abuse in the system quite seriously, and rather than spend our time bringing legislation as he's called for to help us deal with this issue, we have been working away at dealing with it within the existing guidelines we have and the existing powers, which are significant, to address the issues of abuse, eligibility and overpayment in the system. Already we have managed to make some significant improvements in the system.

1420

He quite correctly points out that there is a dual responsibility in the system, both by the provincial government and by the municipalities, which run about half of our system, to do likewise. I'm glad to see that many municipalities have in fact built upon the initiatives we have undertaken, which have already saved hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of tighter eligibility and tightening up of the rules and making sure, therefore, that the people who receive the benefits are the people who are eligible.

I've been saying that we are working on further initiatives, which I hope to outline as early as next week, which will position us well to add to the steps we have taken to ensure that the system is much freer of abuse than it has been so far.

Mr Jackson: Minister, you're quoted in today's press as saying that with all these announcements that we've been waiting for for over a year and a half, you hope to save about $50 million. That's in this morning's press. The fact is that the savings that could be achieved in the greater Toronto area alone could be well in excess of $100 million to $150 million if some of these legislative changes were implemented in concert with an expansion of the number of eligibility review officers in municipalities across Ontario.

I want to remind you of some of these numbers. In Halton, for an investment of $75,000, they report savings to taxpayers of $800,000. In the city of Hamilton, just on pure fraud alone, for a lesser investment they are saving nearly a full $1 million, and that's on top of the other savings they have initiated in their municipality that are not being initiated in other municipalities because your government hasn't shown the initiative.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: One more example, in Brockville --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jackson: My question is: Why is it that in the community of Brockville, with 21,000 people, after investing $30,000 in one review officer they can save that municipality a quarter of a million dollars? Minister, when will you stand in the House and provide strengthened legislation to allow the municipalities to do the job they're asking you to let them do?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't think the member wants to hear what I've said, but I'll try to repeat it for him. We are doing exactly those things. The instances he has quoted are not happening because municipalities have just decided on their own that they should do them; they're also happening because we're cofunding them to do exactly those things he has mentioned.

I can tell him that we are going to be doing more of that. There are going to be more funds provided to municipalities for them to do their part of the job in ensuring that we do appropriate investigations, that we do appropriate reviews to ensure that only those people who are eligible to receive social assistance benefits are receiving them. I will be very happy to stand in this House next week and outline in greater detail for the member and for the public some further steps we are taking in this respect.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of my constituents have asked me about the status of the Queen Elizabeth Way widening project that runs through my riding. Many feel that winter's bitter cold has stopped the shovel going into the ground to complete the project. You have to understand that the Queen E was built close to 55 years ago in that particular section, which is a bottleneck to the residents of Niagara, and here we've got the traffic of the 1990s going on a 55-year-old highway. Can the minister update this House and my constituency on the status of this very important project?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): A very timely question vis-à-vis a catalytic order when it comes to exports and imports in this special part of Ontario. Suffice it by way of an opportunity to give a brief update or broadly summarize what's happening out there: The contracts that were let out, the submissions that came in two years ago, will be completed on time, within budget, this spring. The submissions of 1993, last year, are also on time and within budget and shall be completed in 1995. Simply put, the big picture: total widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way by the year of Our Lord 2000, not a day after. We're on time, we're on schedule and we welcome the opportunity and of course the question and the interest.

Mr Hansen: The other part of it, and this is a concern in the Niagara area, is the number of jobs that have been created to date on this section of the highway and the number that will be hired for the completion of this project.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We've been through difficult times. The reason why Premier Rae and this government are focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs -- and we mean what we say, 400 jobs so far; 500 to 600 jobs this year again in 1994 to be added to the 400 jobs, and a total -- hear me, with the highest of respect -- of 5,000 jobs. We have the diversity, shovel in the ground. The multiplier at Transportation is 2.5: For every dollar that is being spent, $2.50 is to be augmented, supplemented.

This is a win-win-win situation. The taxpayers are getting their money back. It's putting people to work when they need it the most. Like most good things in life, it starts in the spring and it doesn't leave you when you need it the most. This is year-round work.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health, if she resumes her seat. The minister will know that there is a critical shortage of dialysis service across Ontario and a particular dialysis crisis in Toronto. Last month, the minister received a letter from the Toronto Dialysis Committee which charged that the Ministry of Health had behaved in an irresponsible way in failing to provide adequate dialysis service for the people of Ontario. A year ago, you were told that all dialysis programs are saturated to a dangerous level. I'd like to know from the Minister of Health what she intends to do to ensure that people with kidney disease who require dialysis don't die.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member is right that in fact the demand and the need for dialysis is increasing very greatly, and hospitals and facilities, as well as the ministry, are struggling with how to both meet the current demand and ensure that as we plan for the future we are able to accommodate that growing need. I know the member for Simcoe West has certainly raised the issue with me with respect to his particular area.

I'm pleased to be able to say to the member that the three-year expansion which we began in 1991 and which will be completed in March 1994 means that we have opened a new haemodialysis unit in Mississauga. We've provided one-time funding to the Toronto Hospital to provide services for 18 patients on an interim basis until the Mississauga unit is open. We have expanded with new facilities in Orillia so that people from Simcoe county no longer have to come to Toronto and the pressure is lessened in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and the funding for haemodialysis has been increased significantly over the past five years.

There is, I recognize, more to be done, but I can assure her that it is an issue which we and the hospitals are working constructively to resolve.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister will know, by example, that the funding that was shifted from the Sussex Centre to the Toronto hospitals has expired this month. Patients are being required to stay in hospital for up to two and a half months because there are no outpatient facilities for them. The planning that's being done doesn't take into account that there will be 200 more patients in Toronto. The decisions that have been made mean that the number of new machines that are coming on stream won't even cover the backlog, let alone the number of new cases.

Once again, I'm asking the Minister of Health what specifically she is going to do and what urgent action she is going to take to ensure that people with kidney disease who need dialysis will get it and do not have to face the choice of death.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member says that the planning we are doing does not take into account the need. I regret to have to say to her that she is in fact quite wrong about that. The six district health councils in the central region were funded some months ago to do an urgent report about the need, taking into account that there has been a 10% increase in need. Their report, which is expected within the next couple of months, will provide the basis for the planning that must be done.

Having completed the first phase of our expansion, we expand in a way that anticipates the growth and provides those services in the most flexible way possible. It is not merely an extension of facilities in-hospital; it's whether we can expand in-home dialysis or whether we can provide satellites so that people can find the service as close as possible to where they live so that they can maintain as much as possible of their independence and normal lives despite kidney failure.

1430

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Minister, you'd be aware, and all members would be aware, that on December 9 this Legislature passed my private member's resolution which called upon your government to establish haemodialysis satellites in the towns of Collingwood and New Tecumseth in my riding of Simcoe West. You are also aware that many patients outside the greater Toronto area have to travel long distances, often over treacherous road conditions. They have to go to either Orillia or Toronto to receive this life-sustaining treatment.

I want to make sure you understand the effect your foot-dragging is having on the haemodialysis patients. Last month, more than 200 people attended a meeting in Alliston to discuss the government's inaction on the resolution that was passed by this Legislature in December. At that meeting, the most astonishing thing happened, and I didn't think I'd ever see this sort of thing happen at a public meeting in my lifetime. I want to read to you a line from the local paper reporting on that public meeting.

It says: "The most telling moment came from a member of the audience who faced trips to Toronto or faced losing his life. Mr Alvin Hiltz said 'I can't do it any longer. I'm going to quit.'" At a public meeting with 200 people, Mr Hiltz told us that he wasn't going to go back to Toronto, that he can't stand three days a week of having to get on a bus in Alliston at 8 in the morning, travel two and a half hours by bus to Toronto --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- and take a taxi to his hospital. On the round trip, he's not back to Alliston by 8 at night. The days he's not required to drive to Toronto, he sits in front of the window in the wintertime wondering --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- whether the weather is good enough that he gets to Toronto tomorrow to save his life.

Minister, your foot-dragging has gone on long enough. What are you going to do for the dialysis patients in my riding, and for those outside of Toronto, who have to face this sort of life which is no life at all?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm sorry that the member characterizes as foot-dragging what I believe has been a very real and timely response to the needs he has advocated for so well on behalf of his constituents. I don't know whether both of my critics are teaming up on questions, but, as I said in response to the question just before, we have expanded. In fact, it was the expansion of the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital which was designed to meet the needs of people in Simcoe county who could more easily, we believed and many of them believed, get to Orillia as opposed to having to come to Toronto, which I recognize can be exceptionally onerous.

The $23-million expansion that has occurred over the last three years has included the Orillia expansion, and the study I spoke about earlier that is looking at the future needs of the central Ontario region will address the issues the member has raised and the additional needs there may be in the future in Simcoe County.

Mr Jim Wilson: I don't think that's a good enough or compassionate enough answer coming from this government, in particular during the month of March, Kidney Foundation Month.

Minister, we first heard about this central Ontario dialysis study last September, and I was told at that time, and we were told publicly, that that study would take six months to complete. In October, you put out a press release announcing this $100,000 study all over again, and again we were told six months to complete.

Some seven months later, you're only getting around this week to having the first full-fledged meeting of that study committee, and not all of the appointees are yet assigned to the committee. So your study is going nowhere, and the people of my riding and in central Ontario and those outside of the GTA have no faith in this study.

Between your government and the government before you, you've closed 6,000 hospital beds and laid off thousands of hospital workers and nurses. You sold this initiative to the public by saying you were going to beef up community-based services. With the social contract, we've seen a decline in community-based services.

My dialysis resolution calls upon you --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- to embrace a community-based solution to establish dialysis satellites so these people don't have to face the inhumane treatment you're forcing them to undergo.

Minister, why will you not embrace our community-based solution and set up dialysis satellites in my riding and across central Ontario? Why will you not do that?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mrs Grier: It is precisely to determine the need and, for example, the locations in which satellites might be located that the study is being undertaken.

Let me remind the member that the expansion of Soldiers' Memorial in Orillia provided for 16 more haemodialysis units, many of them from Collingwood, to go to Orillia. Two patients who are unable to travel to Orillia are being treated in their own homes with the help of a paid attendant, another Alliston area resident receives haemodialysis at home with the assistance of a home helper, and some others, yes, are still travelling to Toronto.

I know of the member's interest, and I know of the interest in the community that he has generated through his petition campaign. I hope all of that interest will be translated into documentation of very real need that can be part of the study that is costing $100,000, in order that we have a plan and a direction for the future and meet the very real needs we can identify and plan for.

USE OF EDWARDSBURGH LAND

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have one single, succinct question I'd like to place to the Chair of Management Board.

A recent article in the Brockville Recorder and Times insinuates that the government has left 10,500 acres of land in Edwardsburgh township, acquired for a planned industrial park, virtually undeveloped for the last two decades. As successive provincial governments have spent a total of $15 million on this development, what are the current plans for these specific properties?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question. It points to some of the kinds of issues this government has found itself confronted with and trying to deal with.

The member is correct. The land assembly in Edwardsburgh was one of several land banks in the province of Ontario acquired in the mid-1970s, during the previous Tory administration of William Davis. The kinds of things that some had visions of developing on land banks like this have long since evaporated in the minds of not only those who dreamed them up but those who understand the reality of modern-day Ontario. In that respect, we are presently looking at making those lands available for appropriate residential development.

1440

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary? New question, the honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): We have a serious problem today, Mr Speaker, inasmuch as almost half the cabinet is not present, including the Premier.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Ruprecht: We have no indication today that the Minister of Citizenship --

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. Our practice is for the member who's recognized to identify to whom he wishes to direct the question.

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question to the Minister of Citizenship, and I hope she arrives or that she is in the back or that she would be here. I've a serious concern: If she's not here and the Premier's not here and half the cabinet is not here --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member is asked to take his seat.

The member has one more opportunity. To whom does he wish to direct his question?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, I don't see the Minister of Citizenship, so I will pass to my colleague Mr Daigeler.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. You will be, I'm sure, very familiar with the fact that your Premier has tried to spend at least, and that's the minimum, $1 billion to encourage the Metro Toronto area to build four subway lines rather than two. Some people said he went quite a bit further than just to encourage Metro; some people say he even tried to blackmail them. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Premier has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to spend at least $1 billion extra in the Metro Toronto area. Metro Toronto, as is its right and its responsibility, has said: "No. At this point, we want to build only two subways. It's going to cost us enough. Perhaps later on, we'll build four subways."

If my calculation is right, the Premier and the Treasurer and the cabinet have $1 billion left over, because they wanted and they still want to spend an extra $1 billion in the Metro Toronto area. Minister, we in eastern Ontario have a project ready to go, on which we want to spend not a whole billion dollars, but approximately $200 million, and that project is called Highway 416. In view of the fact that this province is not spending $1 billion, will you redirect some of that money and reinstitute the completion of 416 in eastern Ontario?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): When it comes to infrastructure programs, the presence of the Premier borders on the proverbial. We are committed to our share, the major portion of the cost vis-à-vis the four projects in Metro Toronto. We have an equally important presence, by way of $900 million, on highways across the province of Ontario.

We also have a flagship through the capital corporation vis-à-vis Highway 407 to ease the traffic from Highway 401. It's the largest construction project in North America. More money is being spent on 416 north than ever before. When it comes to 416 south, it would be very nice to have the cooperation from the federal Liberal government.

We're the only province that doesn't get a penny in terms of a national highway program. It leaves us with two highways, a Trans-Canada highway and a trans-Ontario highway.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The motorists of the province of Ontario sent $1.15 billion of their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa and we don't see a dime, a nickel, not a penny --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We want to build the 416. We want to accelerate the 416, but we need help to do so.

Mr Daigeler: Minister, you don't need to go on. I can recognize somebody skating on thin ice when I see it, but I think you have to be careful that you don't break through this ice.

I'm not asking you to spend more money. All I'm saying is that the Premier, according to his own commitment that he wanted to spend in Metro -- Metro doesn't want it, so he's got $1 billion at least that he can spend in other areas of the province.

I'm asking you again. Never mind the federal government. This is money your Premier is ready to spend now. That's what he has said, that he is ready to spend that money now. Metro doesn't want it. Will you spend that money, or at least part of that money, in eastern Ontario for the 416? We in eastern Ontario want the 416 completed.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is very important. Some of his colleagues might judge my good critic and friend with a vengeance, for they will feel the question is parochial; that as the critic for Transportation he has failed to see the big picture and is now preaching for his parish. Well, it's not so. He is very much aware.

I sympathize with the kind of pressure he's under. He has seen the federal government spend millions and millions of dollars from Ottawa to Hull, but only on the Hull side. He's even contemplated, because of the one-way flow of traffic -- but those people have to come back -- maybe enlarging the bridge separating Hull from Ottawa, for ulterior motives. I don't know, but I read papers.

Let me conclude on the very real subject matter which is the 416, a major lifeline, that if we were to be innovative, if we were to be imaginative and have an entrepreneur, maybe a group of entrepreneurs --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- come up with a proposal, maybe use the transportation corporation to help us in the collective, working as a team in a partnership, we would have to be at least --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- committed to give that proposal consideration. I welcome the inquiry.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Yesterday the minister stated that he had called on the federal government to work with the provinces to develop a system whereby graduates pay back student loans based on their income once they're in the workforce.

I am glad he has New Directions, Volume Two, with him. I am very proud to say that the minister does take the time to read and to follow through where good information and good plans are in place. But yesterday the minister missed a golden opportunity. It had nothing to do with the Blue Jays. He could have at the same time announced income-contingent loan repayment plans, and he didn't do it. The students are very disappointed and not, therefore, supportive.

When are you going to announce the income-contingent loan repayment plans so the students can be 100% behind you in your support of the universities?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's quite simple. Because there is a thing called the Canada student loan program and the Ontario student assistance program, you cannot move forward with an income-contingent repayment program until the two programs are integrated.

In the current federal government, Minister Axworthy has indicated that they have some interest in this and that they're prepared to work with the province to develop some options. We want to do that very much with the federal government. I must say, this is one instance where I am actually saying there might be something positive -- might be -- to say about the federal government.

This government has indicated that it might be interested in doing that, as opposed to the previous government, which was about to privatize the Canada student loan program and rule out any option on income contingencies.

Mrs Cunningham: I want to talk about the future. In fact, it's very important to the future that we support our universities. Yesterday the minister talked about injecting new funds into the universities, sometimes at the expense of the students, so I am going to ask this question now.

Minister, as we work together to get this program moving as quickly as possible, because there are so many young people who just cannot pay back these loans, who in fact can't get them without this kind of plan, how are you going to include the students as part of this whole process of defining this plan and how it will work, along with your consultation with the federal government?

Hon Mr Cooke: We, along with the universities, are pulling together a symposium that will take a look at the various options in terms of income contingency which will involve students, administration, board members and the federal government. The date's been set; it's in the very near future. We intend very much to involve the students in the design of the program.

1450

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I have been very supportive of our government's work on the residents' rights bill, which proposes to extend Landlord and Tenant Act rights to vulnerable residents.

Recently it has come to my attention at the Massey Centre for Women in my riding of York East that it may be adversely affected by this bill. The Massey Centre provides programs for pregnant teenagers and single mothers and their children in the areas of counselling, life skills, day care, education and employment in pre- and post-natal transitional housing.

The Massey Centre has been exempt from the LTA and wishes to continue to have this exemption as it is not in the business of providing permanent housing. Minister, will the Massey Centre continue to be exempted under the LTA?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I welcome the question. The Massey Centre is a very interesting and successful organization and in no way would the government wish to see its operations in any sense undermined. We're very, very supportive of the programs they've been running.

In fact, they are running three programs: The pre-natal counselling service which they provide won't be affected by Bill 120. The second part of their programming, and it's a distinct program, is a program which provides up to six months of accommodation under close supervision and support service for young mothers who've just delivered their babies, and that won't be affected either. It will be exempted under the provision in Bill 120 in which a six-month program does not have the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The third part of the program is the longer-term, second-stage housing, and there the Landlord and Tenant Act will apply to that second-stage housing. We also have made an amendment to Bill 120 which will mean that for a program of that nature, which is under two years, they will be able to ask people to leave once the program has been completed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am preparing my questions on the basis that a certain minister is present. It is common among the House leaders that this is being done under routine proceedings, and everyone is informed if a minister is not present. In this case ministers were not present and they're not listed here. Could you check into this so that in the future this will not happen?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parkdale, an experienced member, will know that the Chair is not privy to pieces of paper which indicate who may or may not be present in the chamber on any particular day or at any given time and cannot be of any assistance to the member.

I realize the House tries to conduct itself in an orderly way and provide members with names of those who are expected to be present. That is not information which is shared with the Chair, nor should it be. I regret that I'm unable to be of assistance to the member in this instance.

VISITOR

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We have the crime fighter from Cornwall here with us today, His Worship Mayor Ron Martelle from Cornwall.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order, but the mayor of Cornwall is most welcome in our chambers.

CORRECTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to correct the record in respect to comments I made during debate on a justice committee report this Monday. In respect to witnesses who appeared before the justice committee, I was critical of the testimony delivered by the East York Tenants' Association, mistakenly. In fact the contribution of the East York Tenants' Association I thought was very positive, unlike some of the other witnesses. I mistakenly criticized the East York Tenants' Association when the comments should have been directed towards Mr Kenneth Hale of the Tenant Advocacy Group.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We appreciate the fact that the honourable member has corrected his own record.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitution be made to the membership of the standing committee on public accounts: Mr Crozier for Mr Murphy.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Harris and Mr Cousens exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have two petitions. If you will allow me, they go together. They're both from the congregation, the men and women at the Christ Our King Lutheran Church in Mississauga.

The first is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

The second one, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, with regard to:

"Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

I've affixed my signature to both petitions in agreement.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I wish the member for Mississauga West had been a member when his party put this change in the code.

I have a petition from Christ Our King Lutheran Church. It has a large number of names, and I'm happy to read this petition and present it to the House.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics such as race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I'm happy to sign this petition.

1500

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliamentary of Ontario as follows in regards to Bill 45."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we're not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Premier and the Legislative Assembly to change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

It is signed by 117 constituents. I affix mine.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that came to me from Sandra Dennis in Kitchener, signed by 50 people.

"To Premier Bob Rae and Health minister Ruth Grier:

"We, the undersigned, residents of a long-term care facility in Ontario, spouses, other family members, friends and interested parties need your help.

"Many couples whose combined income is needed for the spouse in a long-term care facility and the spouse still residing independently in the community will be unable to continue paying the new rates, which were recently increased 41% or $376.18 per month. Single and widowed residents are also affected by increases.

"Also, we are worried about the reduction of the hours of nursing care. We believe the reduction jeopardizes the safety and wellbeing of the residents.

"Consequently, more health care dollars may be spent to cover the cost of any repercussions from the reduction. We are proud Canadians and desperately need your help regarding these two serious matters."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here sent to me by Peter Williamson from the Williamson GM dealer in Uxbridge.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board decision to increase the assessment rates to over 27,000 Ontario employers in excess of 25%, to 90,000 in excess of 10% and to over two thirds of Ontario business in excess of 3% will cost jobs; and

"Whereas the WCB ignored the responsible plan from the business community; and

"Whereas the WCB did not consult with business before making this reckless decision; and

"Whereas the WCB chair, Mr O. Di Santo, cast the deciding vote to allow this irresponsible tax grab,

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

"That the Ontario government roll back WBC assessment rates, accept the business solution and demand the full resignation of WCB chair Mr Di Santo."

There are a lot of people who have problems with the Workers' Compensation Board, including injured workers out there. Something needs to be done.

TUITION FEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of young people concerned about tuition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP promised throughout many election campaigns to eliminate tuition fees for college and university students; and

"Whereas the NDP broke this election promise in its first year in office; and

"Whereas, since the NDP took office, they have already raised tuition fees by 22% and are planning to raise tuition fees by an additional 14% over the next two years" -- that turned out to be 20%, by the way -- "and

"Whereas the NDP government has cut over $250 million in funding to colleges and universities, forcing many institutions to raise non-tuition student fees to make up for the missing revenue; and

"Whereas the government has cut the student grants program for post-secondary students and replaced it with a smaller loans program; and

"Whereas everyone agrees that we need to encourage students to become more highly trained and skilled through post-secondary education to ensure that our province can compete in the changing economy; and

"Whereas student unemployment is at an all-time high, double-digit levels already, leaving further education as the only hope for real jobs for our young people,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, urge the province of Ontario to restore equality and accessibility to the post-education system by holding the line on tuition increases and making it more affordable for our youth to receive the skills and training they require."

I agree with these young people and I affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have two similar petitions from different areas of my riding. I'll only read the one into the record.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Liberal Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Liberal Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I'm affixing my signature to both petitions.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by the owner, staff and patrons of Main West Brew in Hamilton expressing their opposition to the tax on beer and wine produced at brew-your-own premises.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP promised during the election campaign to protect agricultural areas surrounding Metropolitan Toronto for future development; and

"Whereas the NDP demanded during the last provincial election campaign that provincially owned land in the Pickering area known as Seaton should be used only to build affordable housing;" and I remember that, "and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to sell land in the Pickering area for private development because of its sagging revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to stop its sale of the Pickering lands or call an election," which I much favour, "to measure the public's opinion of this mismanaged revenue scheme."

I affix my signature to this in full agreement.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

I've signed this petition.

LAP DANCING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which has been signed by a number of residents in my riding and it states:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the ruling on lap dancing in strip bars. We feel it's a violation of any code of morality or decency. We want steps taken to overturn this decision."

I present the petition on behalf of my constituents.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Liberal Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

1510

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, sex and age, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing the Liberal Bill 45."

I've affixed my name.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Premier, Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The federation wishes to indicate its objection to the decision by the province not to grandfather firearms acquisition certificates and safety courses. The federation requests that only first-time gun purchasers be required to take the federal firearms safety course and examination.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Premier, Bob Rae, the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"I/We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

That's signed by 97 people from Orillia, Oro Station, Coldwater, Washago and Port Severn.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

On motion by Mrs Marland, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 145, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act / Projet de loi 145, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Mississauga South: short comments.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This bill prevents the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto from passing a bylaw which would prevent cabs licensed by municipalities outside of the Metropolitan area from conveying physically, emotionally or mentally handicapped people from a point in the Metropolitan area to any point outside the Metropolitan area.

The bill is a response to the decision of Metro Toronto council to terminate its exemption for accessible taxis in the Metro bylaw which prohibits taxis which are licensed by municipalities outside Metro Toronto from picking up passengers in Metro. The exemption for accessible taxis is needed to ensure safe and timely transit services for disabled people who live outside Metropolitan Toronto but work, attend school or require services in Metro.

Accessible taxis supplement the accessible buses operated by regional paratransit services such as Transhelp in Peel region. Disabled residents of Peel make 30% of their trips to and from Metro in accessible taxis rather than Transhelp buses. There is a shortage of accessible taxis within Metropolitan Toronto, whereas some municipalities such as the regional municipality of Peel have made excellent progress in the acquisition of accessible taxis.

Metro's accessible taxis will not be able to provide the services needed by the disabled persons from other municipalities. Moreover, with the need and demand for more accessible taxis in Metro, the bylaw exemption did not pose any risk to the business success of Metro Toronto's cab companies.

I hope the government will give my private member's bill a high priority in order to avoid the impending transit crisis for disabled residents of the municipalities surrounding Metro Toronto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Government House Leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The 36th order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The 36th order: second reading, Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards. Mr Philip.

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order regarding Bill 143, which is formally entitled "An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards."

The government, as you know, just introduced this bill on Tuesday of this week, two days ago, to replace Bill 77 which was originally introduced for first reading on July 22, 1993.

The major difference between these two bills is that Bill 143 also deals with a totally separate and different matter, and that is that it amends the Education Act in relation to French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

My concern is with the form of Bill 143. I feel this bill goes beyond the generally accepted form for legislation and is using an omnibus format that is inconsistent with the practice of omnibus bills.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states that, "Speakers have expressed deep concern about the use of omnibus bills." Omnibus bills are generally accepted to be bills that demand a decision on a number of quite different although related subjects. However, the only thing the Education Act and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act have in common is that they affect the same geographical area. Otherwise, these two statutes are not related subjects. One deals with restructuring of municipal and local government in Ottawa-Carleton; the other deals with the restructuring of the French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

School boards are autonomous from municipalities and as such these two issues should be separated in two different issues.

I also want to read from a debate which took place in the House of Commons in 1988 over the Canada free trade agreement. At that particular time, this same point of order was raised by several members. I want to refer to certain portions of that, which referred back to Mr Speaker Lamoureux, who on January 26, 1971, said:

"However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital 'O' and a capital 'B.' But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint."

Mr Speaker, in this particular instance, as you may know, over the past half-year since Bill 77 was introduced, the varying political parties of this Legislature have talked about their acceptance of Bill 77. Some speculate that there may be closure moved on this particular bill, and I believe that is a reasonable expectation for the government to assume may be required of it in order to carry this bill through.

If that is the case and we combine the concern of previous British parliamentary institutions with our now standing orders, which were changed, as you may remember, two years ago, where it allows the government under standing order 46(c) to move a time allocation motion after three sessional days on second reading have been considered, that means that we could in effect have the government move an omnibus bill for the good of the government of Ontario and include everything from A to Z within that bill and allow this Legislature three days to debate all of those matters and vote for them in one lot. It may be of advantage to members of the Legislature, because quite frankly we'd probably only get a week or two of sittings, and that might be acceptable to a lot of us. Notwithstanding that, this bill does not go to that extent, obviously, but it does introduce two very different matters which we are to consider there.

Another parliamentary principle which you would not have to rule on at this point in time if in fact you found against my particular argument would be a request which I may make at a later date that the two issues be separated on second reading so that we could have a vote on these two very important matters, ie, one on the general thrust of the legislation which is being put forward by this government to restructure the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton, and on the other hand the very different matter of the restructuring of the French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

There are approximately 18,000 students who will be affected by the restructuring of the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school boards. In a meeting which I had yesterday with officials of the Ministry of Education and Training, they indicated to me that this section of the bill was not an urgent matter to deal with. That was their message to me.

It appears to me that adding together the repartee that has existed between the opposition parties and the government party over the past six months with regard to this bill along with the fact that the Education Act amendments which deal with French-language school boards have been introduced only two days ago, which gives neither me nor my colleagues in the opposition the opportunity to go back to our constituencies and allow us enough time to talk to those 18,000 parents or their representatives, not only the trustees but the other people in the community, the parents of those 18,000 students, quite frankly we are left in a conundrum, in terms of knowing the arguments which may be put forward, as to whether or not we should vote for this particular bill on second reading. I am talking about the French-language school board part of the bill.

I think that the pacing of this legislation is disastrous. It is unfair to the people that are involved in it to ask members of this Legislature to decide on the outcome of these particular school boards in a period of two days and expect us to come back in the Legislature in two days and be able to make our decision on second reading.

I also want to say that the Speaker, as I understand the parliamentary rules, has the option of dividing issues on second reading. I must add, though, Mr Speaker, in fairness to you, that no Speaker to my knowledge in Canada has taken that option to date. But I encourage you to consider that if in fact you rule against me in terms of allowing this bill to proceed as it has been presented to the Legislature today.

I believe it would have been much better for the government to continue on with Bill 77 and not proceed with Bill 143 and then introduce another bill to deal with the separation of the two French-language school boards away from the amalgamated school board, as they have it now. That would permit proper hearings, proper consultation etc to deal with that. Quite frankly, as I now stand I am probably in favour of the separation of those school boards because it's not working at the present time.

The issue is also complicated by the fact that one of the two school boards is under trusteeship at the present time, although there is a hope by the Ministry of Education and Training that this problem will be resolved in the very near future.

I would hope that through our parliamentary process, if in fact I am ruled against in terms of Bill 143, we will have the opportunity to travel to Ottawa in order to hear various people talk about these two bills.

If we go at the present time on the French-language school boards issue, we will hear people talking about the trusteeship. We will not be hearing them talk about whether or not these two boards should be under an umbrella French-language school board for Ottawa-Carleton or a Catholic school board and a public school board under the French sector in Ottawa-Carleton.

So I think the timing is ill in a political sense, but I also believe that the government should be restricted to stay to its course which it had previously put forward on July 22. I believe that their notice to the francophone community in Ottawa-Carleton is inadequate in terms of allowing them time to contact me, my other colleagues from the Ottawa-Carleton area, the other members of this Legislature, to let them know what their feelings are about this very important issue for 18,000 students in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the member for Carleton. He brings a very interesting perspective. Does the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs want to react to the same point of order?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): On the same point of order, and I'll be brief, the bill that we have before us deals with the restructuring of Ottawa-Carleton. It's based on the Kirby report and on other studies that have gone on before, to find ways in which the Ottawa-Carleton region could be managed in a more efficient way and a more representative way.

In Kirby, what we have is a clear call for a study to look at the governance, if you want, of school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As a result of Kirby, the Minister of Education took Mr Kirby's recommendation and in fact acceded to that recommendation. The Minister of Education and Training requested that a study be taken and indeed Mr Bourns of Peat Marwick Thorne had been appointed on May 10, 1993, to undertake that study, the study again coming from the recommendation on which this bill is based.

Mr Bourns released his final report in November 1993, and in his report he recommended that the existing Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board be dissolved and that the two existing sectors become individual boards at the earliest possible time. That is precisely what has been done.

The Ministry of Education consulted extensively. Mr Bourns consulted extensively in Ottawa-Carleton. Indeed, as you know, the rationale for including this amendment in Bill 77 is that, first of all, Mr Bourns did this in response to the Kirby recommendations. But also, ward boundaries for school boards must follow municipal wards, and the municipal wards won't be established until royal assent of this bill. It makes absolutely logical and common sense to combine these two issues, the issues of the restructuring of both the municipal and the educational system under one bill. They come from the same report that was commissioned by the government, and I urge, Mr Speaker, that you rule that this bill is in order.

The Acting Speaker: We have a number of points of view here. I would beg the House to have a five-minute recess to look over the potential aspects of this bill. This House will now stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1524 to 1534.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the member for Carleton for bringing his concerns to the Speaker. I also want to thank the minister for his participation in debating the particular point of order. We find, however, with all due consideration, that it is an omnibus bill that indeed is in order and we will be proceeding with Bill 143 as it is provided by the minister. We do not feel, and I do not feel, the Chair should dictate to any cabinet member what should be in an omnibus bill.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AND FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARDS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LA MUNICIPALITÉ D'OTTAWA-CARLETON ET LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

Mr Philip moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The minister now has the floor to debate Bill 143.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I rise to present our views, the views of the government, on second reading of Bill 143, an act which will reform the regional government and French-language school boards in the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

Among the main features of the legislation are direct election of a regional council, to be in place in time for the 1994 civic elections; regional responsibility for policing under a regional police services board; a new role for a regional council in acquiring land for economic development purposes.

Resolution of the regional policing issue is long overdue. A large region such as Ottawa-Carleton needs and deserves a more coordinated approach to policing. It is also a question of fairness. This bill will help ensure that policing costs are fairly distributed across the tax base of the entire region and that all taxpayers contribute.

In addition, this bill will give the region an enhanced new role in economic development. Specifically, the region will have exclusive authority to acquire industrial, commercial and institutional lands for economic development purposes. The assignment of this authority to regional council is based on the recognition that Ottawa-Carleton is one economic community of interest.

One part of the legislation which has caused considerable concern is that local mayors will no longer sit on regional council. I've received letters and suggestions from the area mayors and I congratulate them on trying to find solutions to this issue.

However, this regional council is responsible for over $1 billion a year in expenditures and we feel that electors are entitled to a regional governing structure comprised entirely of representatives who are directly accountable to them. Because there is a great disparity in the size of the municipalities in this area and because there are 11 mayors in the region, unlike other regions, representation by population can only be achieved when mayors no longer sit on this body.

There are many supporters of this approach, including Dave Bartlett, the author of the previous study on the future of Ottawa-Carleton; Claude Bennett, the former Progressive Conservative Minister of Municipal Affairs; the former and current chairs of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade; the mayor and council of the city of Ottawa; the Ottawa Citizen; and the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations, not to mention numerous business people in the various communities who I've heard from.

This bill replaces Bill 77 which was introduced in the last session of the Legislature. This bill is being reintroduced because we have a number of additions to it. Some of these were necessary because the passage of the original bill was delayed. Because of this delay, we've been able to incorporate some of the education recommendations of the Bourns study which was originally proposed by Graeme Kirby in his final report on Ottawa-Carleton.

New provisions have been introduced to deal with the operation of Ottawa-Carleton's French-language school board. The existing regulatory power to dissolve and create French-language school boards is being clarified and a few minor additions are being made in order to deal with the special circumstances of Ottawa-Carleton.

1540

There are provisions for the transfer of trustees, property, employees and assets and any other matters which may arise as a result of the creation of the new boards.

We have added to the existing police-related provisions the establishment of a regional police planning committee which is intended to begin work shortly on integrating the local municipal forces. We have extended the date for amalgamation of the three existing police forces to take place on or by January 1, 1997, and we've clarified the region's authority to phase in any changes in costs for policing.

I'm pleased to announce today that the regional municipality will receive, and I've just signed it this morning, a $70,000 special assistance grant from the province to assist in a study to determine the present and future communication system needs of the regional police service established by this bill.

My staff informed the regional chair's office of this grant earlier today, since I wasn't able to reach him personally. This grant is intended to assist in only the first step of the amalgamation process, and other assistance, I can assure you, will be provided once further costs are known.

Provisions have been added to the bill which will ensure that the 1994 municipal and school board elections run smoothly. The Ontario Municipal Board is being given authority to make changes to the electoral areas of wards of school boards as a result of the changes to local, municipal or regional wards.

Finally, the street vending provisions from the previous bill have been corrected.

The popular sentiment in Ottawa-Carleton is that the region is vastly overgoverned, and streamlining is urgently needed.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton have waited a long time for this legislation. In the past several years, there have been three separate studies on the future of regional government in this area, most recently the Kirby commission, and the time has now come to act.

I ask that members of the House approve this legislation and allow it to pass expeditiously so that the new regional government is in effect for the 1994 civic elections. Delay of this legislation is already creating some difficulties for the region's clerks in terms of deadlines. Candidates for regional positions have already been inconvenienced by the delays in registration. The bottom line is that the time is here to end the uncertainty in Ottawa-Carleton and allow the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton to participate equally with other citizens in this province in the 1994 civic elections.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and members of the House for any contributions they will be making to this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Questions or comments?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess what we're dealing with here today is a vision of municipal government. The provincial government has a certain vision of municipal government, and I think through this debate today and next week and hopefully through committee meetings -- I don't know exactly what the minister has in mind. I'm not sure if he made any comments in that regard, but I do hope that at the end of the day, at the end of second reading, there will be an opportunity to have this bill debated in committee, because certainly there are a great number of people who have an interest in the vision of municipal government, particularly in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

I must say that this is being watched right across Ontario because this is viewed, I think, as being a bit of a forerunner of certainly this government's idea of municipal government, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but perhaps in Metropolitan Toronto, perhaps in the Hamilton region, perhaps in London, perhaps right across this province.

The vision this government has is of a regional government that is distinct from the local councils, an entirely distinct level of government -- if you will, a fourth level of government -- so that the region is quite distinct from the local municipal councils and there's no linkage between the two of them.

This is not a new model. This is a model that was attempted some time ago in the city of Winnipeg. It failed, and it failed miserably. It resulted in all sorts of problems, disputes between the local council and the regional council, and ultimately led to the demise of the local council so that now in the city of Winnipeg there's just one council, period. That's the route we're going with this particular government's proposal and I think that's what should be debated in the committee.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I too would implore the minister to have hearings on this matter, because local government is a very important affair to local people. It's awfully important to proceed with changes that are accepted by the local people or you proceed to have situations, conflicts, that are never forgotten. I think we have that situation in Haldimand-Norfolk. The minister has just recently visited there and agreed to a review to give people the opportunity to voice their opinions and make suggestions on changes that are perceived to be needed by many, many people, and perhaps a majority in that particular region.

It's so important to have acceptance of changes. The previous speaker mentioned that the system had been tried before, but I want to point out that in the county system of government the government changed the system, had direct election and had the counties divided into districts for electoral purposes with no membership from the local councils.

From 1898 to 1906 it did not work. It was a complete and dismal failure. It caused tremendous conflict between the local councils and the upper tier, and it was changed. It was a very needed and improved change when they went back to the old system. I agree that a combination of direct election with representation from area councils is needed for liaison back to the councils for a reminder of the important services. That's based on the fact that services at the upper tier are indeed municipal services rendered on behalf of area municipalities.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to clarify one point. The minister talked about delay with regard to this legislation. Everybody in Ontario should understand that there hasn't been one minute of delay on the part of any of the opposition parties to date. This bill was introduced for first reading on July 22 and took all of a period of about two minutes to pass on July 22, 1993.

This government chose not to debate this bill during the fall session, even though we sat for 60 or 70 days. The allegation that there's been delay may be true, but all of that delay must lie at the feet of the government at this point in time. I was anxious to debate this in the fall; I was ready to debate it in the fall; I was ready to debate it in December. The government did not see fit that this was a priority to debate until today.

I am further chagrined that they would introduce at the very last moment a brand-new concept into this bill, and that is the creation of the French-language public school board and the French-language Catholic school board. As I said in my point of order, I am very, very sorry that the people who use those systems, the parents of the 18,000 students who use those systems, will not have an adequate time to respond to this bill and will be grouped in with another agenda which has been deemed, on the government's part, to be urgent.

1550

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to say to the minister with regard to his introductory comments to the bill that I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of people around the Ottawa area especially with regard to the educational component of this bill, and I can say that most of the people I met with, actually all, are very much in agreement with trying to deal with this. I think most of us recognize that there is a very difficult situation in terms of the public and separate portion of the French-language school boards in Ottawa, where you had a board structured in such a way that you basically had three boards.

The people I've dealt with in the Ottawa community, the students, some teachers I happen to know there, as well as the people in administration and some of the people concerned, have been looking to the government, not only our government but actually to the government before us, the Peterson government, to move on this, because it's really quite a difficult situation they find themselves in.

I just want to say to the minister, on behalf of the people I spoke to in the Ottawa-Carleton area, that they're very much in favour of moving ahead in the direction we're going right now with this bill, to deal with that particular component, the educational component of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Don Mills was quite correct. This does show, and the debate will show, a vision. We do have a vision for municipal government in this province, namely, as my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand has mentioned, that we recognize that each municipality is unique. That is why I was with my honourable opposition critic from the Liberal Party in the Haldimand-Norfolk area to see if we could come up with some solutions of governance that apply to that area. I'm sure he would agree that the solutions that will come out of there will be quite different probably than the solutions proposed by the various studies in Ottawa-Carleton.

It's also a vision that in a democratic process you have to have some connection between representation and population. In Ottawa-Carleton, unlike any other region, you have municipalities that range in size from half a million people to some 1,200 people. To have one vote per one mayor for each of those is simply undemocratic. There's no other region that is quite like that, and therefore this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances, a unique solution stemming from a series of studies looking at that particular situation.

There is a vision. There's a vision that each region is different, that each part of the province is different, and I think the members will see that as we bring in our legislation based on the Sewell commission.

There's also a vision that municipalities have a role in economic development. That is why the board of trade and members of the board of trade in Ottawa-Carleton have been so supportive of this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 143?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'm disappointed that the point of order from my honourable friend from Carleton was ruled out of order, for the simple reason that this very important bill we are about to discuss not only encompasses municipal government restructuring but is also affecting school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Not being an expert in the education field, our party's critic for Education, the member for York North, will be addressing the education part of this bill.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): York-Mackenzie.

Mr Grandmaître: It's been changed to York-Mackenzie.

The minister talked about the vision of local government, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but right across this province. He was saying that we have 817 unique governments in Ontario, that everybody is unique. The people of Ottawa-Carleton were asking the ministry for a simple government, understandable by the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton, and what we are faced with today is a major omnibus bill amending the Education Act and also the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

The minister talked about democracy. I would like to tell the minister that if we live in a real democracy in the province of Ontario, he will adhere to the point of order from the member for Carleton and split this bill in two.

I would ask that this very important bill be addressed by the Liberal Education critic and that he should be given 90 minutes to discuss the education part of this bill. I would ask the consent of this House that the Liberal critic be given 90 minutes to address the education part of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Is the honourable member making a formal request? Do we have unanimous consent that the Education critic be given 90 minutes? Agreed? No, we don't have unanimous consent.

Mr Grandmaître: The minister was the first one to say no, and he calls it democracy in the province of Ontario. With what the minister just did, he will force members of this House who agree with a number of sections of this bill pertaining to the municipal part of it, also the education part of it, to vote against Bill 143 as a whole. It's very unfair on your part, Minister, not to split the bill in two parts -- very unfair.

If I can go back to last November and December, when the minister paid thousands and thousands of dollars to advertise in our local newspapers, blaming the opposition for stalling Bill 77, it's very unfair. It proves today, with Bill 143, that the government wasn't ready to move on Bill 77.

That's the stalling tactic they use: They blame the opposition. This is the first time in 10 years that I've seen a majority government blaming the opposition, a majority government that has the power to -- and it used that power with Bill 100, and Bill 40, if I'm not mistaken: It put a time allocation. If the minister had been serious back in November or December, I'm sure he would have moved on it, because people in Ottawa-Carleton are as anxious as the minister is to have some changes at the regional level.

We are the only municipality, as it was pointed out by the minister, without a regional police force. I happen to believe we need a regional police force, but I will be forced to vote against it because he's removing the mayors. I'll be getting into the details of the different sections of the bill.

As pointed out by the minister, Ottawa-Carleton is unique. You've got to go back to 1968, when Ottawa-Carleton was created by the then Conservative government under the leadership of Darcy McKeough. We were unique, and he recognized that he couldn't put in place a regional police force, for a number of reasons.

At that time, we had 17 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton, which was scaled down to 11 municipalities. Some 75% of our population was receiving police services from the OPP -- mind you, free of charge. That's one of the reasons regional police weren't instituted back in 1969.

In the Ottawa-Carleton regional act, there was a little clause that said, "This government has to be reviewed after five years," so in 1975, Dr Henry Mayo was asked to conduct an evaluation of the services in Ottawa-Carleton. Dr Mayo came out with 27 different recommendations. Not one of those recommendations was ever implemented. I shouldn't say ever implemented; some of them are in Bill 143 and also in the former Bill 178.

1600

Back in 1987, we decided, a new government, that we should have another study, because our 11 municipalities were on side that regional government in the Ottawa-Carleton area needed to be revamped. We went on with David Bartlett, and David Bartlett did a reasonably good job, I would say a good job. In 1990, to complete the David Bartlett report, Katherine Graham looked at the possibility of creating regional wards, which was a good report.

The intention of the government in 1989 was to put these two reports together and have people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and local people from Ottawa-Carleton look at them and come up with a reasonable approach. I think it would have been much more appreciated and successful if the results of the Bartlett and the Graham report, not the Kirby report but the Katherine Graham report, had been put together to reach a consensus.

But while we were talking about Bill 32, the bill that permitted the regional chair to be elected at large in Ottawa-Carleton, a rat came out, and that was one-tier government. There was only one municipality in Ottawa-Carleton interested in one-tier government, and that was the city of Ottawa, which I represent part of. I represent three mayors in this bill, and those three mayors don't see eye to eye, so it's very difficult for me to stand and say, "I'm in favour of this for Nepean or Kanata or Ottawa or Vanier." I look at my region globally and I want to try to be as reasonable as possible.

But when Kirby, a well-respected citizen of Ottawa-Carleton, was appointed, his mandate was to look at one-tier government, and we spent $500,000 to say no to one-tier government. I think we've spent close to $2 million in the last 18 or 20 years in Ottawa-Carleton to look at reviews, and very few things were completed or accomplished.

Talking about democracy and talking about the great support for this bill, as pointed out by the minister in his opening remarks -- he was talking about the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade with great respect. Naturally they want economic development in Ottawa-Carleton, and I support this. I support that section of the bill. Ottawa-Carleton should have the responsibility for economic development. I support this, but at the same time I don't support other sections of the bill.

Let me talk about the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton, the real people, people who pay taxes every day for education, municipal services and regional services. Here's a letter from Citizens for Good Government. They talk about the democratic process:

"Mr Philip states that Bill 77" -- it was Bill 77 in those days -- "is based upon the Kirby report. The Kirby report does not recommend the restructuring of local government in Ottawa-Carleton at this time, nor does he even suggest that lower-tier representation be removed from regional council. Mr Philip's legislation is in conflict with the very report he commissioned."

The Coopers and Lybrand people conducted a poll for the Kirby commission and the results are very clear: Net satisfaction with local municipalities or local government, 76%; net satisfaction with regional government, 57%.

These are citizens, these are taxpayers. I could go on and on and read from 1,800 letters from citizens, mostly opposed; 95% of them are opposed. A resolution from the city of Gloucester was circulated among our 817 municipalities and 68% of them wanted this bill withdrawn, and yet the minister talks about his support.

The minister and the government are missing out on a great thing in Ottawa-Carleton. He had a golden opportunity to create a very unique government in Ottawa-Carleton.

I'd like to go on with the response of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Review Commission, the Kirby report, from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. There are 41 recommendations in the Kirby report, and at the very beginning, here's the executive summary:

"We believe that any reform initiatives within Ottawa-Carleton should only be implemented if the outcome results in a more accessible and accountable local government. The impact of any decisions should not require increased taxes to provide the same services." The recommendations from regional council are very, very clear.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to talk about these recommendations from the local area, from regional council. Let's take recommendation 1, which talks about one tier or two tiers. I pointed out to you that it was a waste of time. It was strongly agreed by the 11 municipalities that the two-tier system is working and working well, and please don't touch it: "The region strongly supports the present two-tier structure of government in Ottawa-Carleton as the most accountable form of municipal government."

The minister had an answer to his one-tier government before the study was ever started, but possibly with the pressure from the member for Ottawa Centre -- one morning at a breakfast while I was talking to the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Cooke, one-tier government surfaced: "Let's look at one-tier government." I was told while discussing Bill 32 by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs that no, one-tier government was out of the question. And yet, while debating Bill 32, his then parliamentary assistant, the member for Kitchener, who used to be the parliamentary assistant to Mr Cooke, said: "Look, there's no rush for this. Maybe we should be looking at one-tier government." The cat was out of the bag. We knew what the government's hidden agenda was, and accusing the opposition of stalling Bill 77 was a very poor excuse.

If I can go on with the main items of Bill 143, recommendation 11, the regional role of mayors and the number of regional and local councillors, is on page 16.

1610

Not wanting to miss the point, I'm going to read recommendation 11:

"It is recommended that the size of the new regional council should be set at 29 members, to include:

"(i) 18 councillors directly elected from regional wards; and

"(ii) 10 local area mayors (the village of Rockcliffe Park to be excluded);

"(iii) the regional chair."

I want to be honest with you, Mr Speaker. The question of excluding the mayors from regional council was never an issue with the Kirby commission. This was never discussed openly. This is why we want our day. We want the local people, the local taxpayers, to have at least three or four, maybe five, days in committee to address these issues. If people really choose to eliminate the mayors -- and I don't know where the minister gets his information that the mayors should be removed -- I think it's very important that we should have our day in court or in parliamentary committee so that we can discuss things.

Regional council agreed with the form of regional representation which sets the size of regional council at 30. As I pointed out, there would be 19 regional councillors, because now we do have 19 regional wards, with one regional ward to include the village of Rockcliffe Park, so as to ensure that residents can vote for their regional representatives and that the mayor of the village of Rockcliffe Park sit on regional council with full right to speak but no vote -- 10 local mayors, excluding the village of Rockcliffe Park.

Oddly enough, while all of these great negotiations, if I can call them that, as the minister refers to -- I've spoken to Ottawa-Carleton municipal politicians and we came to no agreement. While they came to no agreement, they weren't introducing Bill 77, the real Bill 77, for second reading. How important was Bill 77 to this government? Let me read you a letter addressed to her worship Mayor Merle Nicholds from the city of Kanata:

"Dear Mayor Nicholds:

"This is in response to your letters, on behalf of yourself and nine other mayors in Ottawa-Carleton, of July 28, August 12, September 2, September 28 and September 30" -- four months after. This minister and this government have the gall to say that the opposition are the culprits, that we were stalling the legislation. He couldn't even answer his letters; how could he debate Bill 77 in the House?

Hon Mr Philip: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It simply referred to the matter that I was responding to each of the letters with the last letter as well, but all of the letters were answered.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's not a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Let's get to the bottom of this letter.

Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely.

I didn't say he didn't answer; I said he was four months late in answering his letters. That's what I said, and it's right there.

Hon Mr Philip: That's nonsense.

Mr Grandmaître: It's signed by you, Mr Minister.

The Acting Speaker: Please address the Chair. It would prevent a lot of consternation.

Mr Grandmaître: Anyway, that's how important Bill 77 was.

Also, the same minister addressed the House leaders, Mr Elston and the Conservative House leader, saying: "Hey, let's do this thing, but keep your mouth shut. Don't say a word. Let's do it, and do it as fast as possible."

Going back to the mayors, I think the minister has received a number of letters from municipalities not only in the Ottawa-Carleton area but right across the province of Ontario. I will read just one brief comment from the city of Toronto asking the minister to withdraw Bill 77 for the simple reason that they were excluding the mayors. The minister received this letter. He also received another letter from AMO saying: "This is out of the question; you are destroying local government. It's very important that mayors have a major role to play."

I realize what the minister is trying to say. The mayors' representation will be replaced by regional councillors, and that's fair. But I'm telling you, what Ottawa-Carleton needs is a closer link with municipal taxpayers. After all, 55% of our tax bill in Ottawa-Carleton goes for education -- and it's part of this master bill, omnibus bill -- and 25% of our taxes go to regional government. So I think it's very important that our mayors should sit on regional council.

Where will the link be? Don't forget, these 19 regional councillors, these new wards, will cross municipal boundaries. I was looking at the recent map introduced by the ministry, and in my area my regional representative will be serving three mayors. How can a regional representative, a regional councillor, serve three mayors? How can he be aware of three different municipal budgets? I think it's very important that the person have the power to speak for these individual municipalities, but I find it very difficult that the role of the regional councillor --

Interjection.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, you'll have to sit on the fence because one municipality may not agree with another one. I think this is why it's so important that the mayors do sit on regional council.

I know that maybe the minister will tell me in his response, "Look, I've tried." But I say to the minister that I don't think the minister tried hard enough, because I had several meetings with these 10 mayors, along with my colleague from Carleton, and also my colleague from Don Mills, and I'm telling you, these people were open. They realized that something had to be done and they wanted to accommodate the ministry and the minister, but there was a rush. What was the rush? We've been sitting on our hands for the last three and half months. Bill 77 could have been in committee. It could have been in committee back in January, and I'm sure we could have reached some kind of a consensus.

As I pointed out, the regional wards will be crossing boundaries, and I will refer you to recommendation 13 of Mr Graeme Kirby's report and the result of recommendation 13: "It is recommended that the recommendations of the Report of the Ottawa-Carleton Electoral Boundaries Commission concerning ward boundaries and the contiguity of local and regional wards be implemented." "Agree, but with some qualifications." This is why I say that if the minister had been a little more persistent, maybe we could have reached a consensus.

Here's the regional government's response: "Agree, but with some qualifications. Cross-boundary wards should not be considered." The government is going ahead with cross-boundary. "Each municipality should determine its own internal regional ward boundaries based on representation and population." The minister did address the problem that he was faced with when it came to representation by population. He's absolutely right. When you look at the village of Rockcliffe Park, with a population of 1,800 people, as compared to the city of Ottawa, with 306,000 people, I agree with the minister that he had to find a solution. I think the village of Rockcliffe Park and other municipalities were willing to work out a deal with the minister to reach a consensus.

Minister, you failed. You didn't use the last three and a half months to really get in touch with these people, get closer to these people.

1620

No neighbourhood should be split in two within the same municipality. The village of Stittsville is divided right down Main Street. Imagine. This is unacceptable not only to the taxpayers of Stittsville, it's unacceptable to the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, because we are making these changes and I think the government wants these changes because it wants to streamline government and also to save tax dollars for taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Here's a letter from the city of Ottawa: "The proposed regional reform for Ottawa-Carleton is flawed in so far as the political changes are concerned. There is merit in amalgamating certain functional elements such as police, waste management etc; however, the following points regarding politicians have not been highlighted." That's the costs.

"Projected costs will be $1.8 million to employ 18 full-time councillors with office budgets." I don't know if you're aware of the cost that the regional municipality will have to expend to accommodate the 18 regional councillors. I'm sure that these regional councillors will be receiving an adequate salary. At the present time, as pointed out, as the city of Ottawa councillors are full-time, will we have full-time or part-time regional councillors in Ottawa-Carleton? I can't say because it hasn't been resolved yet.

"At the city of Ottawa, councillors are full-time. The remuneration, which includes regional duties, is $57,000. Our office budgets are $60,000 per councillor.

"At $50,000 per full-time regional councillor plus $50,000 for office budgets, the costs are $1.8 million."

I want the minister to tell us that all of these changes, all of these possibly necessary changes in Ottawa-Carleton, will not be a burden on our taxpayers. This is why we need our local mayors to sit on regional council: to look after their municipal dollars. I think it's very important.

If I may continue with the response of Ottawa-Carleton, if I can go through my notes -- regional development. As I pointed out, it is very, very important that we should have a sound economic development policy in Ottawa-Carleton.

Here's recommendation 17 of the Kirby report: "It is recommended that Bartlett's recommendation 2" -- again, that's why I told you we didn't need Kirby, now they're using Bartlett; they're saying Bartlett was right; we're simply repeating, and we're going to pay you $500,000 to repeat what Bartlett has said -- "be accepted when amended to read: 'That the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton be given primary responsibility for the development and implementation of a comprehensive economic development strategy for the region.'"

When this recommendation came before council it was then decided, and I have a copy from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, "Regional council approved that the Honourable Ed Philip, Minister of Municipal Affairs, be requested to amend Bill 77" -- then -- "to permit both the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the area municipalities to assemble to develop lands for industrial, commercial and institutional purposes."

Also, to back the Ottawa-Carleton resolution, the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp did the very same thing.

"Be it therefore resolved that OCEDCO hereby requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs to amend Bill 77 to permit both regional and local municipalities to purchase, develop and sell lands for municipal, industrial and business park development; and

"Be it further resolved that this request be forwarded to the regional municipality for support."

This was done, and I just read you the result of that resolution when it was passed at regional council.

If I may deal with a regional chair, as you know, Mr Speaker, our regional chairperson is elected at large, and this was decided by council. I wasn't in total accord with the decision of council, but I have to live with it.

What the regional chairperson is saying in his press release of November 29, 1993, is:

"Although the regional chair believes that the government has shown flexibility on this issue, he supports the view that more public consultation is warranted regarding whether mayors should continue to be represented on council."

I think this is a very clear message that not everybody supports the elimination of the mayors in Ottawa-Carleton.

I could read you a number of letters from taxpayers, but I think it would be, well, not a waste of time, but I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that we have received 1,800 letters, and I want to remind you that 68% of our municipalities that received the resolution of the city of Gloucester disapproved of Bill 77 at the time.

Again, let's talk about taxpayers, the real taxpayers, the Citizens for Fair Taxes, on policing:

"Serious concerns were voiced over the proposal for regional policing. While it is recognized that there are efficiencies to be derived from unified police services, it is also recognized that there are significant differences in policing requirements for urban and rural areas within the region. The cost of police services is not uniformly recovered from municipalities, particularly in rural townships."

Back in 1976, Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to talk to you about my private resolution at regional council. I wanted a regional police force in Ottawa-Carleton. As I put it out to you back in 1969, 75% of our population was serviced by free OPP policing. While this free OPP policing was accommodating seven of our 11 municipalities, my own small municipality of Vanier was paying $2.3 million for policing, while the village of Rockcliffe Park, with 1,800 people, and part of Gloucester and Kanata were receiving free OPP. Can you imagine the city of Vanier subsidizing the village of Rockcliffe Park?

That's exactly the reason why, back in 1976, back in 1978, back in 1980, I failed, because the government at the time didn't want to correct this misuse of provincial tax dollars. At the time, I had met with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, Roy McMurtry, and he had promised me that, "We will correct these inefficiencies," that everybody should be paying 100%, total cost, of policing.

Yet even today when you look at Ottawa-Carleton -- maybe these municipalities won't agree with me, but it's the Kirby finding -- currently, the four municipalities of Ottawa, Vanier, Nepean and Gloucester have municipal policing services provided by three police forces. Kanata and the village of Rockcliffe contract with the Ontario police services, and Cumberland as well will have a similar arrangement in 1993.

1630

But when you look at the rest of our municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton, West Carleton, Goulbourn, Rideau and Osgoode receive police services from the Ontario Provincial Police at no cost. With this new bill, Bill 143, putting in place a regional police force, imagine the additional cost to these four townships, and yet the minister was good enough in his opening remarks to say, "Well, I just got in touch with the regional chair in Ottawa-Carleton and I'm providing a grant of $70,000." Today: This was a rushed bill. He got in touch with the regional chair today to tell him, "Yes, you'll be getting $70,000 to put in place a communications system," and that's a rushed bill.

I'm sorry, but the minister failed, the ministry failed, to deliver the right message in Ottawa-Carleton. These four townships will be paying and paying dearly for a new police force. Back in 1976, the time was ripe because, as I said, 75% of our municipalities were receiving free OPP policing while other municipalities were paying dearly, back in 1975 and back in 1976, but today there are major costs.

I believe in a regional police force, Mr Speaker. I think a regional police force will bring us better services. I know you're going to hear differently from my own colleagues, especially from Nepean. They're going to say, "We have the best police services in all of Ontario," and I believe them, but we have to look at Ottawa-Carleton as a region, not only at Nepean, Kanata, Vanier or Rockcliffe. We have to look at the global picture and I think it's very, very important.

Also, a letter from the city of Gloucester, "It is our understanding that the office of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have agreed to provide, in writing" -- that's underlined -- "confirmation that provincial funds will be made available for the implementation cost of regional policing as well as phase-in grants for those areas which do not presently pay for policing."

This is dated November 1993 and this poor announcement of $70,000 was made today. Where was this government for the last five or six months?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's not been the government.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, let's face it, I don't mind being accused if the minister is right or the government is right; I don't mind the minister accusing the opposition of stalling tactics. I wanted to debate and he knows this. We had a few private meetings and I told the minister to bring second reading of Bill 77. Mr Speaker, I want to repeat this: The government of that day, back in October and November, was not ready.

I'm talking about, as I pointed out, no tax increase. This is very important. People in Ottawa-Carleton want changes and were not guaranteed that it will not add cost to the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. If you want to talk about the liabilities and assets, I know all of these liabilities and assets will be transferred. The police assets will be transferred to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. But there are also pension funds involved. I don't have all the figures; I don't have all the facts. I just want the minister to listen to us and make sure that these financial problems are resolved before we get involved more deeply with the regional police.

A number of recommendations from Mr Kirby were not agreed to by regional council. Again, I think they were close; they disagreed but with qualification. I think the minister failed to meet with these people and resolve these problems.

What we have before us is a bill that will kill local government, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but in the province of Ontario. I'm a great believer in local government, in the local decision-making process. I think it's needed. We live in a democracy and the people of Ottawa-Carleton deserve to have the representation they need.

Again -- I will repeat myself -- I think that excluding the mayors from a regional council is a serious mistake. Imagine our other regional governments in the rest of the province of Ontario; for instance, Metro, Hamilton-Wentworth, Haldimand-Norfolk. All of these great areas are now questioning themselves, who's next? Because the ministry and the minister are saying that this is a model to be used elsewhere in the province of Ontario.

I thought the main responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs was to provide assistance to our municipalities. I see that now they have changed their responsibility, their mandate. We are now destroying the local tool of decision-making by refusing to let the mayors sit on regional council.

Bill 143 does not respond to the real needs of Ottawa-Carleton. I realize that the French-language school boards do need some changes. They can't simply carry on the way they are at the present time.

Comme j'ai mentionné tantôt, le projet de loi 143 ne répond pas aux besoins des gens d'Ottawa-Carleton. Si on regarde le nouveau projet de loi, qui était le projet de loi 77 trois mois, quatre mois passés, ça devient le projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française. Et dans les commentaires du Ministre auparavant, le Ministre refusait que le projet de loi soit divisé en deux parties, soit la partie qui affecte le gouvernement local, le gouvernement régional, et la partie du projet de loi qui affecte le conseil scolaire de langue française. Le conseil de langue française, surtout le secteur public, comme vous le savez, est sous tutelle depuis tout près de trois ans. C'est la première fois dans l'histoire de l'Ontario qu'on voit un conseil scolaire, comme celui du secteur public dans Ottawa-Carleton, qui est sous une tutelle.

J'admets que ce conseil a des problèmes, j'admets que le secteur public a des problèmes ; ils ont un déficit ou une dette de 20 millions de dollars. Mais ma question c'est que accepter le projet de loi 143 tel que présenté ne change aucunement le financement du secteur public, ne fait aucun changement. Le conseil demeure en tutelle.

1640

Alors, le Ministre tantôt disait que c'était nécessaire de faire ces changements-là aujourd'hui par rapport au rapport de Brian Bourns et par rapport à l'élection de 1994. Pourtant, le Ministre était prêt à présenter le projet de loi. Il nous dit qu'il était prêt à présenter le projet de loi 77 au mois d'octobre, au mois de novembre. Si on avait passé la Loi 77, qu'est-ce qui serait survenu de ce projet de loi d'aujourd'hui ?

Alors, encore une fois, le gouvernement n'était pas prêt avec la Loi 77, et aujourd'hui, on nous présente un projet de loi. C'est un tour de bras qui nous force aujourd'hui, les gens de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. Si vous me permettez d'adresser mes collègues d'Ottawa-Carleton -- nous sommes sept -- nous allons être forcés de voter contre un projet de loi dont peut-être 70 % ou 75 % des items sont bons. Ce sont de bons changements. Mais par contre, nous n'avons pas la permission de diviser ce projet de loi.

Alors, on parle de démocratie en Ontario. C'est très difficile d'accepter ce genre de démocratie. Je comprends que le Ministre a le droit ; c'est son droit de présenter un tel projet de loi. Mais ce n'est pas la première fois en Chambre, Monsieur le Président -- je peux vous donner l'exemple du fameux projet de loi 120 qui apporte des modifications à sept différents projets de loi.

Aujourd'hui, on nous présente un projet de loi qui va changer la face du gouvernement local et du gouvernement régional dans Ottawa-Carleton. On ne nous permet pas, on ne nous donne pas le droit, de dire : «Monsieur le Ministre, on veut diviser ce projet de loi en deux parties.» Nous sommes sérieux. Nous voulons aller de l'avant. Mais, par contre, on n'a pas ce privilège-là.

Comme je l'ai mentionné, je crois que le gouvernement local dans notre province est le gouvernement le plus près du peuple -- tout le monde le dit -- et il faut donner à ce gouvernement-là les outils nécessaires.

Regardez les difficultés financières auxquelles nos 817 municipalités font face aujourd'hui. Je comprends le péril du gouvernement. Je comprends que le gouvernement a des difficultés financières. Je crois que ce n'est pas le temps d'apporter de telles modifications dans Ottawa-Carleton, surtout au niveau municipal. On peut apporter des changements.

Mon collègue de York, le critique dans le domaine de l'éducation, M. Beer, et ma collègue d'Ottawa-Rideau, comme je l'ai mentionné, vont parler du projet de loi 143, c'est sûr. Mais par contre, ils vont adresser les modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

Alors, je crois que ce à quoi nous assistons aujourd'hui c'est la disparition du gouvernement local, non seulement dans Ottawa-Carleton mais à travers la province de l'Ontario.

On ne peut pas continuer de cette façon-ci. On ne peut pas continuer de cette façon. Laissez-moi vous dire que les dix ou les onze maires laissés de côté par ce projet de loi vont devenir l'opposition du gouvernement régional. C'est malheureux de le dire. Ils vont devenir la vraie opposition pour la simple raison qu'ils n'auront pas accès aux décisions du gouvernement régional, et ces décisions-là vont affecter les 11 municipalités. Ils n'auront pas un mot à dire. Ces gens-là seront représentés par un conseiller régional, mais je le répète : le conseiller régional ne peut pas porter trois chapeaux, ne peut pas, si vous voulez, défendre l'assiette fiscale de trois différentes municipalités. C'est impossible.

Chaque municipalité dans Ottawa-Carleton a des besoins uniques, spécifiques. Alors on place les nouveaux conseillers régionaux dans Ottawa-Carleton dans une situation quasiment impossible. Aujourd'hui, non seulement dans Ottawa-Carleton, mais à travers la province, si vous avez un problème d'égout, si vous avez un problème d'ordures, de déchets, un trou dans la rue ou quoi que ce soit, qui est-ce qu'on appelle ? Est-ce qu'on va appeler le conseiller régional qu'on ne connaît pas ? On va appeler l'hôtel de ville. On appelle l'hôtel de ville pour avoir des renseignements, et les gens d'Ottawa-Carleton n'auront pas droit à ce privilège-là. Ils vont vouloir appeler l'hôtel de ville, l'hôtel de ville va les référer au conseiller régional, le conseiller régional va les référer et ça ne finira plus. Pourtant, ce projet de loi veut simplifier le gouvernement régional dans Ottawa-Carleton.

Laissez-moi vous dire que je suis vraiment déçu de l'attitude -- je ne blâme pas le ministre actuel. Je crois que le ministre actuel est en train de ramasser les pots cassés du passé, les pots cassés. Lorsqu'on a parlé d'un agenda caché lors de l'étude du projet de loi 32, on s'est fait dire que non, le gouvernement était ouvert, «Le gouvernement c'est un gouvernement démocratique et nous n'avons pas l'intention de causer aucune surprise à la municipalité d'Ottawa-Carleton.»

Le projet de loi 143 cause des surprises aujourd'hui. On ne s'attendait pas à un projet d'une telle envergure. Je crois que l'opposition, aussi bien les Conservateurs que les Libéraux, nous étions prêts, nous étions sincères que nous voulions discuter du projet de loi concernant le secteur municipal, comme le projet de loi 77 l'identifiait. Mais par contre, aujourd'hui on se voit menottés pour la simple raison qu'on parle d'oranges et on parle de concombres. On parle de deux choses complètement différentes. On parle du gouvernement régional et on parle du système d'éducation dans Ottawa-Carleton. Il est très important de faire une distinction parce que, comme vous le savez, ça peut prendre un autre 10 ou 15 ans avant d'avoir une autre évaluation du système qu'on met en place aujourd'hui.

Si aujourd'hui on commet l'erreur d'accepter le projet de loi 143 tel que présenté, surtout dans le domaine des municipalités où la responsabilité du gouvernement local dans Ottawa-Carleton, nous faisons une erreur. Maintenant, mes collègues, les experts dans le domaine de l'éducation vont adresser le projet de loi 143 et vont nous démontrer que certains changements sont nécessaires mais, par contre, une meilleure consultation. Pourtant le gouvernement, qui se dit le plus grand, le plus près du peuple, «Nous avons été élus par le peuple, nous sommes des gens du peuple», aujourd'hui on s'éloigne de ce même peuple-là.

Je crois qu'il est très, très important que le gouvernement actuel revienne à ses principes de 1990 ou de 1988-89 et rende le gouvernement plus accessible, non seulement le gouvernement provincial mais le gouvernement municipal. Je le répète : ce que nous sommes en train d'accepter aujourd'hui, je serai forcé de voter contre un projet de loi d'une telle envergure si on ne modifie pas, si on ne change pas, si on ne sépare pas en trois, peut-être en quatre secteurs le projet de loi 143.

Je pourrais continuer. Par contre, je veux laisser la parole à d'autres collègues aujourd'hui, ceci étant la dernière journée de la semaine, jeudi, pour discuter d'un tel projet. Alors je remercie les gens de l'Assemblée de m'avoir écouté et j'espère que le gouvernement de l'Ontario va nous écouter, nous les gens d'Ottawa-Carleton qui avons besoin de l'appui du gouvernement de l'Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I will relegate my place to another colleague who would like to address Bill 143, another former municipal politician, who will be saying maybe not the same things I've said, but I'm sure will deliver a message to the government of Ontario that our local government tools cannot be exchanged for sticks.

1650

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We now have an opportunity for questions or comments.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I want to congratulate my colleague. He has a very difficult task in front of him, because of course he represents several municipalities, some which support the bill, some which don't. I can understand why he says he's 75% en accord avec le projet de loi, because 75% of his constituents no doubt do too.

He enters into the debate with the issue of consultation: Was there enough consultation? Was there consultation with the changes from Bill 77 to the present legislation? Of course, as he mentions, the bulk of those changes has to do with the French-language board and with the educational boards as were established.

I should mention that on December 9 of last year, just a few months ago, my friend was at a meeting at the Ministry of Education and Training which was hosted by his colleague the Education critic, Charles Beer, at which of course there was a full review of the information about the proposed changes for the Ottawa-Carleton area. That was a meeting hosted for Liberal members in the Ottawa-Carleton area which I believe he was present at -- at least I was informed he was present -- and I think that's some form of consultation.

Also, on January 25 of this year, in Ottawa, there was a full meeting with all the boards, the chairs, the trustees, the employee groups, to go over all the details in this new bill, these changes that were recommended. I would suggest that this was not only publicized, but was a full meeting at which there was great discussion, both with local representatives of the Ministry of Education and with the Ministry of Education representatives from here at Queen's Park.

So when we're talking about consultation, and we've talked about a process that's gone on for years, I think we've done it.

Mr Eddy: I just want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Ottawa East, my colleague, on bringing the concerns of his constituents, taxpayers and citizens of Ottawa-Carleton, because that's important. As a representative, he should be doing that, and he has done that very eloquently and impressed me with the reasons for their concerns.

With changes in municipal government, to be acceptable it must be proven that they're acceptable: They must be cost-effective. Maybe that's the case with some of these changes, that they'd be cost-effective, but I think the most important thing in local government is to have it approachable. The upper-tier governments provide municipal services on an area-wide basis. They're services that were carried out by local councils, and through mandate or direction or indeed, in many cases, approval by both the local councils and the upper tier, services have been transferred. There are many advantages, but they're acceptable when they're proven to be needed on an area-wide basis and cost-effective.

The representation is the key to the whole thing in my opinion. You must have liaison, as he has pointed out, between the two levels of local government, because it is local government. It's local government even though it is in two parts. It's essential, and that's the most important part of the thing.

I speak from having served on both lower-tier and upper-tier governments and having been associated with them for several decades. I've seen mistakes that have been made; I've seen changes that were forced on local governments many years ago.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Mr David Johnson: The point that's being made is that people want government that is effective, that is efficient, that is accountable and that is accessible. They're not dictating how this government structure should be, but they want a government put in place that has those kinds of qualifications.

The experience has been that if the service is provided at the grass roots, at what's commonly referred to as the lowest level of government -- I don't like that terminology of "the lowest" level of government. It generally describes the local municipal council, and that should be viewed as being the highest level of government in many instances, because that is the government that's closest to the people. That's where the service can be delivered most effectively, that's where there is the accountability, that's where there is the accessibility. That's where my vision of government is, by the way.

The member for Ottawa East is concerned that that level of government will be killed. I can tell you, through various polls I've seen on governments, that the most popular level of government is the local level of government. It's the most popular, viewed as being the most effective and the most efficient. The regional government is viewed to be the next most efficient and effective, provincial is the second-least effective level of government in the eyes of the people --

Mr White: Then why did you run provincially?

Mr David Johnson: To make it better is why I ran -- and the federal government is viewed as being the least efficient level of government.

Mr Callahan: It hasn't gotten better, though.

Mr David Johnson: It's not better, you're right. Well, give me a chance to work on it.

That's what we should be headed for. We shouldn't be putting in place a bill that effectively, as the member for Ottawa East says, has the potential of killing a local level of government. That's what the concern is here.

Hon Mr Philip: The member talked about grass-roots democracy, and I can tell you that in the case of the Bourns commission, they consulted extensively for six months. They have a series of proposals that are supported by each and every one of the trustees elected to the French-language school boards. It seems to me that that's pretty grass-roots democracy.

The member talks about fairness. What is fair about the fact that people in his municipality of Vanier have been paying, for years and years, for policing which they have purchased from the city of Ottawa, while next door, Cumberland, a city that has twice the population, has been getting off scot-free without any kind of payment?

The Liberals like to have it all ways. They said they needed more consultation. Well, there have been years of consultation on this. When we wanted to introduce this bill before Christmas, the opposition said they'd filibuster other legislation if we called it. That's how they delayed. I would have loved to have had it before Christmas.

They also said, and the argument that made some persuasion on me was, "Give the municipalities an opportunity to come back with a proposal that will deal with the problem of representation by population." Well, they came back with a proposal that you'd need to have a computer available to watch every council meeting -- 13 different levels of votes, with fractions in that.

I say to the Liberal Party, if you don't like what we're doing, why don't you tell us what your alternatives are? The Liberals always like to criticize what this government or what any other government is doing, but they never have an alternative. They studied this to death over and over again over the years, the previous government studied it. I happen to agree with Claude Bennett, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who said: "Ed, get on with the job. Get the bill through. It's needed for business and for economic development and for streamlining in Ottawa-Carleton."

1700

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

Mr Grandmaître: The minister is looking for an alternative. In my remarks, I did point out to the minister that the Bartlett report and the Katherine Graham report were not perfect, but the only thing not this minister but the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Cooke, had to do was put these two reports together and ask the 11 municipalities to sit down. We need not have wasted $500,000 to find out if people in Ottawa-Carleton needed one-tier government, because you knew very well that Ottawa-Carleton didn't need one-tier government, that people didn't want it, but you went ahead and spent $500,000 to find out nothing.

We did have an alternative. We wanted to combine the Katherine Graham report plus the Bartlett report. The Kirby report is saying today that the Bartlett report was correct, the Katherine Graham report was correct. They spent half a million dollars to copy what David Bartlett said back in 1987 and also Katherine Graham. They stalled. We put it together.

Hon Mr Philip: Why didn't you do it then?

Mr Grandmaître: He's asking me why we didn't do it. What this minister is saying today is that we had the courage to put these two reforms together, but they never had the courage to pass Bill 77. They never had the courage to pass it because they had some kind of hidden agenda, and that's the type of government they are. You can't trust them, because the move they're making today will be different tomorrow. We want an honest government in Ottawa-Carleton, and that's not the way to do it.

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

Mr Sterling: I come to this debate feeling almost like the debate has finished, because this debate went on in the fall of 1993 across Ottawa-Carleton to a very large extent over Bill 77. That's not true about the French-language boards because that's a new incarnation which we heard about only on Tuesday, and which I think is very unfair of this government to load on to the 18,000 French-language parents who have their children attending those schools. That's very unfair.

Notwithstanding that, the minister in response to my friend the member for Ottawa East said, "We consulted." He talked about consulting over the Bartlett report and the Kirby report and -- well, I guess the Bourns report and even back to 1976 and 1977 and the Mayo report.

The fact is that if he'd followed the Kirby report, we wouldn't be into this debate. He consulted, but he didn't follow the consultations or the results of those consultations. His own person who went out into the community said: "Put the mayors on regional council. They're a valuable part of regional council." That's what Kirby said, that's what Bartlett said, that's what Mayo said. All of this debate, this so-called delay is because the minister and this government didn't follow its paid-for advice.

The minister says the people of Ottawa-Carleton want this reform. I undertook to have a poll done in September of this year in Ottawa-Carleton because, as you know, I represent only one part of Ottawa-Carleton; there are seven or eight MPPs who represent that area. I represent five of the 11 municipalities, however, in Ottawa-Carleton. The question was asked of the people, "Do you support the proposed reforms to regional government?" Seventy-one per cent said, "Yes, we support the proposed reforms to regional government." This is after Bill 77 was introduced. The minister might say, "Then of course the people were in favour of kicking the mayors off regional council." Well, we asked the other question too: "Are you in favour of having local mayors sit on regional councils?" Seventy-nine per cent, four out of five people from the region of Ottawa-Carleton, think their local mayors should sit on regional council.

The fact is that many of the people in Ottawa-Carleton do not consider this as their highest and most important issue. It is important to people who are involved in municipal government, it is important to people who are involved in regional government, but I find it amazing that while Kirby and Bartlett say, "Put the local mayors on regional council," and while four out of five people in Ottawa-Carleton -- this includes my riding and all the other ridings in Ottawa-Carleton, because I did not think it was fair that I polled only my own riding. As the sole Progressive Conservative in Ottawa-Carleton, I think it's important on this issue that I not only represent my own constituents but all the constituents of Ottawa-Carleton. Four out of five are for the mayors on regional council.

I have heard with much amusement the minister's argument about representation by population. I want to draw to your attention the election returns from 1990 for our province. When we look into the election returns for our province, some of our members here are representing four times as many electors as others.

The Minister of Natural Resources, representing Algoma, had 20,400 electors in the last election. I had 59,000 electors in the last election, almost three times as many electors as the member for Algoma. You might also be interested to know that the Minister of Transportation, from Lake Nipigon, had 21,400 electors. The member for Markham, my friend from Markham, represents 80,000 electors or voters. There are four times as many people voting for the member for Markham as there are for the member for Lake Nipigon. The Treasurer has only 24,700 people on the voters list in Nickel Belt, his riding, whereas the member for York Centre has 101,000 electors, five times as many electors in that particular riding as the member for Nickel Belt.

Hon Mr Philip: That's not a fair comparison.

Mr Sterling: I hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying this isn't a fair comparison. How about the constituency of Parkdale in downtown Toronto? How many electors are there? There are 28,000 electors, 28,000 people on the voting list in the middle of Toronto, whereas other ridings just on the outskirts of Toronto have as many as 100,000; as I mentioned, in York Centre, more than three times as many electors. Mississauga West is another very large riding.

This whole argument about rep by pop is a bunch of garbage. It has nothing to do with our electoral makeup here in the Legislature of Ontario. Some of us from some parts of the province represent two, three, four, five times as many constituents as other members of this particular Legislature.

The argument might be, and I think it's a good argument, that this Legislature has made up its mind that there are certain things or certain kinds of geography in this province which make it necessary to have fewer electors in some electoral districts, particularly in our north. The Lake Nipigon riding, for instance, I believe is almost as big as the rest of Ontario. I have no problem with saying, yes, we've got to make an exception for Lake Nipigon, and we have to make an exception for Algoma, because that's a large area as well, and we have to make an exception for Nickel Belt.

Well, I represent the exceptions in the Ottawa-Carleton area. And this minister, whose government will not bring forward redistribution for the next provincial election because it represents the ridings in general which are at the low end of the scale, and if we had redistribution there would be many, many ridings which the New Democratic Party now represents which would grow in number and therefore they would not be incumbent in a lot more of the ridings -- they on the one hand say, "We don't want to speed up redistribution for the next provincial election," but, boy, we've got to have rep by pop in Ottawa-Carleton, pure and simple. Why? Why?

1710

I represent one of my municipalities, the township of West Carleton, that has about 14,000 to 15,000 people in it. It is one of the largest townships in the province of Ontario. That results from the fact that three townships -- Fitzroy, Torbolton and Huntley -- were put into one township in 1974. It's a huge area to cover. It's principally a rural area. But to talk to somebody in Fitzroy Harbour or Kinburn or Woodlawn, to say to them, "Look, you've got to go down to regional government to get your government," these people don't relate to Queen Street or to Lisgar Street in downtown Ottawa when they think about government. They think about their township hall at Kinburn -- newly built, I might add, on the prospect that the township of West Carleton's government was going to continue into the future.

Their representative, the person they go to to talk about problems, is Roly Armitage, their mayor. They consider Roly, if I may call him that, as the person best suited to take care of their concerns. Mr Armitage is quite aware of what's happening with regard to the services that they are provided in their area, primarily transportation services, which are more of a concern in a rural community than other kinds of services. But if they have a problem, they go see Dr Armitage.

To suggest that a new regional representative who will be representing not only West Carleton but Goulbourn and Rideau is going to have the same knowledge as Dr Armitage has because he sits in that town hall on a daily basis -- I was talking to him today about a problem of a particular constituent of ours. To think that this regional representative is going to have the same knowledge as Dr Armitage or any successor to him might have is very, very naïve.

I believe we could have come to a reasonable consensus in terms of saying, look, the directly elected people, under Bill 143 now, formerly Bill 77, will have the majority of the power on regional council, but we could have gone into a weighted vote system.

After the minister came forward with a surprising suggestion in July that mayors were going to be kicked off council and he brought forward this proportional representation story, the mayors got together and commissioned a report to show how they could implement a proportional voting system. Proportional voting systems are not new to our country. The city of Vancouver has a sophisticated voting system. It is difficult at times to figure out exactly how the vote is going to turn out, because some members are empowered with a greater power than others in terms of voting. But, quite frankly, it doesn't matter until the vote count is taken.

I also am informed by the mayors who presented this to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the municipal officials could find no fault with rep by pop with regard to the report which the mayors put together and gave to this minister. In other words, they did their homework well. There was no argument as to rep by pop after they had put this together. Therefore, the whole rep-by-pop argument leaves me a little cold because I really think that what you could have done in this case is diminish or take the power of the local mayors down to a lower level, perhaps a quarter or 30% of the total votes on regional council, and leave the rest of the votes to the directly elected people, but allow the mayors to be there to have the proper input.

What I find passing strange about all of this is that in the fall of 1993, on October 19, 1993, a bill was introduced for the county of Hastings. I have a copy of the bill here in front of me. It's private member's Bill Pr52, and this was introduced by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. This bill is interesting because the minister over here claimed that there was a problem with 14 levels of voting or whatever he was dreaming up. This bill has five levels of voting for county government in the county of Hastings.

With a little bit of imagination, I'm certain that the minister could have taken the 14 down to five levels of voting and had one heck of a lot more equity than we have in our voting system in this Legislature. You would not have the situation where there was a 5-to-1 ratio in terms of the power of some citizens in this province versus other citizens in this province in electing their provincial representative.

I want to say that I don't understand the minister's rationale when this minister accepted a weighted voting system as recently as November or December of last year because the officials gave the county of Hastings their blessing to this weighted voting system. In this system, for instance, in a municipality that has 4,000 electors or less the reeve has one vote. If it's from 4,000 to 8,000, they have two votes. If it's 8,000 to 12,000, they have three votes. If it's 12,000 to 16,000, they have four. If they have more than 16,000, they have five votes.

That's a way of evening off the rep-by-pop argument and having the very valuable advice of the mayors, the local representatives, at the table so that the people who are making the decisions at the regional level will be aware of what's going on in Kinburn and what's going on in North Gower, what's going on in Ashton, all of these very rural communities, which quite frankly are probably not going to be visited too often by the regional representative who represents that area. They are small areas and they bring their concerns to the township hall of Goulbourn or Rideau or Osgoode. I find it quite strange that this is the case.

I want to talk too about proportional representation again, because this is such a key to the minister's argument in terms of kicking the mayors off regional council. If you read the Globe and Mail this morning, you could see. When we look at our own House of Commons, perhaps the most powerful parliamentary body, or viewed at least as the most powerful, the difference in terms of the number of people per riding varies widely. It varies from as low as 23,000 to as high as 97,000 in this country. That's because they made an exception for the Yukon. The Yukon's a big area and they need one representative for that even though that person doesn't represent 97,000 people. In the mix of things, it probably doesn't really matter that much in the Parliament because I think with the new redistribution there will be over 300 seats in the House of Commons.

1720

Quite frankly, is it going to really hurt that Dr Roly Armitage from West Carleton has one vote at regional council while all the directly elected people have five and the mayor of Ottawa has five? Why don't we do that? I don't understand the logic behind it, when our principal parliamentary bodies in this province and in this country are not pure rep by pop; they recognize the difference in the community.

That's another thing we've heard from the minister. The minister has talked about the fact that Ottawa-Carleton is unique.

Mr Eddy: Let's take the mayors off Durham regional council. Let's try the other regions and the counties.

Mr Sterling: Ottawa-Carleton is unique.

Mr Eddy: Let's do it in Niagara; take the mayors off of Niagara regional council.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Eddy: That's what you're doing.

Mr Sterling: My friend in the Liberal opposition, the member for Brant-Haldimand, is getting upset, and I don't blame him, because Ottawa-Carleton is no more unique than any other area of this province. It's no more unique than the regional municipality of Peel. It's no more unique than the regional municipality of Halton. It's no more unique than the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth or the regional municipality of Niagara.

What does all this mean? Does this mean we're going to kick local mayors off all regional councils in the future? I can assure you that's a consideration. Why wouldn't you do it? If you're going to be consistent, why should the people of Ottawa-Carleton suffer -- or in the terms of the government, benefit -- from this great, great step of kicking local mayors off regional council? Why should only Ottawa-Carleton benefit from this very, very important matter?

I don't know whether my friend the member for Ottawa East brought forward the fact that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is deathly against this bill. They believe that this is the first step to the destruction of local government. That's the bottom line of Bill 143. That's what local municipal governments think about Bill 143.

Mr Grandmaître: Some 68% of our municipalities.

Mr Sterling: Listen, some of my mayors have said to me, "Norm, I would rather have one-tier government across Ottawa-Carleton than Bill 143." They have said, "We would rather be amalgamated and do away with this rather than go through the charade of having people down on Lisgar Street, downtown Ottawa, trying to take care of a problem, and we're going to try to take care of a problem and you're basically eroding all of our powers in order to take care of those problems." That's the way they look at this bill. I think the government has made a tremendous error here.

One of the other very, very important factors in all this is, what is it going to mean to the taxpayer? Is Bill 143 going to result in a better deal for the taxpayer? That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. I don't care whether there are 11 governments in Ottawa-Carleton or 12 governments, as we will have with the regional government and the 11 municipal governments. I don't care whether there are 40 governments. I only want government which is the most efficient and delivers the best services for the people of Ottawa-Carleton and the people I represent, and that it's responsible to its people and accountable to its people.

We know what happens when you have an enhancement of the power of regional government. I don't know a lot about Metro Toronto government, but I do know this: It has been one horrendous, expensive experiment and a lot of people are questioning whether or not that experiment should be reversed. A lot of people are thinking about it at this time. Their administration budget has grown astronomically, and what have they done for their area?

I'm having second thoughts about regional government. I had great, great expectations about regional government in 1970, 1971 and 1972 when it first came in. I thought: "Great. We're going to have planning on an overall regional basis. They're going to make decisions which are good for all the people. I can look forward in 20 or 25 years to ring roads going around Ottawa. I can look forward to the fact that they will reserve a great amount of public space along the Rideau River corridor for the public to use in the future." But none of that has happened. People are questioning regional government, metro government: Are they getting their money's worth?

We are going to have so many levels of government in Ottawa-Carleton that it defies imagination. We have 11 local governments; we have the regional government; we're going to have six school boards; we have a national government; we have a provincial government. It goes on and on.

The people I represent would go for regional government as defined in Bill 143 if they could be assured that this was going to be a more efficient government, that in fact what was going to happen was that they would be saving money, that the taxpayers would be saving money and that they would get adequate service. There is no fiscal calculation as to what the mayor is putting forward in terms of this particular document. The minister, for instance, when we talk about all these issues, is not saying that it's going to cost less; in fact, some reports which were put together by the municipalities which oppose this particular move have said it's going to cost much more to have regional government in this character and form than it was previously.

I want to talk a little bit about another issue that is a key one for the area I represent, and that's policing. I think there's some attraction to having a regional police force. My friend from Ottawa East said that he was in favour of that and I can understand that because the city of Vanier, which he represents, along with other areas, is contracting with the city of Ottawa police force in order to provide policing in the city of Vanier, and it makes some sense to do that.

It's a big problem in terms of the area I represent, and the member for Carleton East who represents primarily, mostly the area in Cumberland. Those particular areas in Cumberland -- the township of Osgoode, the township of Rideau, the township of West Carleton, the township of Goulbourn -- are presently receiving OPP policing and they're not being charged through property taxes for that policing.

I think that quite frankly the day has come when people in each municipality, perhaps of a minimum size, should be paying at least some portion of their policing costs. I don't argue with that. But how do you explain to Jim Stewart, the mayor of the township of Rideau, Al Bouwers, the mayor of Osgoode, Dr Roly Armitage, the mayor of the township of West Carleton, and Paul Bradley, the mayor of the township of Goulbourn that they're getting singled out in this province as four townships which are now going to have to go to their property taxpayers to pay for policing when there are at least 40 others that are in the same population range as they are and they're getting off scot-free?

I don't know where the equity is in it. I believe, quite frankly, that if the government has decided to do this, it must be consistent in what it does. In other words, if they're going to implement pay-for-policing policy, then it should be done for every municipality greater than 10,000 or whatever and it should be done across this province, whether you're in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or you're outside the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

I think it's extremely unfair for this government to come into those four townships which I mentioned and say, "You are now going to have your property taxes raised by somewhere between $125 and $200 per household while we're going to let the rest of Ontario off the hook."

1730

I want to tell you too that this is a significant downloading from the provincial government on to the property taxpayer in the Ottawa-Carleton area through this move. It will be also significant that the township of Cumberland will have to start to pay for its policing. They have about 40,000 residents, and they probably should have been paying for it before this time. Notwithstanding that, it's going to be a new downloading.

Can you imagine the amount of download that might be? In those areas you're talking about a population of about 100,000 people in total. The rough ratio in terms of police officers to population is one per 1,000. That's 100 police officers. It's not hard to extrapolate that. Usually, a uniformed police officer ranges somewhere between $80,000 and $90,000 in the overall operation. That's a downloading of $7 million to $8 million in this bill. That's what it is. That's what we're talking about here. The provincial government is no longer going to have to pay. They're downloading that on to the property taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton: $7 million to $8 million.

I've written to the minister. The minister has said in the past that he's going to provide some assistance. When he introduced Bill 77 he went down to Ottawa-Carleton and said, "I'm going to give regional government the power to put this into a staged property tax increase." Well, immediately something didn't add up for me. In Bill 143 he basically strips of power on regional council the areas which are going to be adding policing. He leaves them with very little power, probably four to five votes in total out of a total of 19 votes. He's stripping them of power and saying, "But we're going to give regional government the right to phase this in."

I've got to tell you, if I were representing some of the other areas and I had been paying for my policing over a long time, I'd have to say to myself pretty seriously, "Why should we be phasing this in when my own citizens have to pay the full price for policing?" That's going to take a pretty big heart on the part of regional council to come to that kind of conclusion. In fact, I suggest that maybe they won't come to that conclusion.

The minister then said, in November or December, that he would provide "some provincial transitional grants," and I have asked his staff what we can expect: Is that 10 years, is that 20 years, is that five years, is that one year of transitional funding in terms of going to the full cost of paying for this new regional police force which is going to be created on January 1, 1997? I haven't received an answer.

I want to know another cost too. They're going to put together the Gloucester police force, the Nepean police force and the Ottawa police force. I asked: "Are you going to help them in their setup costs? Is there going to be any one-time grant?" Will you say to the new regional police force of Ottawa-Carleton: "Here's $5 million or $6 million, because there are going to be some transitional costs. You're going to have to get some kind of quarters" -- there are going to be some one-time costs: they'll have to change the uniforms, have to do a number of things which are going to be fairly costly. I haven't got an answer on that. I don't know if we're going to get any money on that.

I represent the city of Kanata. The city of Kanata is about 40,000 people who presently are serviced by the Ontario Provincial Police. They pay for their policing and have done so for the last six or seven years. They're being policed on a ratio of one to 1,000, approximately. They're paying $3.1 million for their present police contract. The estimates are that the city of Kanata taxpayers are going to be paying over $5 million under this new scheme.

Number one is that the city of Kanata cannot get from this government, or the Solicitor General or the Minister of Municipal Affairs, figures on which they can base their calculations. They don't know what kind of impact it's going to have overall, but I don't think they're underestimating it at $5 million.

One of the real problems is that in creating the regional police force, we're doing it the old way. We're saying, "We're going to create the board and you're going to put all these police forces together and everything's going to march off into the future." There are no constraints on what's going to happen here in terms of finances.

We know there are three unions involved, three collective agreements. You can be sure that they're going to go to the highest, the most benefits in all of those agreements.

We know the administration is probably not going to pare down. Do you think there are going to be any fewer police chiefs or any less bureaucracy? I doubt it.

Back in 1993, last year, the city of Gloucester and the city of Nepean commissioned the Honourable René Marin, a judge from the Ottawa area, to look at the various police forces in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As I mentioned, we have four kinds of police operating in Ottawa-Carleton: the Ottawa police, the Gloucester police, the Nepean police, and the OPP.

What Mr Marin was asked was, what is the most efficient police force we can have? What kind of combination of things will give to the people in Ottawa-Carleton the best police force, the most community-oriented police force and the most efficient? In other words, which will cost less?

When you go through his report, you find out why those MPPs representing the inner part of the city of Ottawa are saying, "Yes, we're for a regional police force." I understand why the member for Ottawa East would say that. In this report, which is based on fact in terms of what's happening there, we find that in the city of Ottawa the per capita cost for policing -- in other words, for every citizen in Ottawa, all 350,000-odd people; I believe that's the correct population figure for Ottawa; I've lost my sheet with the populations on it -- is $168.47. The ratio of uniformed police officers to the population is 558 people per uniformed police officer.

When you go out to Nepean, however, you find that it's only costing $127 per resident in Nepean. So we've gone from $168 in Ottawa to $127 in Nepean. Their ratio of police officers per number of people is one to 810, so you can see that they don't need as many police out in the city of Nepean. In the city of Gloucester, it's not $168 or $127; it's $118 per resident in terms of police costing in the city of Gloucester, and they have a ratio of one to every 763 residents.

1740

When you go out to Kanata where they're paying $3.1 million -- and I expect it to go to $500 million; in fact, I expect it to go closer to $600 million -- you can understand because they have only one police officer for every 1,027 people, roughly half the number of police officers per population. When you go to the rest of the region, which includes the area covered by the OPP, in Cumberland, West Carleton, Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn, it's one per 1,041 people.

What you have in this is a very different set of needs. What we have in Bill 143 is a takeover in terms of control by the centre, by the city of Ottawa, and guess who's going to get stuck with all the new costs? It's the outlying areas. They're not using the same level of police as the centre part of Ottawa is. It's all going to go into one pot, and everybody's going to be assessed the same way across Ottawa-Carleton, regardless of the fact that the areas I represent are using roughly half the police that the areas in the city of Ottawa are using.

The other part which is of concern is the cost per capita of the policing. It's not only related to numbers but it's also related to the efficiency of the particular operations. I've been told by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that when they put these pieces together -- and the first pieces are going to be the Gloucester police force, the Nepean police force and the Ottawa police force -- what's going to happen is they're all going to be put into the same new regional police force.

I said, "Well, okay, you're going to pay them for their assets and deduct their liabilities, I assume," just as you would when, let's say, you were amalgamating three businesses together. You're providing a service. You put three businesses together. The three owners of the businesses say: "Okay, we're melding these all together. Those of us who are providing the bulk of the assets should get compensation for that, and if we bring along a liability, then that liability should be charged back to the area from whence it's coming."

The city of Nepean, quite frankly, finds itself in a terrible, terrible position because it has practised good government with its police force. They paid their bills. They've paid for sick leave which has not been taken yet. I understand that both the Gloucester police and the city of Ottawa police are going to bring to this new marriage unfunded sick leave, and they're going to bring that in to this new conglomerate, the regional government. They're going to say to the new regional government, "Oh, we're short." It's not only the city of Ottawa and the city of Gloucester that have to pay, but the other nine municipalities must come up to the table for the ineptitude of the city of Ottawa and the city of Gloucester in not covering their unfunded liability. I find that totally unfair.

I don't understand why government, when it's putting together, it's trying to encourage in some cases amalgamation, which does make sense in some regard, doesn't come up with a fair formula for doing this. If the city of Nepean has paid for its brand-new police building, why shouldn't it get a credit for that? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to sit down, put down the liabilities, put down the assets and say, "Okay, let's reward those who have governed in the past prudently, and those who haven't governed in the past prudently should pay the piper."

I find the structure set up under this particular act in terms of dealing with the regional policing unfair. In terms of those people who are putting together their entities -- the Nepean police force, the Gloucester police force and the Ottawa police force -- I think it's unfair. I want to point out too that the Honourable Mr René Marin, who I might add is of very, very high regard in the Ottawa-Carleton area as a judge, came to the conclusion, after looking at the facts and looking at what was happening, that it would make more sense to pool some of the parts of the police forces but to keep them distinct from each other at this time.

Now, I don't know whether I agree with that part of it or not, but I tell you what I do disagree with: I do disagree with Bill 143 and the fact that this minister and this government are going to be so unfair to particularly the Nepean taxpayer, and also to the Gloucester taxpayer as I understand it as well, because I think there is some unfunded liability with regard to the pension plan that the Ottawa police have as well. No one seems to be able to get those figures or those liabilities straight. Nobody seems to be accumulating what those figures are. I find that strange too. I don't understand why all of this isn't put on this table so that people can discuss this in the open and come to a reasonable conclusion.

I think one of the other very, very important factors with regard to the police force is this. This is from a group, the Citizens for Good Government, and I tell you, they want to have some public hearings in Ottawa-Carleton. They're insisting on having hearings in Ottawa-Carleton and I have told them that I will do everything to see that's done. I do hope the minister has the sense to go with the committee to Ottawa-Carleton to hear at first hand what the response of the citizens in Ottawa-Carleton is to his bill, because I predict that he will hear unbelievable dissent from what he has presented to these people.

You know, one of the most troubling parts to the people in Kanata and the people I represent out in some of the other areas which are more sparsely populated is that they have such a good rapport with the Ontario Provincial Police at this time. I think that I would have five -- no, it's not five; it's more like seven or eight -- community police storefront operations. I have one in Richmond, I have one in Osgoode, I have a couple in the city of Kanata and I have one in Stittsville. This is where citizens go in and work with the police. They help the police answer the phone; they do a number of things. They're involved, and there is a very, very close tie with their community.

I will give the OPP this: that they have been able to sit down with the local councils and work with them as to how best they could provide, with the limited resources they have, adequate security for these rural areas. Also in the Kanata area there is a police services board that was set up some short four or five years ago to deal with policing in Kanata. The minister talked about Ottawa being unique. Well, Ottawa is unique, and one of the reasons Ottawa is unique is that there is a very wide greenbelt which exists around Ottawa; it sort of rings around Ottawa. That is thanks to the National Capital Commission back in the 1950s. I think it's great that they did it, because quite frankly the county government of that day or the provincial government of that day -- I guess it was our government -- didn't have any kind of foresight in terms of doing that. That hasn't been done, I don't believe, in any other municipality to the extent that it has been done in Ottawa-Carleton.

1750

Kanata sits on the outside of that greenbelt, so it is in effect a distinct community of its own. The policing needs of the city of Kanata are so remote from the city of Ottawa and the city of Gloucester and the city of Nepean that it's not even funny. That's a community of 40,000 people which is basically sitting out there on its own. To lump it in with the others and not allow the local citizens of the city of Kanata to have their say about the level of policing they will be required or will want to have there, the same access to the kind of consultation they have now, I don't know whether is an improvement or going the other way. I really don't know.

I believe that what the OPP have been able to do is to be able to work with each of the communities that they've been policing and provide a darn good service at a very efficient rate.

I don't have the same faith that this is going to happen with the regional police force, because it's driven by other political agendas. It's trying to represent a very densely populated area and a very sparsely populated area, and there are two very different kinds of policing needs in those two areas.

One of the things René Marin stated is one of the most important things in the principles of policing, and I quote from his report:

"To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historical tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of the community welfare and existence.

"As the interests of the community welfare and safety become the primary concern, it should be easily recognized that regional policing is an organizational structure that in no way enhances the welfare and safety of our citizens. Regional policing can weaken community involvement, further distancing itself from its mandate of providing police services."

Then it criticizes Bill 77, which was a predecessor to Bill 143.

I just don't think that we have the structure in place at this time and that this bill puts the pieces together to provide an efficient police force in Ottawa-Carleton. As I said before, I can understand the desire of the inner-city members in wanting this done, because my residents are going to pay for it. They're going to pay for it, and my residents, the people I represent, are going to have less control over how the policing is done. I am concerned that we will not have the same degree of cooperation between the police forces which exist now and the police forces that will exist in the future.

In our area, people still talk about police as "our police." The don't talk about "the police"; they talk about "our police." They respect the police out in our area and they still consider them as part of the community. I want that to continue.

Next, I want to talk a little bit about economic development. Under our present scheme of things in Ottawa-Carleton, each municipality can undertake its own economic development. The city of Kanata has bought for instance a piece of land and developed it for industrial use. They've been very successful in attracting a number of high-tech industries into that area. We've been very fortunate with firms like Mitel, Newbridge and a huge number of smaller ones.

The city of Nepean has done the same thing. They have created a number of industrial parks and made certain that when a prospective investor came to their community they could say: "You don't have to wait for six months or a year to go through a zoning change. You don't need to do that. We'll sell you a piece of land at a reasonable cost and you can start building tomorrow." The city of Gloucester's done the same, and the city of Cumberland and the township of Goulbourn. I mentioned Nepean. They've all done that.

Under this new bill, there's an attempt to give economic development to the regional municipality and take it out of the hands of the local municipalities. In effect, that's been done already, because we have an economic development commission or corporation -- I forget what they exactly are called -- for all of Ottawa-Carleton. All of the local municipalities have worked together and said, "We'll support this."

Interjection.

Mr Sterling: The Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp? Thank you. They have worked together and put this together. There's already a body there.

I don't argue with the fact that maybe the region should be given this overall power to control economic development. But the bill doesn't allow them to say to the city of Nepean or the city of Kanata, "We don't mind if you set up an industrial park out in your area, as long as" -- you know, they may put some conditions on that; for instance, "You all have to sell for a certain price," or, "Nobody can outbid another one." But why on earth do we say in a bill: "You can't do this. You can't delegate part of that particular duty or that obligation or that function to the local municipality"?

We're not so concerned with who owns the land; we're concerned with the principle of developing the whole area in some coordinated fashion. If that can be achieved and allow flexibility, why not do it? Why not allow flexibility?

The minister is not cutting off existing industrial parks which do exist. They are grandfathered into this bill. But I can't for the life of me understand why you want to have somebody come to the city of Ottawa or the city of Kanata, into the mayor's office and say, "Look, I want to invest some money; I want to create some jobs in your community," and the mayor of the city of Kanata is going to say: "Sorry, I can't help you. I don't have anything to do with economic development. You're going to have to talk to the region."

The region's about 10 miles away, 12 miles away from the city of Kanata. That's not a long way to go, but doesn't this work contradictory to the whole idea of allowing the local mayor her due? Merle Nicholds, who is the mayor of the city of Kanata, has done more to try to convince this minister that he's going down the wrong track than anybody I know. Claudette Cain, the mayor of Gloucester, has been another leader in terms of dealing with that.

These are good people. The 12 mayors, I know, have their hearts all in the right place, and boy, when an investor comes through their door they want to get hold of that investor and say, "Come on, let's walk out and have a look at a piece of property that the city owns," or whatever. I don't understand why we can't delegate some of this down to the municipal level and allow the regional municipality to do that, if it so wishes, at a regional government meeting.

I will adjourn the debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, March 28, we will continue our second reading consideration of Ottawa-Carleton, Bill 143.

On Tuesday, March 29, and Wednesday, March 30, we will consider the Finance minister's motion for interim supply.

On the morning of Thursday, March 31, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider Bill 129 standing in the name of Mr Morrow and Bill 126 standing in the name of Mr Elston. On Thursday afternoon, we will consider a Liberal motion of non-confidence standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you very much to the Minister of Labour. At this time, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1801.

March 24, 1994

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRIAN YAM

KIMBERMOUNT VILLAGE

NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

SENIORS' DENTAL CARE

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH PROJECT

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

LORING DEER YARD

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY WIDENING

HAEMODIALYSIS

USE OF EDWARDSBURGH LAND

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

VISITOR

CORRECTION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

TUITION FEES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

RETAIL SALES TAX

SALE OF LAND

HAEMODIALYSIS

LAP DANCING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AND FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARDS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LA MUNICIPALITÉ D'OTTAWA-CARLETON ET LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE